Lion of the Blogosphere

Comment about Glenn Thrush

Here’s another comment from “fortaleza84”:

If you are a man who attains some degree of status and power, suddenly girls start treating you very differently. They are eager to spend time with you; if you meet them for a cup of coffee, they don’t come late, they don’t flake at the last minute for some ridiculous reason; they don’t take cell phone calls while you are together; and they dress nicely for you. Perhaps most importantly, they are interested in learning about you.

If you are a man in this situation, what are you supposed to do? Normally when a girl acts this way towards you, it’s an indication that she is very much sexually interested. If a girl acts towards you as if she is sexually interested, and you are interested in her, the naturally thing is to make a sexual advance and see what happens. But unfortunately, just about any sexual advance can be spun as sexual harassment if it turns out to have been unwelcome.

And a lot of these girls have no interest in having sexual relations or a sexual relationship with the men in question, they are just hoping — consciously or subconsciously — that the man will do nice things for them simply because they deign to pay attention to him. But then again, some of them probably really do want to take things further.

So if you are a man with status and power, the only way to be safe is to refrain from hitting on any girls in connection with work and to avoid any situation which could be spun as sexual harassment.

The situation involving Thrush is instructive. One of the girls who accused him was with him at an informal gathering of journalists at a bar. She said right in the article that he was the sort of person who would be good to know. The gathering broke up and dwindled down to the two of them, sitting alone in a booth together. Thrush allegedly put his hand on her bare leg (apparently wearing a miniskirt) and tried to kiss her. She rebuffed his advance, pushed past him, and left.

The first point of the story is that this girl could have easily left with the other guests but instead lingered with Thrush; she was dressed at least somewhat provocatively. It seems pretty clear that she wanted to make use of his status and connections and was at least interested in paying him special attention to get what she wanted. Second, she had to have known that any man in that situation would see her actions as a green light to make a pass at her. Third, he in fact did make a pass at her but it was pretty mild and evidently he desisted once it became clear his advances were unwelcome. But even given all this, she still perceived his conduct as inappropriate.

Like I said above, the only safe thing for Thrush to have done would have been to refrain from hitting on this girl and give up the possibility of a sexual relationship with her. As I said, to be super-cautious.

Addressing the specific question of “If you are a man in this situation, what are you supposed to do?” One answer is that you could be like Mike Pence. Mike Pence would never have been in that situation because he has a policy of never going anyplace where there is alcohol being served unless his wife is with him.

This comment also demonstrates how these purges have nothing to do with men who are regular cubical workers (or HVAC technicians for that matter). Women aren’t gong to flirt with those types of men. And besides, corporations already will fire a regular cubicle worker with the slightest hint of any sexual misconduct. It’s powerful men in the media industries for whom the rules weren’t enforced until now.

And I don’t watch any of these news shows anyway. If all of the male talking heads are replaced by bimbos, I don’t care. I just mourn for the old Squawk Box on CNBC when it was three grumpy non-liberal men talking stocks, before they added bimbo Becky Quick and pretty boy Carl Quintanilla.

Regarding the story about Thrush, it sounds like the girl thought she could turn Thrush into what gamesters call a “beta orbiter,” but high-status men don’t become beta orbiters.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 30, 2017 at 9:36 AM

Posted in Males and Females

79 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. What you don’t do is apologize. It’s an admission of guilt. James Toback was accused a month ago and haven’t heard anything since because he fought back. “I’m sorry for my actions” will have them swarm you.

    everybodyhatesscott

    November 30, 2017 at 10:05 AM

    • Always deny, admit to nothing, and make counter-allegations. Or, probably better, remain silent.

      E. Rekshum

      November 30, 2017 at 11:51 AM

    • That’s probably where Garrison Keillor went wrong. In his statement about the accusation that got him fired, he said he apologized to her for what he saw as a misunderstanding and thought the issue had been resolved.

      But that’s not how liberals think, especially the SJW-y types that work in media. To her, his apology just proved he had ill intent all along. He would have been better off blaming her for sending mixed signals.

      Richard

      November 30, 2017 at 12:18 PM

  2. This sexual assault witch hunt will ultimately backfire for the feminists. If you’re man in the position to hire your own subordinates, and you are presented with two candidates with equal qualifications – one an attractive young woman with an entitled, defensive attitude and the other an easy-going young male – who would you hire these days? Previously, any heterosexual boss man would prefer hiring the young woman, if only to have someone easy on the eye around the office (in addition to, ahem, a “competent young professional”, of course). Now, however, by far the safest route would be to hire the young guy. The feminists and their craven sympathizers have inadvertently tipped the scales in their disfavor with this ridiculous exercise in social vengeance. The feminist idea is that the boss man’s behavior should be accountable to their young female employees, while (quite rightly) most bosses believe their junior level employees should hold their behavior accountable to their superiors. Most male bosses will eventually rebel against that ass-backwards thinking and revert to making their companies and organizations the boys’ clubs they used to be. After all, why shouldn’t a boss feel comfortable in his own domain? From now on, male bosses will hire young females to satisfy the demands of P.C. tokenism, and then (more often than not) stick them in some backwater department where he’ll never have to deal with them, with the implicit message to the managers of such departments, “They’re your problem now”. Ditto for those other paragons of political hypersensitivity, black people of either gender.

    Mister Triple 800

    November 30, 2017 at 10:11 AM

    • Excuse me, but Magnavox thinks this witch hunt is actually reinforcing liberalism. So you’re wrong….I guess.

      Andrew E.

      November 30, 2017 at 10:23 AM

      • How bosses react will depend on the organization. Privately owned companies of middling size may react in an entirely different way.

        Mister Triple 800

        November 30, 2017 at 11:21 AM

      • Submitting to the female narrative on all these harassment cases IS reinforcing liberalism. It’s another arrow in their quiver that can be used to take out any dissenting man. Just because it’s not happening now doesn’t mean it won’t happen eventually. Remember that women lean left.

        Jason Liu

        November 30, 2017 at 7:27 PM

    • Feminists are usually fat, ugly, high testosterone sluts who loathe attractive young women almost as much as they loathe men and their own existence. If the purges harm attractive young women in the workplace, that’s a win for feminists.

      Horace Pinker

      November 30, 2017 at 11:47 AM

      • Nah, fat/ugly/high-T women are usually lesbians, and almost always work in the public sector, whereas slender attractive white women usually go private whenever possible, so that particular type of oppression is rare. I was recently screamed/sworn at by a slim, ugly, hatchet-faced 50-something woman who appeared to be the prototype of the dyke go!fer/PE coach. I to!d her to stop hating men, and was floored when she replied, “tell that to my husband.”

        Marty

        November 30, 2017 at 1:38 PM

      • Well, especially get rid of the fat, ugly ones.

        Mister Triple 800

        November 30, 2017 at 2:02 PM

      • But with no attractive women in the workforce, the sexual harassment attorneys will be out of work. Do the feminists want that?

        Njguy73

        November 30, 2017 at 2:54 PM

  3. The Thrush story is ridiculous, but instructive.

    First off, he’s getting absolutely hosed for non-criminal things he did *in his personal life.* Lesson: if you have any degree of celebrity/notariety/status, you are now NEVER off the clock.

    Second, never ever apologize, especially not over text message to some interfering shrew claiming to be the “victim’s” friend who condescendingly asks you to “help her” prevent you from being a normal man with a sex life. Thrush stupidly engaged her, acceding to her demands and what does she do? Runs to Vox to fuck him so they can get their scoop– or rather scalp.

    Third, should you continue pursuing coworkers– and any normal man should– protect yourself by either getting nudes of her, recording your interactions (sexual and otherwise), and maintain countervailing leverage against any day-after regret accusations or pernicious busybodies looking to fuck you over in the name of protecting journalists.

    On a somewhat related note, have you seen the zeal with which Lena Dunham is being attacked as a racist by her own lefty acolytes? It’s pretty funny.

    Jack

    November 30, 2017 at 10:12 AM

    • This is what Heartiste would call ‘Comment of the Week.’

      Dr Hook

      November 30, 2017 at 12:26 PM

    • Fourth, should you continue pursuing co-workers, have yourself sterilized so you can’t pass on your idiot genes.

      Njguy73

      November 30, 2017 at 2:57 PM

      • Laughable. It’s completely moronic and misanthropic to deny people the prospect of love and romance with somebody they meet via work. A sizable percentage of marriages originate this way. If people in the west must spend nearly half their waking lives at work, why must they ignore their instinctual drives? To appease managerial assholes? Fuck that. I’ve had over a dozen relationships with women at work, from all strata of various organizations, and wouldn’t give that up for anything.

        Plus, the rub is that the more you attempt to prohibit something so utterly natural and good, the more appealing such illicit relationships become for those brave enough to take the risk. Not to mention how utterly unenforceable and unconstitutional such intrusions into personal lives would be.

        In short, it is not “idiotic” to pursue those in your proximity, it’s pragmatic. Just be smart about, utilize tight game, and steer clear of crazies.

        Jack

        November 30, 2017 at 9:33 PM

      • That may be so, but I think you need to distinguish between (1) relationships between co-workers; and (2) situations where the man is in a position to significantly boost the woman’s career. In the first situation, it’s pretty safe if you just avoid crazy people, give some thought to what the written record will show, and don’t do anything way out of line.

        But the second situation is different. Because as the man, it’s difficult to distinguish among (1) women who truly want a sexual relationship with you; (2) women who want no sexual relationship with you but are hoping to get something out of you if they pay you special attention; and (3) women in the middle who are willing to put up with a sexual relationship if they get some goodies from you.

        To make matters worse, women don’t like to admit to themselves or others that they are turned on by men with power or that they f*ck for advancement. So even women in the first category have some incentive to claim sexual harassment or even sexual assault under the right circumstances. Especially if the man is a lot older than them and/or is physically unattractive.

        fortaleza84

        December 1, 2017 at 9:17 AM

  4. While Thrush apparently didn’t do anything wrong, he is still a white genocide supporting Globalist and deserves to have his career destroyed.

    Like I said earlier: if the New Yorker had to do it over again, would they ever have ran that piece? Of course not. This is crippling the Left.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 30, 2017 at 10:54 AM

    • I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I agree that most of the men being ruined by this are Leftist scum, which is not an accident.

      On the other hand, our gynocentric culture keeps ramping up the demonization of male sexuality and that could cause a lot more problems for average men down the road, and for society in general.

      fortaleza84

      November 30, 2017 at 4:56 PM

      • They said that in 1991, it didn’t happen.

        gothamette

        November 30, 2017 at 9:35 PM

      • I’m not sure what events and predictions in 1991 you are referring to, but things have definitely gotten worse for men since then. For example, when I was in college in 1991, if a coed accused a man of sexual assault, her accusation was held to a strict standard of proof. 25 years later, the standard is much more relaxed.

        In 1991, if a woman going through a divorce accused her husband of sexual assault, most jurisdictions would not take the accusation very seriously, not unless there was solid evidence backing it up. 25 years later, there is a VAWA prosecutor in every jurisdiction whose job it is to “listen and believe” (and prosecute) these sorts of accusations.

        Since 1991, many communities and college campuses have set up “counseling services” for (alleged) victims of sexual assault which are really there to urge girls to lodge accusations against men and to coach the the girls as to what to say to improve the chances of prosecution and conviction.

        Since 1991, the laws have also clamped down on American men who want to marry foreign women.

        I could probably go on, but the overall trend of law and policy over the years in the West has been more and more gynocentric; more and more anti-male. So while I enjoy seeing Leftist Scum getting hoist by their own petard, it does give me some pause.

        fortaleza84

        December 1, 2017 at 6:07 AM

  5. What’s the point in attaining any meaningful degree of status, wealth, or power then? If a man can’t leverage fame, wealth or power in attracting worthwhile women, then there goes a primal reason many men pursue money and power.

    Oswald Spengler

    November 30, 2017 at 10:55 AM

    • What about self-actualization?

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 30, 2017 at 11:03 AM

      • Self-actualization is for the birds. I have what’s supposed to be a self-actualizing job but would rather stay home and play video games.

        Hermes

        November 30, 2017 at 1:15 PM

      • What good video games to you recommend?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 30, 2017 at 1:21 PM

      • Does self-actualization come with a dental plan?

        Njguy73

        November 30, 2017 at 2:58 PM

      • Medicaid!

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 30, 2017 at 3:07 PM

      • How much dentistry Medicaid will cover vaies by state, but I believe it’s usually either very limited or none at all. And Medicare definitely does not cover dentistry. It’s a very common complaint among the Medicare or Medicaid patients I see they–can afford to come see me on their gubmint insurance but they have tooth problems because they can’t afford to see a dentist.

        In terms of video games, I’ve enjoyed these open world action-adventure games like the Assassin’s Creed series, The Watch Dogs games, and Metal Gear Solid 5. The Uncharted series is also very good but it’s only available on PlayStation, not PC. These are not fast-twitch first person shooters like OverWatch which are inevitably too hard for people who are older. In general, I like games that have a story, and can’t imagine getting interested in a game like OverWatch where the point is just to play battles over and over again and see how high you can rank.

        Hermes

        December 1, 2017 at 8:49 AM

    • Right. So this witch hunt is teaching us not to pursue liberalism but traditionalism. Reject the sexual revolution and pursue marriage young, stay married, have children, don’t have affairs and pursue career success in order to provide for your family and community and to serve the Good rather than your desires.

      Andrew E.

      November 30, 2017 at 11:09 AM

    • Most of those guys are still doing all right, as far as I can tell. It’s the weirdo rich guys who get off on masturbating into potted plants in front of spectators who are getting thrown on the bonfire.

      Richard

      November 30, 2017 at 12:24 PM

    • >>If a man can’t leverage fame, wealth or power in attracting worthwhile women,

      Just buy it, until you meet the right women, then present a fair but ironclad pre-nup.

      Daniel

      December 3, 2017 at 3:15 PM

  6. This is sound advice. But would things really have worked out differently if the pass had been made at a bar with some random chick? If she later learned that Thrush was a high-powered NYT reporter, couldn’t she come out with a #MeToo tweet and ruin his career just as easily?

    Seth O'Largo (@SethLargo)

    November 30, 2017 at 11:06 AM

    • A random chick at a bar would never be sitting alone at a booth with a random fat bald middle aged man. Not if she is some cute 25-year-old, anyway.

      And a girl who was his looks-match would not be sitting alone with him unless she were sexually interested.

      These situations occur only where the man has the power/status to offer the girl something she wants and the girl is paying attention to the man mainly or partly in an effort to get that something.

      fortaleza84

      November 30, 2017 at 12:50 PM

  7. Lion, did you ever watch The McLaughlin Group? Wouldn’t it be a kick to watch them discuss this stuff?

    JM: Jack Germond! Did you ever put your hand on a girl’s knee?

    Tiny Blades

    November 30, 2017 at 11:07 AM

    • JM: Eleanor Clift, did anybody ever . . try . .. to . . . no, I didn’t think so. Morton Kondrakie, couldn’ t you give Elaeanor a squeeze for old times’ sake?

      ice hole

      November 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM

    • From the Washington Post, December 2, 1989: (seven years after The McLaughlin Group premiered)

      “An out-of-court settlement has been reached in the $4 million sexual harassment and discrimination suit against Washington talk show host John J. McLaughlin. Lawyers for McLaughlin and plaintiff Linda D. Dean confirmed the agreement yesterday, but would not comment on the nature of the settlement. Dean, 36, a former executive assistant at McLaughlin’s Oliver Productions, brought the suit last August, alleging that McLaughlin fired her in ‘retaliation for her protests of sex discrimination and sexual harassment toward herself and other women who worked in the office.'”

      “In her suit, Dean alleged that McLaughlin made advances to her ‘on several occasions,’ touching her ‘intimately and against her will and in the face of her open attempts to avoid and evade his touches.’ The suit described McLaughlin’s office as ‘a work environment which was hostile to women” and charged McLaughlin with “sexually degrading and offensive remarks and behavior … toward past and present female employees.'”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1989/12/02/mclaughlin-suit-settled/0b40e287-ec6c-4793-82f0-8bc295a81456/?utm_term=.a919d7e17655

      njguy73

      November 30, 2017 at 5:46 PM

      • And he, a Catholic priest.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 30, 2017 at 6:05 PM

      • $ 4 million in 1989. That was a lot of money.

        Things are only going to get worse. Word is out – and it has been for quite a while -, filing a sexual harassment claim is easy money. There must be several hundred female millionaires walking around New York, Washington DC now, who have done nothing in their lives but sue their employer to gain their fortune.

        I knew a very troublesome, alcoholic woman, who was always screwing up. She anticipated that she would get fired by her boss at Citibank, but she was unperturbed. She said that if she were fired she would just claim sexual harassment and seek out a settlement. She was a low level administrative assistant, and she had pulled off such a ploy before. From settlements, she had accumulated enough cash to buy a nice house in a decent Long Island neighborhood.

        Daniel

        December 3, 2017 at 3:22 PM

  8. I say, keep sexual harassment in the single bars where it belongs. Also – make brothels legal in every state in the U.S.A. Colleges could offer specialized hospitality degrees for ladies who want to become professional madams. Such positions require impeccable people skills, legal acumen and managerial talent.

    Mister Triple 800

    November 30, 2017 at 11:25 AM

    • There is nothing feminism hates more than the gratification of the male sexual impulse, especially for loser betas who have to pay for it.

      Tarl

      November 30, 2017 at 3:13 PM

      • Any guy who cares what feminism hates is by definition a beta male. I say, all options for male gratification short of rape should be wide open and legally condoned. That’s the way it was in the distant past, in the days when “men were men”, so to speak.

        Mister Triple 800

        December 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM

  9. So if you are a man with status and power, the only way to be safe is to refrain from hitting on any girls in connection with work and to avoid any situation which could be spun as sexual harassment.

    Absolutely. I now be sure to keep my office door fully open whenever a female stops by; and, soon, I think I will refuse to meet with any female coworker w/o a third person present. How different from the ’80s when mixed groups of coworkers would drink beer at lunch, go to bars and nightclubs together after work, and intimately fraternize.

    E. Rekshum

    November 30, 2017 at 11:57 AM

    • Fraternizing with coworkers, superiors, juniors was never a good ideas. Just because it happened a lot in the 80s doesn’t mean ithat was smart.

      mpt

      November 30, 2017 at 7:12 PM

      • Maybe not, but it sure was fun knocking back drinks with co-workers and not worrying so damn much.

        fortaleza84

        November 30, 2017 at 8:38 PM

  10. Of all the accusations circulating, this one has always seemed the most ridiculous.

    But this particular case reflects a massive social problem. Here we see one reason for the cratering birth rate among educated professionals. This is a perfect example of how modern ways of thinking and behaving actively suppress reproduction among “successful” people.

    SQ

    November 30, 2017 at 12:20 PM

  11. “One answer is that you could be like Mike Pence.”

    There really ought to be a lot of media walk back on the behavior of the press to Pence last year.

    He now looks as prescient as Romney on Russia policy.

    Lion o' the Turambar

    November 30, 2017 at 12:29 PM

    • Romney will never be president and had he won he would have surrendered America to the globalists.

      Andrew E.

      November 30, 2017 at 12:45 PM

    • They hate Pence almost as much as they hate Trump, and that ain’t changing.

      Richard

      November 30, 2017 at 12:57 PM

    • Pence’s views on abortion and the LGBTQ movement guarantee the press will never view him favorably.

      Lewis Medlock

      November 30, 2017 at 1:09 PM

  12. This whole is going to continue to appear chaotic if we aren’t willing to look case-by-case at what specific people did in specific situations. Some of the things Harvey Weinstein did were okay in terms of who he was hitting on, but he allegedly made these women feel physically unsafe by acting really weird while they were alone in his house (to say nothing of allegedly literally raping women in a couple cases). Matt Lauer just shouldn’t have been aggressively hitting on employees. What Roy Moore’s accused of with the 14yo would be totally okay if she were a little older. Based on what little I know if it, it sounds like Garrison Keillor did nothing wrong full stop.

    We don’t gain any understanding of this stuff by pretending that it’s all the same phenomenon.

    Greg Pandatshang

    November 30, 2017 at 1:06 PM

    • It’s obviously not all the same kind of behavior. But how many feminists and SJWs are able to make these sensible distinctions? Unfortunately not too many.

      Lewis Medlock

      November 30, 2017 at 1:40 PM

    • I see three main classes of accusations.

      Class I: flat-out sexual assault and harassment. Nothing to squint at here. Ranging from rape to Harvey Weinstein’s “man in a raincoat” antics.

      Class II: a man being socially inept and misreading someone’s signals as sexual. This is Garrison Keillor, I think. The woman told him she was depressed about something, and Keillor interpreted this sharing of personal information as an invitation for greater intimacy and made a pass at her. But only a goofball would take that as an opening. Some men are social retards who offend without meaning to.

      Class III: a woman being socially inept and not realizing the signals she was sending out were sexual, or she kinda-sorta knew but didn’t want it to go anywhere. Best example is the woman Glenn Thrush was spending one-on-one time with in a late-night bar.

      You could also add a Class IV for the accuser fabricating the whole thing, although that’s another can of worms.

      Richard

      November 30, 2017 at 1:48 PM

  13. “corporations already will fire a regular cubicle worker with the slightest hint of any sexual misconduct. It’s powerful men in the media industries for whom the rules weren’t enforced until now”

    Exactly. It’s our powerful liberal overlords who’re now feeling the heat, and I for one have little sympathy for them. I doubt very much the likes of Matt Lauer or Glenn Thrush would feel the slightest concern for non-descript men in middle America who lose jobs for sexual harassment charges.

    Roli

    November 30, 2017 at 1:56 PM

  14. This doesn’t bode well for ‘game’ aficionados.

    Students of ‘game’ view hitting on to women partly as a numbers game. The idea is that you hit on 20 women to be successful with one. Well now you just created a huge amount of liability for yourself. If one woman ever accuses you, 19 others will recall how you hit on to them, and it was unwanted.

    The value of marriage goes way up in all of these scenarios. Nobody’s wife ever accuses them of sexual harassment. In all of these scenarios men were hitting on women who were not their wives. Good old Victorian morality is the safe option.

    Even consensual affairs become risky even if contact was ‘wanted’ at the time. If the relationship ends then the contact could become retroactively unwanted. Monica Lewinsky recently wrote about how, on reflection, Bill Clinton’s treatment of her was inappropriate. Which is funny to me because she was extremely enthusiastic at the time.

    Dan

    November 30, 2017 at 2:21 PM

    • Nobody’s wife ever accuses them of sexual harassment.

      LOL you have obviously never been married. What women do is start denying their husbands sex and if they complain and persist in initiating they call the poor guys “sex pests” and shame them for their “obsession” and “feeling of entitlement”. And yes, “marital rape” is also a thing, though I’m not sure how many prosecutions for it ever actually occur.

      Tarl

      November 30, 2017 at 3:20 PM

      • Wife: You didn’t run all those few dozen little errands I subtly implied I wanted you to? Tired? I don’t think you’re tired! You are mad at me because I wouldn’t have sex with you last night!

        ************

        Wife: Well, I thought we were going to have a nice weekend! But now you are rejecting my request that you build these ten shelves for me to put my doll collection on! I’m just a sex object to you, aren’t I? I was good enough to use as a sex toy this morning, but not good enough for you to spend a mere 18 hours putting up shelves for, is that right?

        Gozo

        November 30, 2017 at 5:18 PM

      • I have been married for 12 years. We have 4 children.

        In my marriage, there is an understanding my wife has an obligation to be available sexually on a regular basis, at least 3 times per week. We have a religiously based marriage.

        I do not understand men who are married and then do not have regular sex. How does that happen and why do men tolerate it?

        Dan

        December 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM

      • I do not understand men who are married and then do not have regular sex. How does that happen and why do men tolerate it?

        They are scared of getting divorce-raped, losing half their assets, losing access to their kids, and living in a shitty apartment while some other guy bangs the ex-wife in the house they are paying for.

        Mostly, though, they are scared to confront women.

        Tarl

        December 1, 2017 at 11:38 AM

    • I think it’s not going to affect game guys all that much. If a girl gets hit on by some random dude at the supermarket, she’s not going to remember it or make an issue of it unless the guy is famous or prominent in some way.

      Besides, like Lion and me have been saying, a man needs to be high status to even get into a position where he can seriously harass a girl. If a random dude approaches a girl in a bookstore, the girl will either f*ck him or she won’t, but if she’s not interested in him sexually, she’s not going to flirt with him or spend any time with him. She would do that only if she thinks he has something to offer her other than sex, i.e. if he has power or influence or status.

      If you are Al Franken, random girls walk up to you and ask to take a picture with you. So you have an opportunity to grab them on the rear. Average guys aren’t approached by random girls for pictures.

      fortaleza84

      November 30, 2017 at 3:32 PM

    • It is not going to affect “game” because one of the PUA maxims is “don’t shit where you eat” (i.e., don’t hit on women at work). If you approach lots of women in bars, coffee shops, bookstores, or other public places, and you do not work with them (and will never see them again if they rebuff you) then there is no basis for any “harassment” claim.

      Tarl

      December 1, 2017 at 11:41 AM

  15. ‘This comment also demonstrates how these purges have nothing to do with men who are regular cubical workers (or HVAC technicians for that matter). Women aren’t gong to flirt with those types of men.’

    Don’t make me laugh now. These people and the women are in a different class. When a woman passes by a construction site what do you think happens? But what she gonna do now? Complain to whom and about whom specifically? A chap catcalling from a fuzzy cubicle will be walked out the door by security, here nothing ever happens. This purge has nothing to do with proles. Prole women certainly flirt with men, even a guy like me (meaning relatively old, but chilled out) had cute Dominicans giving him their phone number. One cuitsky PR said that she always wanted to have a Jewish boyfriend. Obviously, stay away from those Dominicansand PR, Lion. They aren’t for you. You stick to blogging.

    Yakov

    November 30, 2017 at 5:39 PM

    • The key point is that from the woman’s perspective, the construction workers have nothing to offer her. They can’t get her a raise or a promotion; they can’t help her find a job. They can’t make her a famous model or actress.

      Which is why she will keep walking if they whistle at her.

      But if one of the construction workers had something significant to offer, you can bet that a lot of women would dress sexy for him; smile at him; and maybe even go over and talk to him. And that’s where the trouble begins.

      fortaleza84

      November 30, 2017 at 6:32 PM

  16. “If a girl acts towards you as if she is sexually interested, and you are interested in her, the naturally thing is to make a sexual advance and see what happens.”

    It may be the natural thing if you’re a dog looking for a bone. The natural thing for a gentleman would be to spend a while talking to her then walk her to her car, ask her if she needs a ride home, etc. Depending on how the conversation went, maybe wait a few days and ask her to a play and stop off afterwards for a quick bite or coffee or something. Next time, maybe dinner and some other entertainment.

    See how that works? That’s how decent people behave. But slipping your hand up some girl’s miniskirt to grab a bare thigh as you try to kiss her is the kind of shit a dirtbag would pull. Even if the girl was interested, she wouln’t be after that. Not unless she’s a hoe.

    I’ve had a bellyful of idiots whining, “oh nos! what are we gonna do? we can’t even grab a woman’s thighs without being accused of sexual harassment.” Well, no shit.

    destructure

    November 30, 2017 at 7:41 PM

    • “See how that works? ”

      Not really. Sooner or later you’re going to have to make a 100% unambiguous sexual advance towards the girl as well as 100% unambiguous sexual escalation multiple times. How else do you go from dinner + entertainment to f*cking? And pretty much any 100% unambiguous sexual advance or escalation can be spun as sexual harassment.

      “But slipping your hand up some girl’s miniskirt to grab a bare thigh”

      Ummm, you don’t have to put your hand up a miniskirt to touch a girl’s thigh. That’s how miniskirts work. By definition the hemline is above the knees so that the girl’s thighs are exposed.

      “as you try to kiss her is the kind of shit a dirtbag would pull.”

      I would have to disagree with this. If a girl is drinking with you at a bar and has allowed herself to be alone with you, putting your hand on her leg and going in for a kiss is well within the range of acceptable ways to make a pass at her.

      I’m curious, are you a girl? And if you are a man, are you a virgin?

      fortaleza84

      November 30, 2017 at 10:04 PM

      • No, he’s just an old man who grew up in a different age.

        At heartiste he’d be labeled a cuck, but he isn’t a political cuck based on his posting history, but the older guys in the alt right still have a white knight streak that hinders their cause.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lap Dog

        December 1, 2017 at 3:43 PM

      • “No, he’s just an old man who grew up in a different age.”

        Unless he’s 150 years old, it’s hard to imagine that he lost his virginity without — at some point — touching a girl without her express permission. Maybe in the 1800s you could just drop to one knee and ask a girl to marry you and if she said yes, that was your green light.

        fortaleza84

        December 1, 2017 at 4:56 PM

      • fortaleza84 — Sooner or later you’re going to have to make a 100% unambiguous sexual advance towards the girl… How else do you go from dinner + entertainment to f*cking?”

        Well, you could get married. Your problem is that you have no interest in the person let alone a relationship. You’re just looking for something to shoot a quick load in. That’s pathetic.

        “I’m curious, are you a girl? And if you are a man, are you a virgin?”

        I’m married but, when I was single, I never made an “unambiguous sexual move” on anyone. Because I never had sex with someone I wasn’t in a relationship with. Nor did I want to.

        See, there are wolves and there are dogs. I’m a wolf and you’re a dog. Or, at least, you’d like to be. Something tells me you lack the opportunity to act on it. Not only are you a dog, you’re also clueless. Aggressive come-ons put most women off. Women know whether a guy is interested. And if they’re interested then they’ll let you know without harassing or assaulting them. If they’re not interested then pestering them certainly isn’t going to change their mind.

        If you want a woman then make yourself the kind of guy that women would want. Go to school and get a decent job. Clean your apartment and car. Get a shave, shower and haircut. Don’t dress like you’re homeless. Eat right and go to the gym so that you don’t look like a slob. Go places and do things where you’ll meet people on your level. You won’t find a girlfriend if you spend all your time at home playing video games. And be friendly not desperate. Because women despise desperate men.

        See, it’s the indirect actions you take that attract women not the aggressive come-ons. But, most importantly, don’t be a horny d-bag. Because women hate that, too.

        destructure

        December 1, 2017 at 5:51 PM

      • Paul Ryan — No, he’s just an old man who grew up in a different age.

        Think again. There’s not a gray hair on my head.

        “At heartiste he’d be labeled a cuck,”

        Heartiste is probably older than me and spends all his time chasing skirt. What’s he got to show for it? He’s an evolutionary dead end. And his readers are a bunch of pathetic drones desperate to get laid. Meanwhile, I’m happily married with several kids and a successful company. I’m pretty much the opposite of a “cuck”.

        “but the older guys in the alt right still have a white knight streak that hinders their cause.”

        I’m no “white knight”. I just have morals. This isn’t an either/or situation. It’s not a choice between feminism and hedonism. I oppose both. And I support anything that reduces promiscuity/illegitimacy and increases marriage/procreation. Feminists pushed the sexual revolution of the 60’s. And now they’re undoing it. I’m happy about that. You’re not because you’re a single loser desperate to get laid. And you think feminists are “cock blocking” you. Well, if you got married then it wouldn’t be a problem would it? It’s not a problem for me. 🙂

        destructure

        December 1, 2017 at 6:40 PM

      • “I’m married but, when I was single, I never made an ‘unambiguous sexual [advance]’ on anyone.”

        I’m a little confused. Have you ever given a romantic kiss to a girl you weren’t married to?

        If the answer to that question is “yes,” did you explicitly ask permission before doing so?

        Two very simple yes or no questions. But I have a feeling you will evade them and instead engage in more personal attacks, which will tell me everything I need to know, i.e. that you are full of sh*t.

        fortaleza84

        December 2, 2017 at 3:18 AM

      • “Two very simple yes or no questions. But I have a feeling you will evade them and instead engage in more personal attacks, which will tell me everything I need to know, i.e. that you are full of sh*t.”

        And I have a very simple “yes or no question” for you — Have you quit f*ing your mother yet? But I have a feeling you will evade it and instead engage in more personal attacks, which will tell me everything I need to know, i.e. that you are full of sh*t.

        You’re “two simple questions” make no allowance for wildly different scenarios. One scenario involves kissing a girl after you’ve gone out, held hands, etc and know that she likes you. Not to mention very strong non-verbal communication leading up to the “first kiss”. The other scenario involves going in for the kill on the off-chance she might put out. If you don’t KNOW that she’s interested then you probably shouldb’t make an “unambiguous sexual move.”

        destructure

        December 2, 2017 at 10:52 PM

      • I am the maker of rules
        Dealing with fools
        I can cheat you blind
        And I don’t need to see any more
        To know that I can read your mind, I can read your mind, I can read your mind, I can read your mind

        ian smith was forced to resign by libertarians.

        December 3, 2017 at 12:13 AM

      • “And I have a very simple ‘yes or no question’ for you — Have you quit f*ing your mother yet?”

        Lol, that question contains a presupposition, my questions do not.

        And unsurprisingly, you evaded them.

        “One scenario involves kissing a girl after you’ve gone out, held hands, etc and know that she likes you.”

        So what? Even if you know she likes you, you don’t know whether or not a kiss will be welcome. Not unless either (1) you ask her explicitly; or (2) you do it and see what happens. And either one of those things is a 100% unambiguous sexual advance.

        The reason you evaded my questions is that you know perfectly well that I am right and you are wrong. It’s a flat out logical impossibility for two people to have sexual contact unless one of them — at some point — either (1) explicitly proposes having sexual contact; or (2) attempts to engage in sexual contact without a prior proposal. And either one of those things is a sexual advance.

        If you admit you are wrong, the sky won’t fall you know.

        fortaleza84

        December 3, 2017 at 4:10 AM

      • “Even if you know she likes you, you don’t know whether or not a kiss will be welcome. Not unless either (1) you ask her explicitly; or (2) you do it and see what happens.”

        Maybe if you’re autistic or something. But I’ve always known whether a woman was interested. If you’re not getting romantic vibes off some girl then she’s probably not sending them. Regardless, there are subtle ways to ‘test the waters’ and see how she’ll respond without blindly making an “unambiguous sexual move”. Slipping your hand up some girl’s skirt at a bar is NOT an opening move. It’s sexual assault. And if you pull that on the wrong girl she’ll press charges.

        destructure

        December 3, 2017 at 5:43 PM

      • “Maybe if you’re autistic or something. But I’ve always known whether a woman was interested.”

        So what? If you make a sexual advance towards a girl you know is interested, it’s still a sexual advance.

        “Regardless, there are subtle ways to ‘test the waters’ and see how she’ll respond”

        Please describe them.

        ” Slipping your hand up some girl’s skirt at a bar is NOT an opening move”

        Please show me where I (or anyone else in this thread) claimed otherwise. Please provide a quote. Failing that, please admit that no such claim was made and apologize. Your choice.

        fortaleza84

        December 3, 2017 at 8:39 PM

      • “So what? If you make a sexual advance towards a girl you know is interested, it’s still a sexual advance.”

        The example in the original post was Thrush sticking his hand up some girl’s miniskirt to grab her bare thigh. The example in my comment was same. That’s the example. That’s the kind of thing we’re talking about. But you’ve slyly moved the goal posts to any “unambiguous sexual move” (whatever that means) in order to claim that you can’t get from “dinner + entertainment to f*cking” without it. You’re trying to muddy the waters between a natural, mutual progression and aggressive come-ons bordering on sexual assault. And now you’re trying to expand the “unambiguous sexual move” to a simple kiss. A kiss is a far cry from sticking your hand up some girl’s skirt. Even so, I wouldn’t even kiss a girl unless I already knew she was interested.

        See, the whole purpose of your “unambiguous sexual move” is to see if the girl is interested. You act like it’s some big mystery that takes a bold move to figure out. Maybe if you’re autistic or something. But there’s no reason for an “unambiguous sexual move” if you already know she’s interested. And if you know how to read the signals then you do know. If you don’t, then you’d better keep your hands to yourself because she’s probably not.

        “Please describe them.”

        I’m not giving a wannabe womanizer tips for getting in some girl’s pants.

        destructure

        December 4, 2017 at 12:38 AM

      • “I’m not giving a wannabe womanizer tips for getting in some girl’s pants.”

        Lol, i.e. you cannot back up your claim. The fact is that unless you are a mindreader, you cannot know for sure if a kiss (or some such) will be welcome unless you either ask or do it.

        “But you’ve slyly moved the goal posts”

        No, you are attempting to “slyly” set up a strawman. My position has been consistent throughout and when I don’t let you get away with it, you accuse me of goalpost-shifting

        “The example in the original post was Thrush sticking his hand up some girl’s miniskirt to grab her bare thigh.”

        Then you should be able to quote it. But you can’t because you’re full of sh*t. There is a world of difference between putting your hand on a girl’s leg and putting your hand up her skirt.

        Anyway, I don’t engage with people who intentionally misrepresent my position.

        Goodbye, liar.

        fortaleza84

        December 4, 2017 at 10:42 AM

    • If you like a woman romantically, the best thing to do is try to get in her pants as quickly as possible. Sure, be a gentleman about it… but by the second or third date, you need to close the deal, or at least make every reasonable effort.

      That includes grabbing her legs, thighs, etc. Attempts at physical escalation are how you convey your interest to her. She wants you to be a dog going after a bone. Anything else will be interpreted negatively.

      It should really go without saying that you start with handholding and kissing, and work your way to the waist, legs, thighs, breasts, etc. It needs to go in that order, but the sooner the better. It isn’t being a dirtbag. It’s just how it goes.

      I was socially uncomfortable as a child and a teenager, and still am frankly, so it took me a while to become comfortable with dating, and the rituals involved. I’m sure some readers can identify. Anyway, telling men to hold back, or be a gentleman, don’t be a dirtbag… that is not the advice most men need to hear, since they already do that naturally.

      Lowe

      November 30, 2017 at 11:30 PM

      • “If you like a woman romantically, the best thing to do is try to get in her pants as quickly as possible. Sure, be a gentleman about it… but by the second or third date, you need to close the deal, or at least make every reasonable effort.

        That includes grabbing her legs, thighs, etc. Attempts at physical escalation are how you convey your interest to her”

        __________________

        I basically agree with all of this, but I would add a caveat which is that all of this presupposes the girl is willing to spend time one-on-one with you. That’s normally your green light to attempt to escalate things physically because it indicates at least some degree of sexual interest.

        The problem comes in when the man has significant status and power. In that case, there are plenty of girls who are willing — even eager — to spend time one-on-one with him but who would not do so if he lacked that status and power. Some of those girls are not interested him sexually but are hoping to bat their eyelashes a bit and gain advantages and opportunities. That’s a problem.

        And some of those girls are in fact interested in him sexually but don’t like to admit to themselves or others that they are turned on by his status and power. That’s an even bigger problem. Because if they have a sexual relationship, the girl will always be tempted to retcon it into sexual harassment, sexual assault or even rape.

        And from the man’s perspective, there’s no easy way out. Despite what destructure says, the man can go on 50 dinner excursions with this girl and act like a perfect gentleman, but if he wants to have a sexual relationship eventually he will have to make an unambiguous sexual advance, either by touching the girl in a sexual way or by explicitly asking her permission to do so. (The only other option is to make an abrupt marriage proposal, but that’s not realistic in 21st century America, not unless you are both Amish or members of some other extreme religion.)

        I suppose that our hypothetical high status man could say something like “Since we have been spending time together, I am finding you very attractive. Would you like to have a romantic relationship with me?” But there are a few problems with this. First, a lot of people would still see this as sexual harassment; they will argue that since the man is in a position of power, it’s difficult for the girl to say “no.” Second, the man not only needs to think about the standards of the present, but also the standards of the future. In 20 years, it’s quite possible that even a mild statement like this will be seen as sexual harassment. Last, and perhaps most importantly, direct romantic proposals aren’t very effective, because girls hate to take responsibility for things. A lot of girls would say “no” to such an offer even if they would have been receptive (and enthusiastic) if the man had simply put his hand on her leg and tried to kiss the girl.

        fortaleza84

        December 2, 2017 at 7:30 AM

  17. Who gives a crap?

    All of the men being pinched by harassment charges fully supported the underling feminist system. Let them lie in the mess they made.

    map

    December 1, 2017 at 2:27 AM

    • Well it’s important to control blowback… the left never let’s a crisis go to waste…

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lap Dog

      December 1, 2017 at 3:51 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: