Last Minute Resistance


Many PUAs have at one point encountered and considered what’s commonly known as LMR, Last Minute Resistance after they’ve successfully moved through the various phases of seduction and had a girl reconsider fucking him and ultimately reject him at the zero hour before sex was in the offing.

LMR is the acronym PUAs gave to the tendency, but you don’t need to be a PUA to have had the experience of pleading your case for sex while spooning on the bed with a girl you’ve been trying to ‘make comfortable enough’ to want to fuck you using your best Beta Game for two months. I’d say blue pill men are much more familiar with LMR than most self-styled PUAs.

I’ll admit, I did this in my younger Beta days.

This was long before I realized that sex was about urgency, anxiety and tension, not comfort, familiarity or rapport, or proving how much better a boyfriend I’d make than the Jerks she’d enthusiastically spread her legs for because they naturally created that urgency.

It wasn’t until I’d hit my sexual stride in my semi-pro rock star 20s that I realized that striving to make a girl feel comfort and trust was anti-seductive.

Eventually I got to the point that I could get laid predictability enough with girls who were enthusiastically down to fuck, that I no longer felt the responsibility to endure the blue balls I had in trying to behave according to how girls ‘told’ me I should go about being intimate with other girls.

It was then I realized I had been attempting to Game girls according to the advice other girls had given me (or even some of the girls I wanted to get with themselves). I realized how adolescent this really was; these are games teenage girls played with guys who’s attentions they enjoyed, but couldn’t bear the thought of fucking someone they were so familiar with. I figured out that when a woman says, “I don’t think of you in that way. I think of you as a brother.”, what she’s really saying is “I’d consider sex with you to be incest”.

I didn’t know it then, but this was an important lesson in my red pill education.

I’ve never been an advocate for pushing past last minute resistance with a woman. From that point on in my life if there was any hesitancy on the part of a woman becoming sexual with me, and certainly once clothes were about to come off, I knew something else was affecting the needed sexual tension and urgency. Something else was mitigating genuine desire and I knew it wouldn’t be the kind of sex I wanted to have, or couldn’t already have had a better experience with another plate I was spinning at the time.

I get that for a lot of guys, “pushing” for sex – really trying to wait a girl out for sex – is the only Game they really have to speak of. However, I’d gotten to the point where I realized that any sex a woman makes a guy wait for is negotiated desire and mitigated sex, and the experience was never worth the wait.

I learned how to do very effective takeaways during this point in my life, but not because they were practiced to perfection from a want to bang a particular woman. Rather, and unintentionally, I had what PUAs termed a very good ‘push/pull’ technique due only to the fact that I knew if a new girl I was with was hesitant to get sexual I was wasting time I could’ve spent with another girl who was a proven commodity.

Women pick up on cues like this. Men are often oblivious to them, but there are subtle differences in our behaviors, indifferences to women’s expected behaviors from us, and subtle attitudes we sub-communicate which women are attuned to thanks to an evolved psychological understanding of when they have a sexual competitor for our attentions. Women who have a genuine interest in a guy, rarely confuse that guy with “mixed messages“.

I didn’t consciously process it then, but an overt attempt to overcome last minute resistance broadcasts a perception of ‘pussy begging’ in an obvious way. While I realize there’re sometimes situations that call for a need to be sexually assertive to promote a dominance women are testing for, if you’re in a position of what amounts to pleading or “c’mon baby” convincing a girl to fuck you, you’re negotiating (really compromising yourself) for her unenthusiastic desire.

When you overextend yourself in getting past LMR, you risk sending the message that “you just don’t get it” with regard to how women need to be seduced, and how the men they do want to fuck organically behave. By being too self-effacing in convincing a woman to fuck you, you present the perception of being optionless with other women, and thus a non-sexual Beta and she can deal with you, or not deal with you, accordingly.

It was really simple pragmatism for me to walk away from a sexual dead end girl – I had other options – but in doing so I’d unwittingly, but organically, passed a shit test. And more often than not I got laid a week or two after “bumping into” her again; after she’d had time to process it.

Game 101

Now, why am I going back to Game 101 here?

Likely this is something I should’ve included in the book, or come about to in the early posts of Rational Male (I have actually, but not in depth). Well, it’s because of a pathetically brief throwaway post from Lindy West praising the recent Yes Means Yes law on California campuses.

West usually wrote feminist agitprop before she was surreptitiously let go from Jezebel a few months ago, and rest assured this is the first and last time I’ll ever quote her on this blog, but in her giddy sputtering over the YMY law she did manage one coherent point:

“Why would you want to be tolerated when you could be desired?”

Following along in the wake of the Yes Means Yes social initiative, many a feminized blogger has gone through a good deal of mental contortions in order to rationalize why they support it. The problem they encounter is that in supporting YMY they have to explain away more than a few previously, and publicly, held stands they made in the past about gender relations to align with YMY.

One such inconsistency stems from women’s dubious want for comfort and rapport prior to sex that conflicts with what, essentially, amounts to negotiating for their genuine desire. Thus, I agree with Lindy, why would you want to be tolerated, when you could be desired?

What Lindy is oblivious to (no doubt from a lack of experiencing male attention) is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated for. Many a hapless Beta suffering in a ‘tolerance’ relationship is all too familiar with the lackluster experience of ‘duty sex’. Women will bemoan some fanciful epidemic of misogynists who think they’re entitled to, or owed sex, but the fact of the matter is the same women actively contribute to that belief by (legally now) requiring a checklist of terms necessary for men to have sex with them.

When I published Iron Rule of Tomassi #3 I received (and periodically still receive) a rash of criticism from the femosphere for insisting men excuse themselves from, and not wait for, compromised, mitigated and I daresay now, unenthusiastic sex.

Iron Rule of Tomassi #3

Any woman who makes you wait for sex, or by her actions implies she is making you wait for sex; the sex is NEVER worth the wait.

When I wrote this it was an effort in illustrating a pragmatic approach to save men the time and resources of investing in a less than optimal sexual experience. In essence, it’s a rule to help men avoid negotiated, unenthusiastic sex with women who feel obligated to fuck him. Whether it’s ostensibly from pity or duty or some other pretense the outcome is still the same.

I also wrote a follow up to this rule in Three Strikes:

Risk & Reward

In Game, there is a subtle balance that needs to be recognized between risks of over-investing in a particular woman with regards to practicality and not throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water and losing on a potentially rewarding opportunity. Women, as is particular to their own Game, will naturally come down on the side of casting doubt on a man’s valid assessment of a woman’s potential value, both in long term perspectives and potential sexual satisfaction. This presumption of doubt is a built in failsafe social convention for women; if only you’d been more patient, if only you invested a little bit more, you’d be rewarded with a great mother for your children and the best pussy of your life – don’t blow it now!

The short version is that it’s not in women’s best sexual-strategy interests for a man to have sexual options. Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options. Now add to this the hypergamous necessity of maintaining  a reasonable pool of suitors suspended in doubt of her own SMV in order to determine the best one among them for short term sexual provisioning and long term security provisioning.

As ever, the intent here is to determine the potential for genuine enthusiastic sex – if there’s no interest, or hesitant acceptance: NEXT.

At the time of my writing these posts I was castigated for exactly the same rationale that femosphere bloggers are now endorsing Yes Means Yes with today. The (now scrubbed from certain blogs) criticism then was one of how terrible it was for Men to punish women by not playing along with feminine-primary Game.

Only two years ago the criticism was, “What? You just want some whore who gives it up on the first night?”

However, under the Yes Means Yes initiative, this Three Strikes pragmatism is flipped and endorsed by the women who were previously outraged by it. YMY fosters a social environment which actively promotes Pump and Dump sexual encounters, since the furtherance of that sexual relationship into an LTR increases the risk and liabilities that are the result of the YMY threat point.

Commenter jf12 from last week’s thread:

YMY makes a good case for men abandoning what women consider to be their assortative equals, i.e. women who are older, crankier, and more likely to say no, for women who are younger, nicer, and more likely to say yes. YMY is a total green light for men to push for sex immediately if not sooner.

So the question becomes one of how men will most pragmatically develop contingencies for the YMY threat point in their own sexual strategy? In an age when Sheryl Sandberg is openly telling young women to fuck the Bad Boys, and settle down with the Nice Guy before her SMV decays into non-competitiveness, when open hypergamy is not only embraced, but proudly preached in the media, what logical choice do men have but to push for sex immediately and go their own way?

YMY combined with Open Hypergamy promote a sexual marketplace based on enthusiastic consent for Alpha Fucks, and mitigated, ambiguous consent for Beta Bucks. Now add to this environment the effects and behaviors inherent with women’s Ovulatory Shift on a monthly basis and we can begin to see the latent purpose behind Yes Means Yes – insurance against regrettable sexual behavior.

Published by Rollo Tomassi

Author of The Rational Male and The Rational Male, Preventive Medicine

259 comments on “Last Minute Resistance

  1. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey ~Jian Ghomeshi

    Wikipedia: Fifty Shades of Grey “set the record as the fastest-selling paperback of all time.”

    1. And FWIW, Aunt Sue is more than welcome to leave a comment here explaining how her infamous “pity fuck” with the college guy (with a fiancé) who wore her down for sex wasn’t rape.

      I think her readers deserve that explanation.

      1. You act like there is some rational standard where the two of you can use facts and come to an agreement. Likely the “pity fuck” isn’t rape because right now she has decided it isn’t. That’s the whole point: to inject further subjectivity. Arguing logically is futile.

    1. I didn’t even know who Giggles was until she called me out over Wait For It?

      Ironically that post is now scrubbed, but in it she essentially preached against everything she agrees with about YMY.

      If anything Iron Rule #3 was prophetic in that it predicted a YMY sexual marketplace.

  2. hehehe.

    Still, there’s no end to the articles coming out by certain entitled feminist writers (here’s looking at you Elite Daily) lamenting the loss of being wined and dined, courtship and being made to wait.

    They are so oblivious to the system they helped erect that would end their feminine fantasy constructs. They now have to navigate a system (haplessly) in which they need to assume all the risk of putting out right away (enthusiastically) and still hold the chance of being dropped, or be dropped immediately for not putting out because men have caught on and learned that being made to wait is chumpville.

    The feminist drive to remove slut shaming, remove all responsibility for effective gatekeeping, and openly promoting their hypergamy proudly has effectively shackled all women to put their romantic lives in the hands of a pump and dump market.

    If you want to reap romantic blessings, you have to sow smartly. Feminist lobbying and legal policy has instead salted the earth.

  3. 2 comments

    1. I tested this Iron Rule on one occasion to my own demise after already being made aware of it. Not only did waiting for it equate to no sex for myself and the consequential frustration, but also to a horrible case of one-itis. Not sure if there is a connection between a guy waiting for it and a development of one-itis (and whether girls do the former to create the latter) but the experience definitely sucked. A complete loss of investment for myself.

    2. I was watching football yesterday and saw the NFL’s anti-domestic violence and sexual assault public service announcement en lieu of all the shit happening in the league this year. Of course, I could agree with most of what was being said, but neatly tucked in the commercial’s dialogue was a phrase seemingly endorsing YMY… “Just because she doesn’t say ‘No,’ doesn’t mean she wants to.” (Paraphrased)

    It’s coming.

  4. Consider LMR in LTR, however. 99.44% of LTR women *often* (monthly,at the very least) deliberately confuse their LTR guy with mixed messages, intermittently reinforcing *specifically* so he will take “no” for an answer this time but will keep trying for a “yes” some other time e.g. next week.

    I too have come to the conclusion that essentially all of women’s irrational sexual behaviors, sexual contempt for sexual comfort being prime, can be chalked up to incest avoidance as an explanatory convenience if not the sole causal aspect.
    1) Girls only begin reaching out to bad boy strangers at puberty. After this point periodic estrangement can be extremely arousing to women, including the obvious churning of estrangement: irregular absences, negging her, introducing novelties (these are NOT DHVs, they are displays of extracurricular i.e. estranging behaviors), etc.
    2) As you say, urgency is a fair measure of genuine desire. Especially in women, who have comparatively zero practice in being turned down. Aside from actual rapists, all the rest of men learned to heavily regulate their urgency after the first week of puberty. And women are seldom urgent, esepcially if they are getting their needs satsified well.
    3) Girls do fear to give too much LMR to a desirable bad boy who by dcefinition does not have to take no for answer.

    Particularly in marriage, nexting and walking away, aka Dread, is a spice best used sparingly (but used definitely). Dread is the only tool I know of that works that a man can use for wedging estrangement from a woman he wishes to be comfortable with.

  5. “Because Jian Ghomeshi is a disgusting, misogynistic pervert – but I purchased, read, and rubbed my clit to all three ’50 Shades of Gray’ titles.”

  6. Sadly, all this is another giant step toward harems.
    1) The man of the harem has built-in, actually live-in, Dread because of the other women.
    2) The woman must show more enthusiasm or else she will not get her needs satisfied as often. This thermostatting of her sexual frequency, in which the hotter woman gets more and the colder woman gets less, is inherent in a harem situation.

  7. Slightly off topic.

    Here’s what I think Yes Means Yes will look like for women. I don’t want any of these things to happen; I just think they COULD happen.

    1. YMY will raise the stakes dramatically for men. A lot of men will simply drop out because they cannot run the risk of an encounter going bad. A lot of men who would meet women and make good matches, won’t meet those women; because they cannot afford the possible losses. That means no more Beta Bucks. No more “good men” waiting until she is ready to “settle”.

    2. Any kind of interactions with women will become so risky that women will have to put out to make it worth the time and trouble for the few men willing to stay in the game. Women will have to put out to get any play at all.

    3. Loss of intimacy and trust. Everyone is trying to get over on everyone else. Men and women will stop trusting each other. Everyone’s trying to get “dirt” on other people; everyone’s trying to cover their own asses. YMY will turn the SMP/MMP into a nationwide sexual casino. Sex won’t be fun or beautiful or meaningful; it will be simply a neverending maelstrom of relational gambling, competition, surveillance and writhing bodies.

    4. Video recording ot sexual encounters. The risk requires it. Any encounter could potentially go bad; so video recording has to be used as possible evidence to counter an accusation.

    5. Marriage and LTRs will be out of the question. They just won’t be worth the risk.

    And for the record, I’m not an advocate of any of these things. I don’t want them to happen; I just think they COULD happen.

    Moreover, I’m not an agitator for societal collapse. Nothing could be further from the truth. I personally stand to lose much if the status quo ends. Societal collapse will bring much pain on many; me and mine included. I don’t think a complete collapse will happen anyway. I think a long, slow slide in the current direction is the most likely scenario.

  8. It should be plausible, to say the least, that the *nicest* explanation why a man being actually bad, i.e. in the direction of malevolent, towards a woman works so very very very much better in arousing her urgent enthusiasm than a man being actually nice, i.e. in the direction of benevolent, is because brotherly love is incestuous.

    Any other explanation is *worse*.

  9. LOL yea LMR is a thing of the past. Not sure if it is because I openly have other women in play, or that I became better and building that sense of urgency or some combination of factors. Hard kissing, hair pulling, pining her to this or that, hand around the throat, commanding her to do this or that seems to blast right through any LMR.

    Interesting thoughts on harems jf12 though dread is a very active/ overt part of mine (how could it not be) every thing else is much more affectionate, loving, fun etc then your wonderings imply

  10. Two rejoinders to Lindy.
    1) Since women desire so very very much fewer men than men desire women, which men are going to have to settle for being tolerated instead of desired? Are you against enabling undesirable men to engage in more pickup artistry and other “bad” behaviors that greatly increase the probability that they could be desired? Orwould you prefer that undesirable men cease alltogether?
    2) Why would a woman want to be tolerated as “a human”, i.e. a weaker, less willing, less enthusiastic, oddly footwear-focused version of a male, when she could be desired as a female?

  11. Broken record alert: prostitution, prostitution, prostitution. Solves all aforementioned ‘problems’. Make your money. DAFS online. Dial your phone. Enjoy. She leaves. Sleep. Rinse and Repeat.

    What a wonderful fuckin’ 21st century world indeed.

  12. @sfcton, re: “every thing else is much more affectionate, loving, fun etc then your wonderings imply”

    I agree women work much better in harems. I apologize for misstating my views. My view is that women are to blame for their own problems of working worse in monogamy.

  13. Rollo, flirting games are popular in my social circle, while seduction is out for most, because they are married. The focus is on the Chase, not the Mating Dance. Hence, resistance is encouraged because it makes the Chase last longer and everyone enjoys the game more. Breaking the game rules is also a big part of the fun.

    I don’t see how YMY can apply to flirting games, though I can see that some women might try to apply it Monday morning in court.

  14. Class, compare the enthusiasm in Jessie J’s no-foreplay-needed Bang Bang, definitionally instantaneous unpersuaded consent, preferring a whole one minute ofsex inthe backseat, with Robin Thicke’s slower attempts at seduction and convincing in Blurred Lines, including wasting time dancing and lighting up.

  15. Anything other than an enthusiastic “Yes” means NEXT!

    Women can do well without men anyway. Therefore Beta Bucks is dead, fit only for wannabe slaves who haven’t realized it yet.

  16. sfcton:
    Interesting thoughts on harems jf12 though dread is a very active/ overt part of mine (how could it not be) every thing else is much more affectionate, loving, fun etc then your wonderings imply
    +1 The loyalty tests seem to be diminishing with Mrs. Gamer. Maybe I’ve gotten better at handling them and managing her emotions?

    Class, compare the enthusiasm in Jessie J’s no-foreplay-needed Bang…wasting time dancing and lighting up.
    +1, but the one-minute time limit sounds very boring

  17. Given that men despise LMR and prefer easy enthusiasm, which gender is it that promotes ASD along withholding enthusiasm, making it more costly, and very often ridicules the other gender for not being hard enough, urgent enough, man enough to know to push through LMR?

  18. Since Lybrido, at least, will be widely available within a year, and because effective libido pills yield very genuine abeit very manufactured desire, what will be the consequences on consent?

  19. jf12:
    Given that men despise LMR and prefer easy enthusiasm, which gender is it that promotes ASD along withholding enthusiasm, making it more costly, and very often ridicules the other gender for not being hard enough, urgent enough, man enough to know to push through LMR?

    Heh, “easy enthusiasm” exactly. Last Friday, a 20-something woman joined our group late. I asked her to dance, but she refused somewhat bitchily. I continued dancing with other women in the group, having fun and so did they. Little Miss Bitchy ended up giving me looks all night asking for another approach. All she got in return was one little smile.

  20. jf12 – ‘they’ cannot afford to leave on the table any ‘viable option’ for acceptable sexual conduct. any and all male behavior in any sexual encounter must carry with it the potential to be criminalized. ‘they’ need to make it so that after any sexual encounter whatsoever, the women has a lawful mandate to destroy the male participant in said sexual encounter for any imaginable rationale – for any perceived or actual element of said sexual encounter that leaves her less than 100% satisfied with how it all went, and how it all looks to be going forward. Will he stay, will he go? Will he want to stay, will she want him to stay? Need to find a criminal ‘solution’ as potential leverage, to be levied in case of any and all potential outcomes.

  21. @SteveH, I think there is a very slight possibility that the purveyors of The New Sexual Reality believe they are trying to do the right thing, especially when it kind of rationally makes sense that there will be less unwanted sex if men are prevented from trying to escalate when there are mixed signals. The fundamental flaws in this reasoning are empirical, namely, these are false assumptions:
    1) Women want sex “just as much” as men, and therefore women’s desires are normative.
    2) Women never want to be “taken”.
    3) Mixed signals are rare.

  22. @tasd, re: easy.

    One possibility: Approach her swiftly aggressively looking rather angry at her. Scold her for her looking like she would get you in trouble, then stomp off and make sure she sees you complain to males about her, nodding in her direction and scowling. Assuming she inquires, through intermediaries, what she did to offend you, reply “Nothing yet, but she reminds me of a woman who hurt me deeply.”

  23. SfcTon – “…though dread is a very active/ overt part of mine (how could it not be) every thing else is much more affectionate, loving, fun etc then your wonderings imply”

    Makes perfect sense. Once you have the dread subtext firmly established there’s no need for you to mention it. Obviously part of being a genuine badass is not having to prove it overtly, but having it understood implicitly, as in your reputation preceeds you.

  24. “It was then I realized I had been attempting to Game girls according to the advice other girls had given me (or even some of the girls I wanted to get with themselves).”
    Truer words have never been spoken…
    The feminine imperative was pushing this agenda since the 90s I think. Having women as ‘good’ friends or ‘best’ friends….complete folly and a major piss-take. The indoctrination starts when you hit your teens straight through to your mid-late 20s.
    Where were you then brother?…sigh!

  25. I have already trained my ten year old son for some of these scenarios:
    Girl: “Let’s just be friends”.
    Son: “No thanks, I already have lots of friends”

    I am so proud of him

  26. Considering only Alphas get an enthusiastic Yes for a consensual no buck involved intercourse, this is a big blow with an iron rod on the head of beta males. The same white knights who blindly praised this in the first place. Aha!

  27. Absolutely monster post here today.

    This guy I work with told me a story of a girl that ended up fucking him 14 years after he’d tried unsuccessfully to hook up with her.

    After they were done, she asked him, “How was it?”

    His response: “You made me wait 14 years for THAT?”


    Even for me as a single guy trying to get laid, who desperately wants to have sex, I’m not desperate to the point of devaluing myself.

    And I do have the experience of initiating at least one hookup, thanks to this blog, so I have at least some understanding of how immediate it can be, and how immediate it SHOULD be if the desire is genuine.

    I’m desperate for sex, but I would rather keep looking for opportunities to have great sex with a girl who actually wants me, and failing (because I know I’m going to succeed eventually), than degrade myself by pussy begging to a girl using beta-game, that MIGHT have a 1 or 2% chance of putting out, and a 100% chance of her not giving me her best even if she did.

    Totally not worth it, and by putting yourself in that kind of situation you’re even worse off emotionally and psychologically, because you’re not respecting or valuing yourself and your own wants and needs.

    Indifference is the best sign of progress. That’s when you know that you don’t have a chip on your shoulder, and you’re just looking out for your own best interests. If a girl doesn’t want to fuck you, she doesn’t want to fuck you — it just means your behavior was asexual, not arousing enough, too supplicating, beta-gaming, or if you were on your game, that maybe she’s just not interested.

    All that matters is learning from your mistakes, and if you didn’t make any mistakes, not worrying about it because you know you’re the man. Just know what you want and desire and refuse to compromise.

    I would say respecting yourself, valuing your life, and having dignity is more important than sex. For the sole reason that men should be pursuing GREAT sex with women who DESIRE them — getting sex by pussy begging, I would argue, could even be worse than not having sex at all, because it can further entrench men in a blue-pill mindset and plunge them farther into the matrix, so to speak.

    So I would say we don’t need sex as men — we need GREAT sex with women who WANT us. And we play a huge role, as far as I’ve learned even in my limited experience, in generating and kindling that desire. The more you know what you want and believe you deserve what you want the more you’ll behave in ways that will be much more likely to get you exactly what you want.

    Anyway, as far as desire goes, here’s my anecdote from my hookup months ago:

    It was literally in the matter of 10 or 20 minutes talking online to this girl I’d met 4 years earlier. I’d talked to her here and there but nothing big, just small talk, and very rarely.

    I was joking around saying I needed to start playing out so I could pick up girls because I’m losing my mind over here. She said I was so good at music, it should be no problem for me. Then I went on a little about how I used to play out but it’ll take a while getting back into it, then I got back to talking about wanting to get some girls, and then I asked her point blank, what about you?

    And she was surprised by it, and was like, what do you mean? She actually said ‘do you mean me?’

    And then I just asked her point blank if she ever wanted to have a fuck buddy, and if she’d want to hook up with me. Her next message was something along the lines of “definitely.”

    She said maybe over the weekend. I pushed a little for about 10 minutes and she ended up driving over to my house that night and spent 3 hours with me, and she took her shirt and her pants off pretty much as soon as I shut the door to my room.

    I was nervous as hell, but it was what it was, and it was great. She was all smiling and was looking really into it. I had a great time and I felt like it was exactly what I needed. She was all “Oh, you’ve really bulked up since the last time I saw you, you feel so good,” etc., and I mean really. What guy doesn’t want his ego to be jerked off.

    The only other girl I’ve been with, and that was years ago, just showered me with compliments. She just completely lost control of herself and it was just amazing.

    Absolutely nothing compares to experiencing that desire from a woman — knowing that they want you, and they want you bad.

    So even though I have very limited experience, I’ve had enough to know what that feels like and to not want to settle for less. It’s more than a self-esteem thing, like “I deserve it” or “I’m worth it” —

    — it’s just *what I want.* I know that I want sex to be like that, and if it’s not, it might as well mean absolutely nothing. These two girls were also girls I didn’t feel “in love” with so there was no beta-game on my part. It just didn’t happen because I wasn’t swooning like a dickless faggot over them.

    I would never call anyone a dickless faggot for having ONE-itis, by the way, because I know that could just shut some guys down completely and make them worse instead of enlightening them. But in the privacy of my own mind I will joke to myself about that, because it helps snap me out of it.

    ONE-itis and putting up with all the waiting, etc., for sex that will — GUARANTEED — not be the sex I want…is just not what I want. Period. I can remember my experiences with those two girls, and knowing that they wanted me was the green light for me to have the best times of my life.

    With ONE-itis and beta-game, everything is a yellow light and a red light.

    But the reality is that it’s all in your mind. I know this because I’ve had the experience of being a complete asexual, cuddle-bear self-neglecting pussy around girls I’ve had ONE-itis for, around the same time that I was fooling around with a girl that I did not have ONE-itis for.

    It makes me wonder if the girl I didn’t have ONE-itis for wanted me so badly because I just was the sarcastic, witty, modestly insulting and aggressive prankster I usually am in my everyday life at home. I just did whatever I felt like doing around her and would say anything I felt like saying.

    With all the girls I’ve had ONE-itis for, I would carefully think over every text, everything I’d say on the phone, freeze up, get nervous, etc. And I have never once in my entire life been sexually involved with a girl I was ‘in love’ with. Because they never wanted to be with me.

    So again…I think it’s all in our minds. Our current sex lives and relationships with women are probably pretty accurate reflections about how we hold our own sexuality inside ourselves.

    Red Pill for me has been a huge awakening of my sexuality — my actual sexuality, what I actually want, as opposed to all the conditioning and brainwashing that tried to tell me what I SHOULD want.

    “Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.”

    -Mark 4:25

    We get more of whatever we hold within ourselves. If we hold blue-pill ideology, feminist ideals, relational equity, etc., within ourselves — that’s what we’ll get more of. i.e., behaviors that conflict with what actually sparks healthy intergender relationships.

    If we hold a respect for our own wants and needs, are honest with ourselves about our wants and needs, and respect ourselves enough to not compromise them — that’s what we’ll get more of: the meeting of our wants and needs.

    If you hold good, healthy things inside of your mind, you will not even have to think about what to do in the case of an LJBF or LMR or whatever. That’s the zen-like goal of Red Pill, like any other skill set — to ingrain it until it becomes a natural part of yourself, as if it was always there.

    It’s changing your programming. Putting new ideas into your mind so you will start behaving in new and better ways without even thinking about what you were doing —

    — just the same as we all automatically were blue-pillers, and acted out blue-pill behaviors without thinking. It was just what we were conditioned to believe and our minds were simply operating on the programs that were installed.

    I have to keep up with this stuff on a daily basis to keep me sharp. That will fade with time as I integrate these ideas more deeply and keep becoming a better version of myself.

    Thanks for the post, excellent as usual — tons of information to digest.

  28. I had what you stated below happen to me today via Tinder:

    “The short version is that it’s not in women’s best sexual-strategy interests for a man to have sexual options. Women’s sexual strategy is very schizophrenic – ideally women want a Man that other women want to fuck, but in order to assess his sexual market value to other women he’s got to have exercisable options for her to compete against, or at least display indirect social proof to that effect. So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options.”

    What’s crazy is that this behavior affects even women who haven’t banged you or met you. Just look at this screenshot I made for you guys to see:

    Excuse the chick’s grammar; She’s Cuban and not completely fluent in English. I text her after this and she’s down to hang out. I already know this chick is going to bring my pre-selection up but that’s ok. This will ease our conversation into the bang much better, heh.


    This is probably a given, but what you don’t mention Rollo is how the majority of cases where a girl incites LMR, is when she feels the man is inherently of lower quality (atleast in relation to her). I believe all girls can subconsciously gauge your Alpha Fucks quality within seconds of your first meeting with her.

    Personally, every time I’ve banged a 4-7 (i have never banged a 3 and below), there’s hardly any LMR. This happens even on a first “hangout” with me. Mind you, I meet most of the girls I bang now via Social circle and Tinder and this plays out in both areas. It helps that I’m reasonably handsome and tall, though.

    As for girls who are 8-9, some resistance does happen but again, the intensity of her LMR relates to the man she’s hooking up with. For example, I’ve banged girls who my friends couldn’t close after one or two dates easily.

    If I ever receive any LMR from a girl it’s usually along the lines of, “not here, let’s go someplace else” or “I’m not fucking you in the car!”

    LOL, that last one always gets me.

    Anyway, I do believe some guys reach a “quality ceiling” with women in relation to his inherent value. He can expand this to some degree with beta bucks but again, this will eventually lead to some form of negotiation since her desire is not genuinely based on some thing primal but rather, on something material he can provide.

  29. Not looking at male/female relationships as the simple husbandry it is seems to lead to all the consternation in a lot of these comments.

    She has no soul, everything you see in a woman is her ego reflecting YOU.

    Stop trying to make women more than they are just because you need them to be.

  30. re: indifference. I would like to hear how to pull off indifference without Dread/plates/”fine, then I’ll ask Susie instead.” Otherwise it seems (it would seem to me, being a man) that indifference would be mistaken for a lack of passion, a lack of urgency, a que sera sera passivity. How to do passionate indifference?

  31. I forgot to mention that a women’s ovulatory cycle matters a lot here, too. When a woman isn’t ovulating, she’ll be more forgiving of guys who don’t incite her alpha fucks. But when she’s ovulating, on the other hand, she’ll be much more harsh to men who don’t incite her tingles and if you’re in a relationship, you’ll have a higher chance of being cuckolded.

    Sounds fucked up but it’s true. I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ve been on both sides of the equation.

    Times where I got cheated on and times where a girl cheated on her boyfriend for me. This might make some men bitter but it has actually given me a deeper understanding as to why women are the way they are.

    In the one time I got cheated on (the only time I could confirm it) she became increasingly cold and she started to negotiate her blowjobs and withdrawing sex in general. This was in my hard core needy beta days.

    In the other times where she cheated on her boyfriend with me (probably more than 4 different times) women became very feral in bed with me. I can’t explain why, but women really do get off on the idea that she’s screwing over her boyfriend or husband. It probably adds a level of excitement that isn’t found when she’s single.

    I remember breaking it off with a fling right after new years and she contacted me right on Valentine’s Day. I knew she had a boyfriend at the time, so I asked her if he was going to find out by meeting on that “special” day for couples. She said, “Don’t worry about it. We already exchanged gifts…but all I want is you.” I later found out he wasn’t hitting it right so she became frustrated with him and started contacting me for some 3am sex for months after.

    If that doesn’t show you the AF-BB, then I don’t know what will.

  32. @jf12

    Indifference works best when your value is already higher than her’s. I know this is a “duh” moment but it’s crucial for her to either believe you’re of higher quality or construct a perspective that assumes you’re higher quality than her.

    If you’re a lower quality man, your indifference will actually benefit her by saving the trouble of having her cut you off. She’ll think, “eh, i’m cutting him off. he wasn’t THAT into me anyway.” Women love being passive aggressive and the more room you allow for her to be so, is only more beneficial to her. Obviously, you don’t want to give her that power but it must be understood regardless.

    I believe Rollo posted a study on his twitter saying that dread works better when the man is attractive (or in relation to her). I may be paraphrasing here but I’ll appreciate if someone could dig it up again.

  33. @TM, re: higher value etc.

    I’m certain the best way to construct such a perspective is “living well”, which, basically, means her seeing you having *passionate* fun with a different woman. IOW she believes reason for your ability to be *emotionally* detached from her is because of your ability to be *emotionally* attached to another woman. Universal indifference is the definition of passivity; it is only the specific indifference towards *her* that counts to *her*.

  34. FWIW yes I’ve been trying mostly successfully to stuff the Dark Side of the Force back into Pandora’s Box.

  35. In related news, a new gem from the Huf Post canada.

    “A Man’s Guide To Handling Conversations About Consent”

    “have guy friends who have been really shocked when I tell them about my and my friends’ experiences with harassment, cat-calling, assault, etc. and then they ask what they can do because they are a mix of horrified and confused and very, very apologetic, on behalf of Men’s Rights Advocates (MRAs) and shitty dudes everywhere.”

    One positive note: she’s getting called on her bullshit in the comment section. Seeing more and more of that lately, I think.

  36. Squawking …
    For those unfamiliar with my backstory, longterm 2nd marriage, after a decade of first-date wasteland, after a decade of 1st marriage. Mounting frustration, coupled with an unexpected online amygdalal explosion, led me to red pill sites grasping for understanding of what to do about women behaving the opposite of the way I decree they should.

    I tentatively, then more boldly, began incorporating what I determined empirically to be the minimal Goldilocks degree of naughtiness, i.e. no major superfluity of naughtiness (that rings a bell Biblically). In a couple of years I took 13 out of 14 women to a “yes” closing of my choice, yes including the big yes, then me walking away in part to be technically non-adulterous (I didn’t *look* at them differently, just *talked* to them sexually, escalating as soon as possible). I did not consider it leading them on, or vag teasing or whatever, since I was relatively honest about my lack of intentions (and little to no romancing at all; I insisted on keeping things furtive and conspiratorial). The 14th, a little past yes, causing the albatross etc. It apparently works better on the ladies than a 1970s disco gold chain.

    So aside from my wives, I technically have no experience with LMR per se, but too much prior experience with first minute resistance.

  37. Regarding JF12, quiet amanuensis for this post, who says:

    “re: indifference. I would like to hear how to pull off indifference without Dread/plates/”fine, then I’ll ask Susie instead.””

    Simple. Like any deal of any consequence, don’t act like you need it, and in fact, don’t need it. Be willing to walk away. I’ve never closed a 7-9 figure deal without walking away once or twice. Being free, being sovereign in your person, delivers (or does not) the deal.

    LMR, by comparison, is a joke. It’s 90 seconds of posturing before the girl begs for the score. If I hear LMR, I am getting my clothes on so fast the room spins. A woman, assuming she is being coy, then drops all pretension. So my personal experience is that as soon as a man takes LMR to be real, the woman drops pretense and is on her knees for more attention. YMMV.

    But I would advise any man, in these days, who encounters LMR, to get the fuck out of town. The stakes are higher than they’ve ever been, and YMY means we are men without options if she plays hers, her option to destroy.

    It’s a strange world when a man says “Hey, no means no, so goodnight!” and a woman grabs him desperately. That is the world YMY is presenting, times 10.

    1. @BV, I should probably write a post about the mechanics of takeaways. There are definitely pro-masculine ways to work around LMR when it’s a shit test.

      A decisive takeaway as you mentioned, combined with amused mastery and a bit of agree & amplify, give her a week and re-approach with that same amused mastery attitude.

      If the vibe is still negative or you get a repeat LMR performance, NEXT, with no contact. If she reinitiates later, you’re busy with work or “friends”. If she doesn’t you’re not wasting your time with an unenthusiastic lay.

  38. I have a question,
    When my girlfriend and I first started seeing each other, it took until the fourth date to have sex. Although we were making out and dry humping on the 2nd and 3rd dates, she said, “we’re not having sex tonight” in a way that was very assertive while we were fooling around. Both times, it was said as we were fooling around, not early on in the date.

    I’m just curious if this would be considered being made to wait for sex. Before her, I would usually get some action by the 2nd date.

  39. @rollo: couple things.

    A) some girls are more resistant towards fucking (one night stand) first time they are hooking up with a guy. So girl A might always resist sex the first night no matter who the guy is even if she’s hooking up with the nfl football player and girl B would only have sex first night with nfl type player alphas.

    And you could say that’s “Madonna/whore” complex but it’s not…just simply observe and recount past hook ups. Maybe I can see this easier because I went to a large university Greek life and observed these types of girls’ behaviors…there are girls that simply do not give it up first hook up

    And B)
    If you go by all of this game logic then how the fuck are you supposed to get a girl chasing you or whatever for monogamy. If you fuck her first night then your “alpha” so you better not go hitting her up again or else she won’t see you as “alpha” anymore

  40. I think in today’s world, an explicit NO to “sex” should require some further explanation from the declaror as to what exactly she means by this. Unconsented kissing and, of course, dry humping, would be, in the absence of “consent”, sexual battery, something of course, you want no part of. Of course, you’d already at this point be guilty. I’d like to think that I would leave right then, not come back, and hope for the best.

  41. Rollo: My experience is that LMR is just that, the last shit test. I just start to walk, and it’s over. Everyone’s MMV. But few women take their shirts off (in my experience, zero women do this) and then say, “No, I’m not ready …” and mean it.

    I think YMY is going to turn women into hysterical zombie seducers if men are willing to go home, instead of argue for intimacy.

  42. Deti descants on the YMY law’s social impacts as I have with the legal. I co-sign on what he says but would add the following:

    1) the number of men going to college continues to decrease, so the pool of available date-able guys (well guys in general) will get smaller and smaller, to their chagrin (cue the chorus of Where Da Good Men At?). See: the SMP of present-day Beijing.

    2)Sex positivity is no longer part of a healthy breakfast, it’s the law! So hard as it may be for men to WALK in the face of LMR as this post states, their survival in college will depend on mastering it. Coupled with the voice recordings they will be making to protect themselves on the way out, they could truthfully show any tribunal (or reviewing court) that they did indeed OBEY YMY and BAIL when enthusiastic consent was not forthcoming – but best of all: the case will never be brought, since instead it will be the girl who will have to pursue or be labelled as “one who does not consent.” What we used to call a ball-buster. See also the preceding comment by the Hon. BV.

    3) Upon reflection, my guess is that only a few unlucky men will be YMY prosecuted; if there are too many expulsions made public too many more men will get the message that college is an unsafe place and not go; the price for the remaining customers would go up. Put another way: there would be NO paying students if colleges expelled everyone who drunk underage on campus, and colleges know that; they only expel when someone ends up in the hospital.

    4) I should like to confront Ezra Klein and other YMY apologists, and ask them if, as he states, men NEED to live in a world of fear (“Fear of Fucking”?), then why should YMY be restricted to state-funded campuses? Aren’t women elsewhere entitled to be free of the Amanda Taub ” woman tax”? Why not impose YMY everywhere? (PS: The answer to that query will be what destroys marriage for at least a generation – even if any “YMY everywhere” bill is laughed at and mocked into oblivion).

  43. Hi Rollo,
    one aspect I will not agree with you completely, is if a girl is a virgin. There are cultures where a girl will literally ruin or severely decrease her future marriage prospects if she’s not a virgin (and the future husband or society knows about it). In this case LMR might be very strong regardless of the attraction levels.

    Saying that, there are ways the girl can pleas you (and she will do it willingly) and still remain a virgin. Technically.

  44. re: walking away.

    Yes, walking away certainly works except when you promised you would not. Being sovereign requires freedom of movement and freedom from entanglements, such as binding agreements.

    Dr. Helen quoted Mark Manson approvingly regarding enthusiastic consent:

    “If you’re in the grey area [ever], you’ve already lost.
    Let me ask again: Why would you ever be excited to be with someone who is not excited to be with you? If they’re not happy with you now, what makes you think they’ll be happy to be with you later?”

    The punch line is that 100% of all women are not always enthusiastic, and hence 100% of all LTR are hereby nullified. You are free to go now, because that one time (was it just last night?) she was cranky.

  45. Somebody mentioned “Mother May I” but the correct game analogy for YMY is “Red Light Green Light”. The giving of consent, even verbally, does not legally require explicitly asking.

    Recall in RLGL the person who’s It capriciously keeps changing from Yes to No and back again.

  46. Hi Rollo – assuming for a moment that y/our daughters are paying attention, and we want our biological descendants raised with both parents present, what would you advise a relatively more self aware young female human about navigating balance between expressing interest in the male while confirming his willingness to invest in the long term?

  47. I went through many of the same experiences as you, as far as learning not to wait and how to seduce. However I’ve seen enough of the other side of men who insisted until they got what they wanted to realize that it is a very valid strategy. If you look at persistence hunting on youtube you can see why persistence would be sexually selected for. The reason we are relatively hairless is because we had to chase down wild deerlike animals for many many hours under the hot African sun. It is a very suboptimal strategy today, when it is so easy for a girl to call the cops and end the pursuit before its really began. In South America..its the standard operating procedure, women tolerate and often ultimately submit.

  48. Rollo: So the question becomes one of how men will most pragmatically develop contingencies for the YMY threat point in their own sexual strategy?

    Deti: 1. YMY will raise the stakes dramatically for men. A lot of men will simply drop out because they cannot run the risk of an encounter going bad. …

    4. Video recording ot sexual encounters. The risk requires it. Any encounter could potentially go bad; so video recording has to be used as possible evidence to counter an accusation.

    A suggestion I saw recently in a comment on another manosphere blog (can’t recall exactly which one offhand) that really made sense was to establish a “safe word” when you start to push through the anti-slut LMR (as opposed to not-really-aroused LMR). Give her the safe word because you want to make her feel comfortable, and then push through the resistance.
    But the second she says that safe word, stop, grab your things – including your iPhone or other device that is recording at the very least the audio of the encounter – and leave. And don’t let her talk/trick you into staying, as that will only let her betatize you by only allowing what she wants without giving you what you want.
    If she wants to get together and try again at a later date, fine, but again – establish a safe word. And this time if she uses it, NEXT.

  49. These dudes seem to be embracing YMY:

    “is we fuckin when we leave the club or nah?”
    “do you like the way I flick my tongue or nah?”
    “can you lick the tip then throw the dick or nah?”
    “can you let me stretch that pussy out or nah?”
    “can you really take dick or nah?”
    “can I bring another bitch or nah?”
    “is you with this shit or nah?”
    “i’ma go as far as you let me”
    “girl is you suckin me or fuckin me or nah?”
    “can I bring another bitch let’s have a threesome”
    “can you do it like that on this dick or nah?”
    “you goin runnin for these $100s girl or nah?”

  50. The point below is absolutely true.
    “So, she needs to limit his options while simultaneously determining he has those options”

    Along with female egoism, this is the fundamental reason why most cute woman will seek out an average looking man, and most hot women seek out an above average looking (hence “decent looking”) man. They will conceivably find a top end good looking man more sexually arousing, but they will fear his abundant – perceived or actual – options with other women.

    So in essence, the exampled woman responds positively if she knows a few women who find him attractive and compliment him, but she feeds off negative emotions if she sees inundated women looking at him and he looks as good as her in photographs.

  51. Just to validate this idea…the “spinning plates” concept indeed does kill LMR. In my case, I’m spinning several plates. I have not had any real issues with any of these girls fucking me. In fact, I actually LJBF’d a girl…telling her about failed relationships, showing up with other girls in front of her, treating her like a buddy by white-knighting her in a dispute. Little did I realize far from turning her off it was: 1) pre-selection 2) white-knighting was seen as “protector of women and children 3) leadership came in me ordering her around on a project she was working on.

    She texted me literally demanding I come over for “one drink”…the more I resisted…the more clearly turned on she became. When I did come over I had a few drinks (for plausible deniability) and banged her like a rag doll.

    The next day…she was totally cool about it.

    I once blew it with LMR by getting mad at my crazy ex gf saying “Do I need to start fucking other girls?” Big mistake.

    These two anecdotes clearly illustrate that if a girl wants to fuck you …she will. LMR is a result of too little comfort and too much attraction. That conflict results in the logical over-ruling the emotional.

    In my two case studies, the girl I LJBF’d only wanted to work harder for my attention when she saw me with other girls but still treating her like a bud…

  52. JF12: “Yes, walking away certainly works except when you promised you would not. Being sovereign requires freedom of movement and freedom from entanglements, such as binding agreements.”

    I guess you’re suggesting that YMY is fatal to marital or monogamous LTR, and, as another guy noted above, I agree completely. If the war against women fantasists are able to conflate their VAWA success with a new initiative to ‘protect’ married women from their husbands’ sexual activities, and make it illegal to have married sex without affirmative consent (which is retroactively, and optionally, applied but only by the wife), marriage is both absurd and very dead.

    As a footnote, I was talking to a date last night about this issue (she has three boys and should be more aware of what YMY and college kangaroo tribunals could do to them). She’s smart, she’s a good independent businessperson, she can make decisions, etc. Anyway, what I note is that her response to all this is “yes, but I *feel* … and anyway, it doesn’t happen very often, some boy getting caught up in this.” These are not laws that derive from evidence and logic, they’re emotional sops. They’re constructed on the order of security theater or ‘compassionate social programs’: “if it saves just one life, one child, one delicate snowflake unable to manage her person, drinking habits, and ability to formulate two-letter words beginning with ‘n’ and ending with ‘o’.” I’d say men — whiteknighting, status-deprived, pussy-begging men — are more dangerous in this than the worst misandrist bull dyke with tenure.

  53. @BV, re: retroactive nonconsent. One solution to the opponents’ protected right to burn the bridges after they cross them is to burn them before they cross i.e. mgtow. And mgtow, if not sour grapes, is definitely an ultimate indifference “I don’t need it from you and I don’t need it from anybody.” But I’m still stuck on my concern about non-plates indifference being too passive. More to follow (as if that were in question).

  54. @walawala, re: “LMR is a result of too little comfort and too much attraction.”

    This is the standard popular *media* portrayal, like the canonical version by Meatloaf.

    “Stop right there! I gotta know right now
    Before we go any further do you love me?
    Will you love me forever? Do you need me?
    Will you never leave me?

    Will you make me so happy for the rest of my life?
    Will you take me away and will you make me your wife?
    Do you love me? Will you love me forever?
    Do you need me? Will you never leave me?

    Will you make me happy for the rest of my life?
    Will you take me away and will you make me your wife?
    I gotta know right now before we go any further
    Do you love me? Will you love me forever?”

    But what I’m hearing, and believing, is that it ain’t that way outside popular media. LMR doesn’t yield to a sudden display of better betaness, but it may crumble in the face of indifference.

    I concede, warily, that LMR may instead/ also yield to a sudden display of *passion*, hoping not to be misconstrued here (although Miss Construe elsewhere can whack my effigy all she pleases). This is my go-to technique, and works a good fraction of the time, certainly better than the 0% of time that saying “oh well” and rolling over to sleep works.

  55. re: indifference.

    The primary reason that McDonald’s cannot hold your Happy Meal hostage until you fork over an extra $10 “service fee” for handing you the bag is NOT because they think you might say “Oh well, I’m not hungry anyway” but because they know for a fact that you could walk across the street to Burker King even if you already have $2.25 in sunk costs, although one must always consider the screaming-kid factor. And yes, I have written plenty of more complex sentences.

    I’m reasonably certain that the (inarguable) success of walking away is due at least to the *possibility* (if not certainty) that a man’s indifference is because of his extra plates. IOW, what works is NOT “Oh well, I’m not hungry anyway” but “Fine, I’ll go smell what Susie’s cooking.”

  56. Fred:

    “if, as he states, men NEED to live in a world of fear (“Fear of Fucking”?), then why should YMY be restricted to state-funded campuses? Aren’t women elsewhere entitled to be free of the Amanda Taub ” woman tax”? Why not impose YMY everywhere?”

    Don’t worry, Fred. Those days are coming. I don’t have any doubt that YMY will soon be the law of the land everywhere. More college campuses will adopt it and YMY will then seep into the criminal law. When YMY takes over, it will make most husbands into rapists. Reason: No Means No put the burden on the complainant/victim to prove she said no and the accused plowed ahead anyway. YMY shifts the burden to the man to establish that the complainant consented.

    (Contrary to what some fembloggers are saying, YMY in its current iteration in California and applying to college campuses requires express consent; and that consent can be given only VERBALLY. YMY does NOT say that nonverbal consent is sufficient. You have to get an express “YES”, OUT LOUD.)

    Moreover, YMY is NOT limited solely to penetration or attempted penetration. It applies to “sexual activity”, which is undefined and is extremely broad. “Sexual activity” covers everything from accidental touching to full on penetration.

    Example: Husband and wife have been married 18 years. They have a good sex life. One day, Husband intentionally brushes his hand across Wife’s breast. She says, in an irritated voice, “not now, dear. Not in the mood.” Husband has violated YMY and under that law, he’s guilty of sexual assault.

    1. @Deti & Fred, you’ll notice I refer to the campus YMY law as a “social initiative” in this article. This was intentional, because what will be learned as correct practice on campus will become the social expectations after graduation.

      I have no doubt that broader legislation, beyond the campus, is coming, but the social initiative effects will be well ahead of that law as its proponents and fearfully obedient adherents graduate with every year.

      The class of 2014 is just the vanguard…

  57. In fact, the empirical success of tactics for overcoming LMR is the single greatest encapsulation of the red pill (yes, I know, being a pill means it’s a encapsulated). What does not work is upping the comfort; ask any married man too as well as any PUA; what works is basically the opposite of comfort, either
    1) indifference
    2) pushing through

  58. Yipes! Somehow the end of my point 4 above was accidentally cut off by the internet mohel. Was just following deti’s conclusion: hey Mr. Klein, explain why YMY should not be imposed everywhere if the “woman tax” of having to say no to a guy who might be the Seattle school shooter is to be avoided? Just posing the question in a public way will kill marriage for a generation, even if any proposed YMY everywhere bill is ridiculed off the stage.

  59. @deti, re: establishing consent.

    As the examples of men getting out of false rape claims keep piling up, of *proving* consent via video, texts, and other recording devices, obviously there will be many major attempts to outlaw such recordings even when the consent to recording is itself recorded.

    Do you think such attempts will succeed?

  60. Does YMY entail that a lesbian must view every video of every woman’s sexual encounters to adjudicate whether she was enthusiastic enough?

  61. re: regarding females penetrating male space without the males’ enthusiastic consent.

    “Why would you want to be tolerated when you could be desired?”

  62. @Rollo, according to the nbc article, YMY has been taught for years to mean “Just A Plain Yes Means No”. *Enthusiastic* consent is required, not just a plain yes.

    “you should be disappointed if all you got from your sex partner is consent.”

  63. Well it is certainly a social initiative in terms of the now-voluntary, soon-to-be “mandatory” YMY freshman initiation classes like the one at Colgate where you “talk through” various consent scenarios (conclusion: boy is stupid, throw rocks at him). Except, of course, the idea going NEXT when LMR appears. That won’t be taught to the men – even though it’s the law! More likely they will be told the Heather MacDonald speech: get to know her over several no-contact dates, talk about her feels, carry her sign at slut-walks, wear pink ribbons, then she will fall madly in lust with you. Oops, I meant with the varsity team’s point guard. Think there will be a men-only version on-campus of how to deal with YMY?? (koff choke snicker snort)

  64. Jf12:

    WRT outlawing recording: Unauthorized or undisclosed recording of persons is currently restricted or criminalized. The issues would be whether undisclosed recording would be further restricted, or the penalties stiffened up (heh). I suspect that if (when) recording becomes more prevalent as a countermeasure to YMY, both might happen.

    So what will happen practically is that a lot of recordings will be “out there” but nothing will ever come of them; and no one will ever see them, because men will likely respond to accusations or threatened accusations with threats of disclosure of the evidence. “You accuse me of violating YMY, I’ll go public with the video evidence of our trysts.”

    The funny thing about YMY is that attractive men, the men women want to have sex with, will violate YMY all over the place. YMY will be a joke to them. But nothing will ever come of it, because women want sex with attractive men. So sure, YMY will catch a few cads, but only if there’s no video and only if she “wanted a relationship” or he “used her”.

    But as a practical matter, I just think that over the long arc of time, YMY will just further exacerbate the problems and push society further along current trends. I think you’ll see a lot more men drop out, or at a minimum, swear off conventional legal marriage. I think we’ll continue to see increasing age at first marriage (AAFM) for men and women; decreasing marriage rates, plummeting remarriage rates for men; alternative LTR arrangements for men and women; higher divorce rates; etc. It’s just going to take time to seep into the fabric of society once it’s woven into the threads. But we will see an impact as time goes on. So Rollo is correct to call YMY a “social initiative”.

  65. @deti, re: nonverbal.

    California Education Code Section 67386 does not explicitly say the consent must be explicitly verbal, and therefore it can be nonverbal. According to discussions, the edits were committee-made specifically to allow nonverbal without having to say nonverbal. Also, however, the same argument means there does not have to be explictly verbal asking. The potential accused is merely required to “ensure” consent (Section 1.(a)(1)) and to “ascertain” consent (1.(a)(2)(B)).

    Roughly speaking, PUAs can now get state funding to show college boys how to read IOIs from college girls.

  66. Section 67386(1)(a)(1) of the California Education Code states in pertinent part:

    “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”

    Let me point up: “Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent”.

    This is a pretty clear indicator that saying nothing, or manifesting nonverbal consent, is NOT consent.

    Even if I accept that a woman can manifest nonverbal consent, the woman can easily say after the fact: “but I never actually said “yes”. She can easily assert after the fact that “I didn’t intend to consent. He misread me.”

    If one claims that “nonverbal assent” is sufficient, then we’re really just back to “No Means No”, and this law is meaningless. I’m not so sure.

    If the legislature had intended to mean that nonverbal assent was sufficient, that should be in the law somewhere, in its plain language. But it doesn’t say that.

    (See, laws are intended to be read and understood by ordinary people, Joe and Jane Lunchpail, so that they can comprehend those laws and conform their conduct to those laws’ requirements. They’re not intended to be parsed over endlessly by lawyers, politicians, pundits, and pointy headed intellectuals. It shouldn’t require a law degree for a person to get through life without getting jammed up by incompetent administrators or overzealous LEOs.)

    So he is in the shit unless there is an EXPRESS, VERBAL assent to the “sexual activity”.

  67. Also, so far according to the text ofthe law as written, poking your wife repeatedly in the rear, in bed after some foreplay, is NOT necessarily unconsented-to behavior if your poking can, through your relationship history, be understood as a “reasonable step” to communicate your willingness and ableness and *readiness* to penetrate her, and thereby *intended* to ascertain her consent by ensuring she *will* respond, one way or the other, to your poking. I rest my case.

    “Oh, give it a rest, wouldja?” I can hear them whining from afar.

  68. FWIW deti, I agree essentially every single actual case will come down to her saying “I didn’t actually verbalize” and him saying “well yeah but she responded nonverbally”. As the lawmakers intended: this is exactly where they want women and men to battle adversarially.

    What I’m saying is that since this is being taught and sold to students as “nonverbal consent is ok”, so girls can eat their cake and then purge later, then necessarily “nonverbal ascertaining” is ok too.

  69. JF12 with an (unfortunate) fast food metaphor:

    “The primary reason that McDonald’s cannot hold your Happy Meal hostage until you fork over an extra $10 “service fee” for handing you the bag is NOT because they think you might say “Oh well, I’m not hungry anyway””

    Actually, indifference really can mean an actual loss of appetite. After a man figures out how to secure and manage his liaisons, he may well be truly indifferent to any woman prone to faux-dramatic LMR protestations. Reason: most women really aren’t that good in bed, and the hot ones perhaps inversely correlate looks with skill. In my case, I have to be pretty wound up to spend five minutes dealing with “I can’t believe I’m doing this I’m so not like this I never do this we should stop …” — while her bra and jeans are already on the floor.

    So a man (confronted with LMR histrionics) might truly think to himself “Fuck it, save the drama for the neighbor boy who will lose his shit at the sight of a pair of boobs, I’m out of here.” And say out loud, “You know, I think we’re on different planets sexually, I think I should leave.”

    The second, spoken thought just about guarantees an athletic effort by the woman to qualify herself. (Want to get laid? Tell an empowered SIW woman you doubt it will work out because she’s naive sexually. Don’t say “unskilled” or “lazy” or “boring”. Just suggest she’s behind the modern slut curve, or Indian sex goddess curve, or empowered sex pozzie feminist curve — and make sure there’s lots of lube in the house.)

    I think PUA thinking is more concerned with LMR strategies simply because PUAs overvalue sex per se. (I don’t know because I don’t know any PUAs.) I would no more ‘push through’ LMR in this world with a new woman than I would accept her invitation to play Russian roulette with her new .38 revolver. (Anyway, it’s not necessary to ‘push through’ when you can just call them on their bluffing, if you feel like it.)

    Again, your “I can get my meal across the street” outlook (dread or soft dread) may well be required in a marital or monogamous LTR situation. I did say to my date last night that perhaps we needed to separate our friendship from our sexual activity (we’re on different planets etc). She then aggressively qualified her interest in sexual activity.

  70. I wonder how all of this might affect the decisions of big-time college athletes? If I’m a high school senior deciding between going into the baseball minor leagues or playing college football would the former be more attractive because I wouldn’t have to deal with any of these campus codes/laws? Would enough players making similar decisions be enough to fuel legitimate non-college NFL and NBA farm programs?

  71. Something I’ve not done in dog’s years: took a look over at Aunt Sue’s on this topic. I did it so you don’t have to. Here is the takeaway –

    Actually they admit a grudging respect that a man is not totally off base in NEXTing after a display of LMR or a lack of enthusiasm – but that’s not good enough… so the mantra for all you entitle-men is:

    Hey boys! No means no, and we mean it, and you must obey us when we say it, but it doesn’t mean NEVER! I just said “not now”, not “never”! Come on!! Can’t you read my mind? Try again! Try again! Maybe next time it’ll be yes! Unless it isn’t! Call me! Call me! No wait don’t!

    You can’t make women be the ones who approach men!! That’s not what YMY means!! (ahem oh yes it does) That’s not fair!! Why should we have to do that? (ahem why isn’t it fair and indeed, now the only legal option?)

  72. That’s funny, Senator Fred Flange.

    “You can’t make women be the ones who approach men!! That’s not what YMY means!!”

    This is really just another warped outcome of the Brady Rule. The twisted hysterics of women shrieking their affirmative consent at the Tom Bradys, that is forthcoming, is just mind-boggling to imagine. A generation of Tom Bradys are going to have their dicks fall off from overuse before age 30.

  73. Let me point up: “Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent”.

    This is a pretty clear indicator that saying nothing, or manifesting nonverbal consent, is NOT consent.

    Even if I accept that a woman can manifest nonverbal consent, the woman can easily say after the fact: “but I never actually said “yes”. She can easily assert after the fact that “I didn’t intend to consent. He misread me.”

    If one claims that “nonverbal assent” is sufficient, then we’re really just back to “No Means No”, and this law is meaningless. I’m not so sure.

    I will give this the most positive spin possible – it is possible that, in the process of edits being made by hopefully leveler-heads, it was actually intended to re-craft the SJW-mandated statute to have only the teeth of ‘no means no’. They couldn’t scrap the statute (the SJW-mandated cry for it) – but they could de-fang it. And “Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent” could certainly be viewed through a lens that we’d all agree with – that you can’t take a blacked-out woman, drag her back to your dorm room, and fuck her. I would certainly call that ‘sexual assault’. The way the phrasing was edited, that may be all that is being assured here (now).

  74. Buena Vista – your comments in this thread are absolute GOLD. Every man should read them. Couldn’t agree more with you.

  75. Fred, BV:

    Susan and her commenters are just plain wrong on their reading of this law. It does not say what they believe it does. Contrary to what they’re talking about, it isn’t limited just to “penetration”. It isn’t “intended” solely to protect stupid, naive, drunk off their asses freshman girls from evil senior fraternity members. And it DOES NOT SAY that “nonverbal assent” is sufficient to comply with it. The law is much, much broader than that.

  76. Fred:

    Another thing the HUSsies are saying is “Guys have to escalate! We expect guys to escalate! It’s OK! So escalate! But only Hawt guys! Come on, guys! Can’t you just “get it”?”

    But under YMY, a man cannot escalate without risking running afoul of it. If he escalates, and she helps him slip off her panties, well, he’s probably OK. If he escalates and she doesn’t resist while he takes them off, he’s got a problem if she comes back later and says “but I never said “yes”.” Because: Lack of protest or resistance is not consent, nor is silence consent”.

    I don’t know how you get around this to say that “nonverbal assent” is sufficient; I just don’t.

    “You can’t make women be the ones who approach men!! That’s not what YMY means!!”

    “This is really just another warped outcome of the Brady Rule. The twisted hysterics of women shrieking their affirmative consent at the Tom Bradys, that is forthcoming, is just mind-boggling to imagine. A generation of Tom Bradys are going to have their dicks fall off from overuse before age 30.”

    Exactly. The less attractive guys drop out; the top men continue to clean up. That’s just how YMY is going to shake out.

  77. I do believe that YMY will create a ‘man drought’ here — per the situation in New Zealand now, where in many quarters women outnumber men 55-45, and women now claim 3x the number of sexual partners as American women do, and men complain that they are increasingly forced into premature or coerced sexual liaisons with their promiscuous females (!).

    Since being sexually active makes the modern girl cool, and YMY will remove cautious or inexperienced men from the market, roving bands of YMY nearly feral ‘consenters’ should be headed our way, competing for the opportunity to provide consent to whichever attractive man doesn’t flee on contact. YMY should make things berserk on the campus because even before YMY kicks in, women usually outnumber men significantly.

  78. Yes, to your point about ‘roving feral eager consenters’ BV – the further ‘aggressive-izing’, masculine-izing of women is exactly what these man-haters (man-enviers) want.

  79. Deti, I would say the most pernicious aspect of the modern campus ‘sexual assault’ regime is what you mention: ‘sexual assault’ now means everything from a whiny “why don’t you want to come home with me” to a failed good night kiss to actual sex under any circumstance, to forcible rape. (I await the case where a girl accuses someone of staring creepily at her at a dance, e.g., “Creepy-Guy eye-raped me!”)

    And of course, at UMich, threatening to leave a relationship, or withholding sex, is also ‘sexual assault.’ So we have a ‘negative liberty’ concept (things we may not deny a woman) taking hold with the SJW socio-sexual JWs.

    Since everything involved in meeting a strange woman is, or appears to be soon, illegal, I suspect the PUAs will dramatically up the ante from inveterate negging to outright, explicit, outrageous insults and denials of interest. Because Game will require women to very LOUDLY, and competitively, assert “consent.” The public sphere will degrade further, and men and women will be barking at each other like animals, to work through who has “a chance” and who has a chance of getting accused of sexual assault.

    This does have it’s amusing side — I did get a college girl/bartender to repeatedly juggle her tits the other night, by way of finding out if I was “cute” or just “creepy”. (Then she enlisted a friend of hers sitting at the bar to do same.) But man. Fellini-esque doesn’t begin to describe what’s coming. It will make the movie Idiocracy seem like a quaint documentary.

    The HUS commenters don’t understand markets and optionality, so they don’t realize they’re insisting on the option to characterize men as “cute” — or criminally creepy.

  80. I’d invite anyone from HUS to any open forum so we can hash this out.

    Susan and/or HUS commenters, please come here or to any other open forum, and please show me where Section 67386 of the California Education Code “clearly” says that “nonverbal assent” is sufficient.

    Please explain to me how this law still allows for men to escalate.

    Please explain to me how this statement is incorrect or inaccurate: “YMY really just means that attractive men get to violate this law with impunity because they are attractive; but less attractive men have to run the risks of violating it because they are less attractive”.

    Because, folks, that is precisely what YMY does — it encourages cads and players to push through and past it. It encourages the use of Game tactics.

    This is an honest, genuine request that any supporter of YMY anywhere explain where I’m wrong.

    (J2.0: Hi, by the way. I know it’s only a matter of time before you follow me here.)

  81. Deti – the whole point is to leave it in a state of being nebulous and unclear. What I hear you asking for is for some path, some way of going about any remotely sexual encounter, that would leave a man assured that – if he followed the letter of said ‘law’ – he’d have nothing to worry about…

    The whole point is: they specifically *aim* to deny you any such peace of mind. They will not explicate a ‘assuredly legal’ way forward, because they do not want you to be assured of non-wrongdoing. No matter what.

  82. Steve H is correct, and agrees and amplifies what Badpainter has been saying all along: “they do not want you to be assured of non-wrongdoing.”

    But, confidence is key. This is how the law still allows men to escalate: nonverbally *ascertaining* consent by confidently *provoking* a definite response as a tool for *ensuring* consent (or not …). Be the tool. Be the dipstick.

  83. “This is how the law still allows men to escalate: nonverbally *ascertaining* consent by confidently *provoking* a definite response as a tool for *ensuring* consent (or not …). Be the tool. Be the dipstick.”

    No. The girl can always come back later and say “But I never actually said ‘yes’. He misread me. He misunderstood me. I did not give affirmative, conscious and VOLUNTARY agreement to what he did to me.” The “definite response” you’re talking about is her helping you undress her, or her raising her hips so you can slip her panties off. But this doesn’t get you all the way there either. This is perhaps conscious and voluntary, but is not “affirmative”. Anything less than a verbal consent is too ambiguous under this law.

    So in practice, the alpha attractive men proceed as before, and regularly violate YMY. The less attractive men violate it too, and will be at much, much greater risk of being brought up on charges.

    It is fine to say that nonverbal assent to sex is OK, because actually, that’s the way most assent (overt or covert) is given. But it is not good to say that SEction 67386 “clearly” states that nonverbal assent is sufficient, because THIS LAW DOES NOT SAY THAT. ANYWHERE.

  84. “There is an old trick that you ostracize, you ridicule, you isolate, and you keep repeating. These are…rules that are well known to people that have read certain books…yes, that would be Alinsky.” -Dr. Ben Carson

  85. Good news the crime of rape longer exists in an objective legal sense. Rape is now at the whim and imagination of any individual woman. Maybe this is bad news. Either way we men are now free to assume most rapes never happened in our objective reality, but only in the heads of the ladies as a result of feels. In other words this is no longer our problem, at least not collectively.

    Further the YMY law and certainly it’s soon to be antecedents will make all men “rapists” as opposed to the few rapists. Which has perverse benefit of giving all men an incentive to push through LMR, and redefine “no.” It’s better to damned for actually doing when you’ll be damned either way.

  86. Uh, no. The crime of rape (nonconsensual penetration, no matter how slight) very much exists. The penalty for rape is multifaceted and dire. Sexual battery is any nonconsensual touching and although not as penalized as the crime of rape, prison and lifetime monitoring would be in your future.

    YMY changes what constitutes consent. Your attorney may try to parse the new YMY rules to characterize her enthusiastic implied nonverbal cues as step-wise affirmative consent, but you would have a rather uphill burden of proof. Better to get her to sign a presex agreement where you both initial consent to each phase of sex in advance.

    It’s a matter of probabilities. How many men escalating in the same manner as you will be later accused of rape or sexual battery? 1%? 5%? Your expectation of arrest, trial, conviction, prison, and lifetime monitoring for this one episode would be this 1% or 5%. Or if you have a high partner count, your chances that only one of the girls may have second thoughts even years later increases dramatically. You must ask yourself whether having sex is worth ruining your life forever.

    There is no way to play this game so it is not possible to lose. Getting lucky will take on a whole new meaning: not only getting to have sex, but also not being arrested afterwards for it.

  87. @ Buena Vista

    “You know, I think we’re on different planets sexually, I think I should leave.”

    The implication is that she doesn’t arouse you enough to hold your interest despite her resistance. And women most want to be desired by sexually desirable men.

  88. Yes.

    All this seemingly futile effort to logically parse this law are in fact futile.
    The only logic that makes sense is that it serves to “remove all limitations on women’s sexuality while maximally restricting men’s sexuality”.

    But I do appreciate the analyses of how this will play out in practice, and the take homes of how to navigate the SMP with the policy in place.

Speak your mind

%d bloggers like this: