Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Mod Edit: This thread is R-rated. That means anyone below 18 years old should NOT read the following posts. Viewer discretion is advised.

Well, deleting the profile did annoy me, until I realized I still have the CYSbackup and just copy pasted it from there lol.

And the points themselves, as well as the commendations, have stopped meaning anything since the point they started being given out like candy. I know the prevailing opinion is that JJJ was a massive faggot, but if there's anything I agree with him on it was the whole "don't commend a post just cause it's a snappy humourous response".

And it's hilarious if people are still butthurt about me without me doing anything. I've stated several times I like the site and have decided to keep unironic "the painter was right" posting for my other communities, given the prevailing reception here has been negative.

Iirc the deletion was because of an incel link on your profile which would be bad if members stumbled upon (and you obviously knew well enough not to add that back), so let the record show that there was no mod abuse in that case.

If you equate "incel" with "well meaning book intended to help people find love" then sure, it's incel content.

You are giving me far too much credit with "knowing well enough", the CYS backup I copy pasted did not include it lol.

But thank you for proving much of the book true with the emotional reaction to it without even reading it. Yes, telling people to hit the gym, get their shit in order, take responsibility for their lives and not blame others, as well as learn to socialize is "incel content".

Don't think this is the thread for that though.

I might be misremembering but wasn't it a google drive link? I also remember clear and conclusive photographic evidence of a certain discord server that was enough to lower my opinion of you considerably (which I didn't think would happen given the friendly conversations we used to have in the past). But you're right that this isn't the thread for it so there is nothing more I'll say on this matter.

Remember, it's always important to keep the female's self esteem low.

You are free to point where in the book it says that, but let me save you the time and effort because you won't find that. The only thing you can find is me explicitly advising *against* such things.

Okay, you got me there. You did say some questionable things directly, but the low self esteem thing is just a meme about one of the sycophants on your server.





So while I'm against certain mods wiping profiles just for lols, the deletion of the server link you had in yours was imo justified. We wouldn't want our kids exposed to that kind of thing, it's almost as bad as cyberbullying!

That is a certain member who proposes things I disagree with, and which DO fall under the kind of things you've mentioned.

I challenge you to find any reference to "manipulating women's fragile emotions for your gain" in the stuff I have written. You won't. But it's much easier to just decide the nazi is a manipulator as well rather than read. I forgot we don't do that on this site.

Oh, we have the exact screenshot of the page, so I suggest not doubling down. For the sake of the children here I would prefer not to have to post it.

You are free to send it to my DMs, which I've requested.

The last thing I want is to DM you. 

Lol.

What the fuck lol

I'm going to send this to my girlfriend.

I'm going to reset your profile because Elric Alphonse is actually a great character, and you're disgracing him after I was forced to read your book in which you emotionally manipulate fat chicks with low self esteem to hop up and down on your tooth pick dick to break.

You're unironically a repulsive human being for a shoot!

It's not even a work! 
 

Edit: Lel. Done.

Well okay she did do that one.

Looks like she gave you the points too using my style. So congrats?

He still has the backup!

And 500 points of hush money?

Thara, is this what they call tsundere?

I'd rather not be any sort of dere in regards to Cel.

That's Edward. Alphonse is his brother who... uhh.. I don't really want to spoil Fullmetal Alchemist for anyone so I'll just say that they are both great characters.

I've gotten my brothers mixed up!

Fuck! 

Is butthurt at Sent for no reason eons later

 

Is complaining about mod abuse 

 

Having asked several times for examples of dreadful incel woman-hating garbage I supposedly preach, and having not received any, I figured I would correct the record on what it is I actually teach men to do. I set a timer for 15 minutes (to not go overboard with the autism, which probably happened anyway) and got about ~40% of the way in by randomly cropping excerpts from the pages that directly prove everything said so far wrong.

If anyone wants to check the veracity of the writings for themselves, well I'm sure Ace can provide you with those. Or you can ask me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And because I know nobody on this website can fucking read apparently, I made sure to highlight the most relevant parts in red.

Obviously, these are disjointed and fragmented, but I trust you can figure out where one excerpt ended and another began.

Everything written in that book must be very bad, right? Nobody on this website would ever make unfounded accusations without reading. That's what we do on this website, read, right?
So let's see what the mysoginistic incel is recommending people to do in these excerpts.

- Preaches authenticity (x1).
- Tells people to improve for their own sake, not to get women.
- Gives hygiene, grooming, fashion tips.
- Tells people to work on their own mental problems before going for a relationship.
- Recommends well received self-help books for people who may need it.
- Gives various other mental and social tips.
- Preaches authenticity (x2).
- Tells people to own up to their mistakes, not blame others, and take responsibility.
- Recommends various lifestyle changes with the goal of making them healthier.
- Encourages readers that they are not broken for needing assistance, and tells them that they are not inferior.
- Encourages personality over thinking "bitches only go for money and/or chad".
- Tells them not to base their self-worth on others' opinions.
- Preaches authenticity (x3) and tells them not to fake.
- Teaches that you don't need to be perfect, but rather human, and that looking for "the perfect approach" is futile.
- Tells the reader to relax, have fun, and treat the other person as a human, not looking at dating as a strategy game and women as the enemy.
- Advises that you cannot maintain a healthy long term relationship (which is the goal of the book) as long as you are stuck thinking in that way.
- Explains why some people are consistently disliked despite not actually doing anything wrong (and based on the target audience, this likely applies to the reader).
- Teaches the above-mentioned people the unspoken social rules of interactions which "should be obvious" but are very much not to autists.
- Recommends more well known self-help books for those people.
- Tells you to never bad-mouth friends, exes, family, or anyone the reader is in contact with. 
- Explains carefully why full-on "me man, me no share emotion with stoopid woman" is wrong, and will not lead to a fulfilling relationship.
- Teaches instead how to carefully share your doubts and vulnerabilities in a way that can only be positive for the both of you.
- Recommends honesty, truth, and handling pressure.
- Explains how to handle arguments and fights in a way that is more productive than yelling, teaches to work together as a team, and that the first step is not "who is correct" but rather making up and fixing it together.
- Explains that society is judgemental towards women who have casual sex.
- Teaches readers to not be judgemental or jealous, and understand that sex is completely normal.
- Tells the reader to respect the girl as a person and respect her privacy, rather than bragging about his conquests.
- Explains that the reader must make his intentions known early on if he's after a relationship, lest the girl consider him as only a friend, and have them both end up in a situation neither want to be in.
- Advises readers how to recognize if a girl is interested or not, and not waste their time (and the girl's) on "we're definitely going out next week, I'll let you know".
- Preaches maintaining honesty, trust, respect in all interactions and all kinds of relationships.
- Tells the reader to own up to his mistakes and apologize if he really did make a mistake, but not bend over unnecessarily to the slightest pressure.
- Advises setting firm boundaries with everyone and not be a pushover.
- Explains that relationships require consistent effort, and that they're not a slot machine you can fill up and forget about.
- Says to give compliments based on personality, not tits or ass.
- Teaches autists how to have conversations in a more interesting way.
- Gives people confidence by instilling in them the mindset that they are the great catch.
- Preaches authenticity (x4) when approaching women, openly stating their intentions and taking rejection in stride.
- Refers to dating as something you should be enjoying yourself during, not following formulas and canned pick-up lines.
- Once again says not to shift responsibility and take actions to fix your life.
- Advises against agreeing with a girl just to get her to like you. Once again preaches authenticity (x5) and setting firm boundaries.
- Once again says not to be possessive or jealous, and preaches letting the other person in the relationship grow as a person, rather than stifling them and/or keeping them dependent on you, as seems to be implied by some here.
- Explicitly advises against manipulations tactics he's being accused of, such as negging. Instead teaches playful banter in a way that autists will understand.
- Preaches taking care of people close to the reader, treating everyone well, telling them not to put others down but bring them up instead. 
- Says to always defend the people dear to you, such as friends or family, and do small acts of kindness for your partner consistently.
- Tells the reader to keep a positive mindset and not let themselves be shaken up by others.
- Advises not to let yourself go in a relationship, instead advises consistent self-improvement.

And so on and so forth in the rest of the book.

Well this is EVIDENTLY pure evil that children should not be exposed to. Why it's nearly on the level of genocide! What a woman-hating misogynistic bastard the writer is, fuck him completely. 
Him and his manipulation of "work on yourself, have fun during dates rather than relying on canned lines, and treat the other person as a human".

 

This thread is R-rated. Children, please stay away from this thread. There is a reason I'm using the hosting site you cannot normally access.

Ace will post more later, but let me start with this gem of a page about how consent shouldn't matter. Apparently if a woman says no, you have to keep touching her until she gives you access to her.



To cite my source, this is lesson 13, body language and escalation part 2, of Cel's "book". Apparently it wasn't added to the incomplete formatted pdf version but on a separate file, I wonder why. 

Edit: Lesson 14, part three, is equally as bad and I genuinely want to bleach my eyes. I shall not be looking any further than these two pages, but Celicni, I hope you will have enough common sense to see that these are not the words of a woman-respecting man.

There's this very minor issue that I also cannot access whatever hosting site you've chosen, to actually see wtf you're referring to, as I don't believe I've ever written consent doesn't matter. Stated very much the opposite in fact, near the end of the same lesson.

If you get a "firm" no, obviously back away and show her you understand her limits.

I can only make vague guesses you are referring to me explaining the difference between a "nooooo" and a "no!"

You have your own documents, just look up the section on 'limits' under part 13 and the 'scapegoat method' on part 14.

I did, and have responded, with a sentence that literally proves what you've said is wrong. Apparently me blatantly stating "guys if you get a firm no back away" means I don't respect constent.

Is this before or after you've pulled your cock out during the makeout sesh?

Goodness sake, do you want me to go full lawyer mode right now? It's hilarious you're talking about cherry picking when that one line contradicts pretty much everything else.
 

What do I mean when I say that the only limits that matter are hers? I mean that until you get a "no" (doesn't have to be verbal and often isn't), you keep escalating more and more. If she's okay with being touched, touch her more. If she's okay with being touched a lot, try and kiss her. If she's okay with being kissed, slide your hands down her back to her ass. If she's fine with being fondled, touch her under clothes. If she's fine with all of that then get her to your place, strip her, and fuck her.

This explicitly tells the reader to go beyond the limits of what the woman has consented to. I'm pretty sure that could be criminalized as rape in some parts of the world.

 

It is important to note that a "no" isn't a *final* no. As long as the two of you are together and you keep escalating, she'll slowly be getting accustomed to you and will let you do more and more stuff to her. The limit of "no" will very quickly move to a higher level. More on this will be said in a future lesson where we will learn how to deal with **last minute resistance** (LMR).

(...)

It is also important to note **the difference between a "nooooooo" and a "NO!"**. If she's saying no but her body is saying yes and you can tell she is into what's happening then keep going. She just doesn't want to "be a whore" and "give it up easily". If you get a "firm" no, obviously back away and show her you understand her limits. In the example above my girl liked me but didn't want to be kissed so soon and I knew it. It was not a "let's just be friends" no, it was a "not yet" no.

Dude, any "no" means no. It doesn't matter how it is said or what your own interpretation of the situation is. A lot of times, the reason women don't push back if the guy is being very pushy/ aggressive is out of fear for her life. Do you know that in a lot of rape cases, women lubricate as a fear response? Well of course not, that would require you to think of women as actual humans instead of inanimate sex objects.

That one line does not contradict anything else lol. Any man with any amount of experience knows that no does not always mean no, but it is important to know when it actually does. I teach both things.

This explicitly tells the reader to go beyond the limits of what the woman has consented to.

>Paragraph is a statement of if thens, "if she's okay with level 1 try for level 2", "if she's okay with level 2 try for level 3" and so on until you get a no.

Mystic, I assumed you possessed reading comprehension, but perhaps I was wrong? You're asian so you're probably able to code at a minimal level, insert some pseudocode similar to this and see if it's going to run the "then" part (proceed to a higher level) if the "if" part isn't satisfied (if she's okay with the current level).

I mean, you're obviously arguing in bad faith, but if you're going to receive a clear verbal or nonverbal "no." Then push again because you think the goalposts have moved, that is not respecting consent. The limits for "no" very well might be moving out of fear, and even if it isn't, it's pretty morally bankrupt to continue fishing for an opening after recieving a no

If you're going to receive a clear verbal or nonverbal "no"

Proceed to read one post above where it's said "if you get a firm no, back off".

See, that's not how it works fuckwit. The subsequent paragraph saying if you're still together to escalate after the clear "no," is the idea under scrutiny

The point I'm trying to make is that any "no" is a firm no. There's no need to make the woman repeat herself because you're too idiotic to get it the first time.

I get that it's in levels, but if she has consented to being kissed, that is all she has consented to, nothing more. Therefore the next act would be going beyond the limit. Go back to primary school and brush up on your reading comprehension.

My experience, the experience of many men I know irl, the experience of many people online, and the experience of probably any man who's had more than 2 or 3 women in their life will confirm to many instances of a girl saying "nooo" in a nonchalant way, and then proceeding to enthusiastically hook up with you later. Yes, ENTHUSIASTICALLY.

So no, not every no is a firm no. You can literally walk into the first club near you and witness with your own eyes that to not he true.

I don't particularly care for what the incel community has to say about this matter.

I'm sure it is much easier to label every single man that has walked into a club as an "incel" rather than admitting you're overreacting emotionally to stuff that people don't want to bring up in public, because it's "socially inconvenient".

Coercion doesn't stop being coercion if it happens to wrk. And yes, it is socially inconvenient to pander to bonafide sexual predators

How are you on a writing website if you cannot read the word "ENTHUSIASTICALLY" up above? Whether you're intentionally being obtuse or are genuinely medically sight impaired I do not know.

Yes. "ENTHUSIASTICALLY" is the incidental success that I am referring to. For someone calling people out for intentionally misreading, you are doing a lot of intentional misreading

If it happens one time it's incidental success.

If it happens enough times to form a pattern, it's not incidental.

Are you doing some autistic thing where you're looking at the sentence and only engaging with the word incidentally or are you arguing that "higher percent success = morally conscionable?"

The point being that if she is not enthusiastically saying yes every step of the way, you should stop. It is not appropriate to push until you get an emphatic "no". If you have any doubt that what you are doing is unwanted, you should stop.

And have I not established that after the "noooo", there have been countless situations of that simply being a test, and a lot of very much enthusiastic yes-ing happening afterwards? I did not have any doubts what I am doing is unwanted, so we're in agreement, yes?

No. If you are making advances on someone and they say "noooooo", you stop. If they were only playing, they will ask why you stopped, and you can state that they said no and that establishes a boundry. You can continue to say that if she wants to continue you want to as well, but you didn't want to risk misinterpreting her. Then everyone knows that if she says no it's a hard no for the rest of the relationship/encounter. Don't treat sex like some kind of scenario to be gamed. Act like adults and have a clear discussion.

Yeah I'm sure that's the socially acceptable scenario. Everyone wants to pretend that everyone is perfectly rational and able to have such discussions.

Yet many men will end up following such advice and get absolutely nowhere because people don't actually bring out consent forms in real life.

Right. Backing off of someone gives you an ambiguous "nooooo" is a real Kafkaesque nightmare. Perhaps if you get "nowhere" without having to ignore a woman giving a "no" of any description, the problem is with you

Who said anything about consent forms? Have a conversation. Make it clear that she is in control of the situation and that you are rational and in control of yourself.

Yes, some men may wind up having to wait longer to have sex. Or perhaps they can use that time to talk with and actually get to know the women they are interested in beyond a primary goal of ejaculation. You know, show them that the guy really is respectful and interested in more than just a quick rub-and-tug. So that both people are genuinely interested in each other and are enthusiatic about having sex.

Also, if you aren't in control of yourself enough to be able to stop when told to, you are more likely to be a two-pump chump due to that lack of self-control. It's better for everyone if you can reign it in.

Who said anything about consent forms?

Anthraxus, you're on a writing website, you know what hyperbole is.

Have a conversation. Make it clear that she is in control of the situation and that you are rational and in control of yourself.

This is a fine theoretical idea... if the two of you are silently sitting at her house.

Good luck doing it at a club.

Are you fondling her at club? Are you fucking her at the club? Well, you probably are doing the first, and would try the second, although you shouldn't do either. You know what you are doing at the club? Talking. If you can be appealing via discussion enough to get her to go somewhere with you, you can keep the conversation going long enough to talk about stopping when you hear a no.

"Guys will touch a girl, get a seemingly negative response (non-verbal "no"), then get all wimpy and give up. They think the game is over, but the game is just getting started."

Yes, that's when you stop. And it's not wimpy to stop here, it's good manners.

It's not just good manners. It's morally mandatory

Even if we do assume that there are some "no"s you can push past(and I have a lot of issues with that initial assertion that Mystic has already covered in her arguments, so I won't repeat them here), how do you know the guys you're teaching will actually internalize that message? By your own admission, it requires a level of social intelligence and awareness that guys who are coming for advice may not possess. So won't spreading this kind of message be problematic since guys will take it as carte-blanche to not listen to women and to just automatically assume they know better? I mean sure you exhaustively list a bunch of signs and signals to parse through, but it's all predicated on the assumption that you have to lead the encounter while the woman is a passive participant. I think that kind of thinking is dangerous because ideally, you should get enthusiastic consent, and the protocols you are teaching are not about obtaining enthusiastic consent since you wouldn't have to be so neurotic and protocol-driven if you had enthusiastic consent. You're operating on the assumption that women initially don't want to have sex, and that men have to persuade women, which takes away the agency from the women you're trying to pursue and it also makes it more likely that she's not actually into it and she wants you to go away because you're being too pushy.

Also, if she's saying no, whether "noooooo" or "no!", just back off completely regardless and talk to someone else.

I'm very much not "operating on the assumption that women don't want to have sex". Come on man, it's circled in red up above that I say the exact same thing.

That said you're the first one showing some signs of reading comprehension by correctly identifying the "nooooo" vs "no!" difference, and are actually the first one to pose an actual argument not addressed in the text.

That being that the autists who need this sort of guidance would likely have issues identifying the difference between the two.

And I do have to say you're right about that, I try my best to explain the difference in various parts of the book, but that's certainly something that can theoretically happen. I give you that one.

My bad, I didn't look through the actual pictures. That's a fair point.

I think my main thing is, why game the system at all. Like, won't it be stressful to remember 50 different things, and try to approach women like an algorithm? And I guess, why have levels for "nos"? Why not just take the first no and then abort mission, not go for a second attempt?

Then how about looking at the actual pictures, because "treating women like an algorithm" is something I also explicitly advise AGAINST, and have also circled in red?

Ok, I looked at the pictures more closely, and I will give you that there's good advice in there(going to the gym, respecting people, respecting yourself, etc...). But the major issue I have is with the screenshots posted by Mystic and where you start being called an incel because you're assuming things about women that real life women(Mystic) have told you is not true in their experience. I also think that this line,

"As the man in the relationship, you need to be "at fault" for sex, and you need to lead her to it. If the girl was down for everything immediately but you stopped at just a kiss, she will be disappointed, and you'll be a sucker."

is problematic, because even if the next line says

"escalating until you receive pushback, then back off and **show her you understand her limits**.",

you're still assuming that girls will be disappointed if you stop because she said no. She won't be disappointed and you won't be a sucker because the encounter should be over the moment either one of the parties does not wish to continue.

Sure, rejection sucks but this way, you're respecting the woman's consent in the matter and you're halting the moment she says no.

I don't think the "man" in the relationship needs to be "at fault for sex", and the way that you phrase it is reminiscent of incel/alpha male line of thought, which is why we're saying that you're teaching incel and incel-adjacent ideologies.

I think both parties should proceed together at a pace they're comfortable with, and you don't need to assume that women don't want to have sex until you persuade them otherwise using the system outline above. That kind of thinking is what I have an issue with.

And referring to women as "mid", "uggos", and "fatties" is rude and demeaning, not to mention sexist.

Brother how does the line "if the woman was down for everything immediately" in your mind get transferred to "one of the parties does not wish to continue"?

I won't deny the assertion I'm rude and demeaning. That's known.

It sounds like you're genuinely trying to help a lot of guys by telling them to go to the gym, but the dating stuff is really messed up. And you're creating harm for women because I think that a system where you have to prepare protocols to engage women is flawed and that it's better instead to get to know someone and socialize in a more wholesome way. Going into any encounter with an end goal in mind is going to put someone in the position where they overlook "no"s and signs of discomfort, and that's where you have to back off, right from the first rejection because that's being polite and it's the right thing to do.

And for the line "if she's down for everything", then there's no issue about consent. She never said no to begin with. But I'm talking about the scenarios where she wasn't okay with what was happening, said no(in both cases of "nooooo" and "no!"), and you advised to back off and try again. I think just back off and leave her alone is the right answer 100 percent of the time.

I most definitely am genuinely trying to help a lot of guys. Primarily guys who are similar to the way I was as a teen.

You are free to think however you want, but consider if "getting to know someone in a more wholesome way" worked for the person, would they need the advice?

And I think this is the third time where I have to point you to the red highlighted text above where I explicitly say that your only end goal in mind should be fun.

You're the one not reading his message. RK rightfully pointed out the inherent inconsistency in your statement. You wrote "If the girl was down for everything immediately" then followed it with the modifier "escalating until you receive pushback". If there is pushback, that means she wasn't down for everything in the first place. And receiving pushback literally means that one of the parties does not wish to continue.

Do I need to go rules lawyer now to point that the first sentence has a continuation you omitted, and the second is not literally 100% related to it?

If she's down for everything and you stop at a hug she'll be disappointed.

If she's down for a kiss, and you stop at a hug, she'll be disappointed.

If she's down for just a hug, you stop there. If you receive pushback to anything more than that (a kiss for example) and you determine it to be serious, you stop there.

 

It's very telling that you focus more on the syntactic arguments than the ones concerning the substance of your "book". 

If you attack the words I've written, I'll rebuke you with the words I've written.

If you want to talk about the substance and the greater picture like rk did, I'll respond with something other than copy pasting disclaimers I've written specifically because this is a very messy topic that requires such disclaimers.

Like his assertion that the people that need the book will likely not have the social calibration to determine where the limit is? Valid.

You taking sentences out of context when in the next paragraph or two I write "except for when this doesn't apply"? Not so.

Well then, deal with the post right below this one.

Edit: well now it's the post below Mousecore's if you're going to be pedantic about words. And I would like to see you attempt to respond to Ace's post.

Well that's probably why he's splitting hairs over critiques on one-off sentences in his "book" but not very interested in responding to you outright posting entire paragraphs right from the text about how it's okay to "rapidly escalate" and basically sexually assault girls for "practice" for the ones you're "actually interested" in.

Your extra clarifier of "and you determine it to be serious" is one of the core issues with what you are saying. You are leaving the door open for any following your advice to be biased in how serious they value any kind of "no" provided.

Which RK has already stated and I concur I have no rebuttal to. It is on anyone reading this not to be retarded enough to actually rape a girl.

I'm relieved you're conceding that this is a real issue, but I'm really confused by your apparent willingness to throw up your arms and say "shucks, you got me on that one point!" as if it's not a massive problem that undermines literally everything remotely good you've said.

You say it's not your responsibility to make sure your readers don't rape a girl. Except it is your responsibility. You made it your responsibility when you wrote a self-help book on sex and advertised yourself as an expert. The people reading your work believe you that you are an expert on determining consent, and more importantly, they believe that to become an expert on determining consent, all they need to do is read your book. If your book does not actually teach this expertise, you are absolutely responsible for the harm done by people who read your book, then decide they believe they know what a real "no" is, when they don't.

Having seen some of the posts lower down, I want to add: you seem to think that if your partner is chill with it after the sex, it retroactively justifies everything that happened. That's not at all true for several reasons:

A) People are different: For a variety of reasons, some people actually do like and want the boundary-pushing you advocate. However this is NOT even remotely true of all people. Just because a specific person was okay with something you did, that doesn't mean the behavior itself was acceptable. Maybe your partners have all genuinely liked your behavior. I don't know. I hope so. But nothing about your behavior left room for you to identify whether or not they would, beyond just an extremely fallible judgment call on your end. The exact behavior that you're describing from yourself is rape in a situation where you've made the slightest misjudgment of your partner's wants.

B) As others have already pointed out, passive acceptance during sex, and even retroactive approval is not enough to determine whether a person actually wanted something. People can freeze up from anything from mortal fear to just social awkwardness, and go along with something they DON'T want to do. And if they do that during sex, they'll do it afterward too. They might feel the need to do it for years. If you put the onus entirely on your partner to forcefully stand up for themselves before you'll respect their boundaries, you are not respecting their boundaries. You're stomping all over them.

C) You seem to think if a person enjoys the sex, that means they wanted it and consented. But people sometimes have practical goals that go against their physical desires. If a person really wants to eat a chocolate cake, but is trying to stick to a no chocolate diet for personal reasons, you are an asshole if you keep offering them the cake. Systemmatically wearing someone down until they "voluntarily" give up on their own boundaries is sexual harrassment at best, and in many cases just plain rape.

Others on the thread will definitely call me naive for saying this, but your posts come across as more "extremely stupid" than "intentionally evil" to me. There is some genuinely good self-help advice in the screenshots you've posted, and I guess I believe that this is all some very misguided attempt to help struggling people gain confidence. That's a good goal. But holy shit, any good stuff here is MASSIVELY outweighted by the encouragement of boundary pushing, sexism, gaslighting, and basic respect for your partner's agency in setting and communicating their own limits. By sending this message out there, and the way you've described yourself as interacting with your partners, you are setting yourself up to do FAR more harm than good. And you probably already have.

Gryphon, being one of the rare few people on this site I respect and whose opinion I care for deep down (despite me allegedly hating all trans people), I have taken your post to heart. So I want to address this part.

Others on the thread will definitely call me naive for saying this, but your posts come across as more "extremely stupid" than "intentionally evil" to me.

If it's "extremely stupid" we're gonna have to agree to disagree, but why the fuck would I be intentionally evil and/or malicious? Are the "Others on the thread " actually children who see everything as black and white? Do they think a person they disagree with is a moustache twirling villain, rather than simply seeing the world in a different way?

Anyway, no, I am not actively malicious, and given it's you that also seem to have disagreement with the content, and not some PMS'd up woman bitching, I will take your post to heart, and rework and/or remove the 1% everyone seems to be in arms about.

Thank you for a productive response.

People are reacting pretty strongly because the philosophy you've been very seriously and passionately advocating has *directly* caused immense pain and suffering to many. I'll concede that my using terms like "extremely stupid" and "intentionally evil" was inflammatory, and I could have phrased that better. But I want to impress that getting up in arms is a very normal thing for people to do when someone advocates a philosophy that describes them or their friends as illogical or unable to handle their own decision-making, and encourages others to manipulate them and flagrantly disrespect their agency. At times like that, protecting and defending oneself and one's friends becomes a much more important priority than thinking carefully about the other side's nuanced and complex motivations.

I really respect your willingness to reconsider your position in light of criticism and new ideas. A lot of people would just double down and turn a blind eye to new perspectives, and I'm glad you're remaining open. I hope you keep thinking about what everyone here is saying, and wish you the best.

However, I really do not appreciate your describing my good friends expressing their very reasonable and largely well-argued points as "PMS'd up", among other things.

Ah, it seems you've been banned since I last checked the thread. Well, best of luck going forward.

"PMS'd up woman bitching"
:(

I suppose all the men in this thread were having "sympathy PMS?"

Jeez. That's what the cramps were?

I wasn't going to weigh in, but this whole 'firm no' thing is quite disturbing.

I've just looked up rejection killings, of which there are a lot. Though to be fair, even one is too many.

Fight. Flight. Fawn. Freeze.

A 'Noooo...' could just as easily fall into the fawn part. There is a lot of violence towards women. Is a seemingly uncertain no always going to be a response to being faced with someone who could turn violent if outright rejected? Maybe not. But I sure as heck wouldn't trust someone who kept aggressively pushing boundaries to know the difference.

Would you prefer to talk about physically harassing women that you have no interest in dating, then? And because you don't care about getting with her, the whole point to is disturb women with unwanted sexual interactions as a way to 'practice', by continually kissing her if she turns away and so on.
 

Recall back to lesson #9 and **getting into the zone state**. Something I mentioned there is the **scapegoat** or the **sacrificial lamb** technique. When you just get into the club/party/whatever social event, you find a girl you are **not interested in** (by this I mean mid, not uggos/fatties). You talk to her to unplug the social part of yourself, and then you **touch and escalate with her** until you get a "no" so that you unplug the kinetic part of yourself. Since you're not interested in this girl you are free to be very bold and **rapidly escalate**, grabbing her ass quickly. If she's down for it, you may just decide to stick with her. If not, doesn't matter because now you're ready to approach the girls you really like.

And speaking of **rapid escalation**, what is that exactly? Simply put it is an advanced form of escalation that you use when your goal is just to fuck as soon as possible. You touch her more and more until you get the first "no", then back off for just a little tiny bit, **keeping her at the upper boundary of tension**. For example, if you go to kiss her, and she turns her head around, you kiss her on the neck. If she tries moving you away, you have already moved away by the time she does it.

You try esscalating again very soon afterwards, with way less a pause than you usually would. While you're touching her, you let yourself be as sexual as possible. You tell her what it is that attracted you to her, how much she turns you on, how you feel she's wild in bed, stuff like that. The connection between the two of you is minimal, just enough that she feels safe fucking you. Get her to understand that you're a normal guy and that the two of you want the same things.

If that isn't clear enough, there's also this:
 

Finally, don't **overdo touching/kissing** like you're a horny teenager. Remember, we're here to fuck her. If you keep making out with her the entire night/date, grabbing her, keeping the tension up but not actually fucking her, the "intensity" may go away, and she will be a lot less down to fuck. Touch her, grab her, kiss her, but then either isolate and fuck her or back away and leave her wanting more.

Gotta grab that ass quick!

Another old lady in Serbia who is moments away from losing her license needs to finish the job.

InCel's been real quiet since this dropped.

physically harassing women that you have no interest in dating

Now who said you "have no interest in dating" her? I specifically say "not uggos/fatties", because those would obviously be the women one has "no interest in dating".

I then proceed to say "If she's down for it, you may just decide to stick with her". Yes, with her. I've had a relationship from this, it was okay, lasted a month, split up for reasons completely unrelated to our initial encounter.

And if she's not down for it, you have an issue with me advising to move on from the first girl if she isn't interested? I thought you wanted me to respect her wishes. Or would you like me to advise they keep on annoying the girl, even if she's not interested?

How exactly is it you want the encounter to proceed?

If she's down, you're down.

If she's not, you move on to the next girl.

Where is the issue?

By continually kissing her if she turns away

Well now, add the important missing word there. She doesn't want a kiss on the mouth, so you try the neck. Maybe she wants that? And then if she doesn't, you don't do that either.

At no point do I go "straight up ignore her wills and desires", which you keep implying, which we've already determined I've distanced myself from several times. In fact in the same paragraph I say " If she tries moving you away, you have already moved away by the time she does it". Ta-dah, her wills and desires have been respected.

Still the only argument against any of this is the one proposed by RK, which is fair, and I have no rebuttal to it other than those guys having a skill issue.

Your words were literally "find a girl you are **not interested in**" so I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue with your first point.

I get that you struggle with social cues, but if someone doesn't want a kiss on the mouth, they most likely don't want one on the neck either. And don't go for a kiss if she isn't comfortable with it in the first place. The thing is, you seem to think the answer is always "yes" unless she's proven otherwise (and even then, you need her to keep insisting before you take a hint). That's a terrible assumption because it leads to things like your example of groping a woman before she's even had the chance to fend you off.

A man can find more than one woman attractive. He may not have interest in her initially, but as he spends time with her, gets to know her and yes, hooks up with her, he will become more interested. Again, mid vs ugly.

Mystic, I can only assume you've never experienced escalating with a woman, so please do tell me what is your exact method to know when "she is comfortable with it"?

In other sections I mention the "triangle look", or is that also too "no-consent" for you? Did every single pair you have ever known hook up with the woman going to the lawyer to get a printed consent form or could it possibly be that it is on the man to give it a shot after receiving enough non-verbal signals, but not literally hearing the words "I consent"?

Careful Cel, you're getting a little too emotional for a man.

Well where's the issue with that? I can point you to the red outline up above where I say a man is allowed to be emotional, even vulnerable.

Also funny that not a single person here has had anything to say about any of that (other than RK). Almost as if nobody is actually interested in arguing in good faith (well except for him seemingly).

Yeah, these little techniques don't take into account a woman frozen in fear. Maybe she doesn't want to get beaten, choked, stabbed, etc., as you pointed out?

I wonder about people like this if they've ever even been in a real relationship. I admit to being quite ignorant of the female experience, but one long relationship and I learned about so many of the things men tend to take for granted, like feeling safe in an elevator with a stranger, not having to worry about getting raped walking home and all that.

I mean the least a dude could do is stop and say, "Is this okay?" Not hard to do. Doesn't kill the mood. Even makes the guy a protector, which is presumably a masculine trait in the mind of the incel community.

I admit to being quite ignorant of the female experience

No surprise there.

I mean the least a dude could do is stop and say, "Is this okay?" Not hard to do. Doesn't kill the mood. Even makes the guy a protector

Yes, a guy can ask that, which I've also done many times. I also always make sure to ask if a girl enjoyed it afterwards, if there's anything specific she enjoyed, or if there's anything she didn't like.

There is nothing wrong with that either. Given I haven't said there is, your point would be?

I meant the difficulties SPECIFIC TO FEMALES, which by this stupid book you are clearly extraordinarily ignorant about—which is precisely why you never seemed to realize simple fear of being killed or hurt is why some women will give in to consistent pressure.

That or you really are a piece of shit rapist who willingly used a woman's fear of being murdered to get into her pants. Do note that there is no logical middle ground here. If you KNEW how many women feel when being coerced and did it anyway, you are an absolute piece of shit rapist who 100% should purchase a respirator and hook it up to a nitrogen tank and breathe until the world blissfully melts away. If you didn't know, then you should shut the fuck up about calling out my admitted ignorance, because you still haven't even realized you have it.

Just a quick note: if you never really considered that, then instead of being defensive about it, you should use new knowledge to grow a bit. It's human to be ignorant. And sometimes ignorance can cause harm. That's just an unfortunate reality. But it's not okay to be a piece of shit rapist, who knows these things and does it anyway.

If I thought of myself as coercing someone into something out of fear, "because of the implication" style, I would obviously not do that.

Ace even fucking wrote what I meant. If I genuinely thought a woman doesn't want to do it with me, I would obviously not be a fucking rapist, Christ.

I just help them reach the conclusion they were going to get to sooner or later. I just make sure it's "sooner" rather than "later".

I have respected multiple girls "no"'s and not done anything with them afterwards, why the fuck do you think otherwise given it's been clarified on at least five separate occasions?

"If I genuinely thought a woman doesn't want to do it with me, I would obviously not be a fucking rapist, Christ."

The issue is I 100% guarantee you there have been instances where they didn't for the reasons listed here. Arrogance is an absolute fucking cancer, and you might want to consider the possibility that your confidence that you can read another human being's mind may be misplaced.

It is highly likely that at least some of the time (if not most), women don't bitchslap you and give in not because they secretly want it, but because they are afraid you may get violent.

That's not a character attack on men, btw. It's just one of the many things incels tend not realize in this particular arena despite also loving to point out the very cause of these things in other arenas—namely things related the physical differences between men and women (like the "Equal rights, equal lefts" memes, and say, laughing at a high school men's football team shutting out a woman's Olympic team. Men are bigger and stronger, yeah, and guess what, that also affects women in terms of fear in the kinds of encounters you are discussing here, which may make them give in to sexual advances they definitely don't want out of simple fear).

I can't tell you how many times I've seen some incel write in comments of videos of like a male judoka stomping a female proudly declaring, "Men have more fast-twitch muscle fiber and more testosterone, denser bones, and so on. A woman should know she can't compete with a man." I mean, how can these people be so acutely aware of the physical differences between men and women in the athletic sphere, but be so clueless about the potential consequences of those differences in the minds of women, and how that may tie in to why a woman might give in to persistent sexual coercion?

In short, if you didn't intend for that, fine. But going forward, you should be cognizant of this aspect of reality that you are implying you were not previously. Do not foolishly believe your own hype that you are some mind reader. I guarantee you, if you've really managed to overcome so many no's, at least one time someone gave in because she was afraid.

So we have you, who has not been in those situations, versus me, who has been in those situations. Only one of those people has insider information.

I highly doubt anyone has ever regretted any of those encounters. Nor was there an intention for anyone to regret anything, what the fuck do you think I am?

Again, just because you've been in those situations doesn't mean you know with absolute certainty what the women were thinking. Like Flux said, you are not a mind reader, and you're so grossly unaware of any perspectives outside your own worldview. Every single person who has posted their opinion on this thread have been using their own experiences and worldview to say you're wrong, so you're being obtuse at best or a manipulative predator with such a warped mindset that he's unable to see beyond his palace of lies at worst to declare that somehow yours is the only right perspective. 

There are two people in each of the encounters you describe here, not one. My guess is you cannot read minds, and it is pretty obvious reading the excerpts from your book here, and your replies, that it never even occurred to you that a woman might give in out of fear. If you didn't realize that, then you didn't intend it, but you ought to know at this point from this thread.

And if you claim you did know, but you never exploited this reality (inadvertantly or otherwise), then you're also effectively claiming to be a mind reader, and even worse, you're assuming all your little minions will be mind readers too. Let's just assume for the sake of argument you really are a mind reader. You've never gotten a woman to give in because she was afraid. You really think every single one of your little followers are going to be as majestic and above human kind as you, with your divine powers of telepathy? I highly doubt it. Which means your book on your techniques here—or at least your dissemination of it—is causing harm.

I've conceded to that in the reply to gryphon. Any other input?

Yeah what happened to your avatar? Did you get punished or something?

Evidently. I also seem to have lost a button or two in the UI.

Yeah. I took away two roles from you as an admin since you keep ignoring me like a pussy bitch. But it helps since you can't edit away any shame in your posts now.

Also, you probably won't be needing any other permissions since you might be taken to pound tow- ban town since you have literally disgusted the females on this site.

 

End also doesn't seem to care if you get banned as well. So really, it's just mizal and Mystic's choice. I'm not sure about Sent or Malk, or any other person with wizard powers.

 

I personally don't want to ban you when this thread has been fucking hilarious. Lol. But if someone does blam you, I won't do anything. It's gotten to the point that even though you're a contributing member with three good story-games, the walls are closing in fast...

 

Would you like a rope to save yourself?

Lmao.

You're so cooked, you nazi faggot degenerate.

Haven't actually referenced it myself, but at a quick glance nothing seems to have been carefully taken out of context, unlike some of the other posts. So I'll confirm that.

The clarifying section is literally proven in the rl scenario. I went as far as I could, but respected the final "no". Nobody was harmed, appalled, insulted, frightened, or had anything bad happen to anyone.

The girl and I proceed to be together over a year and a half after that. Do you think she ever mentioned it bothering her at any point? Lol no.

I need you to point out where in that scenario was anyone harmed in any way. No, not what the scenario implies to readers (my next sentence will handle that), but with any of the two people present for that encounter.

Again, so far RK has been the only one with an actual argument, which I suppose can also be applied here. Some retard can indeed make a girl feel very uncomfortable, and do something like rape. Which is a valid point I cannot rebuke, good one RK.

Cel, the encounter you described here is a clear cut case of sexual assault. You should have just waited at least 6 months like she originally wanted you to, stopped the moment she was even a little bit uncomfortable, and not have done any of the emotional manipulation described here.

Please tell that to the happy girl that enjoyed our subsequent relationship. She'll be horrified to know some dude on the internet has decided the impact of an experience on her.

RK, so far I have taken you as the only one here with valid points and arguments, so why do you ignore the part where I say she did not mind it at any point that night, the day after, or at any point in the subsequent year and a half?

Why aren't you responding to Mystic's post, pussy?

Because it is your methods, and beyond that, your teaching of those methods to others that we, and most civilized societies view as abhorrent. Enjoyment or lack thereof does not define rape or sexual assault. The woman in question expressed a very specific timeframe that you ignored. It's that simple

The woman in question has subsequently agreed to the shortening of that very specific timeframe, due to our shared moments, else she would not have agree to it "prior to the timeframe".

To say it has been "ignored" rather than "adjusted of her own free will" is ridiculous.

"I didn't ignore her limits. I just pulled out my dick."

Again, it's very telling @Celicni has not responded to this well-researched post with actual statistics. All his posts, on the other hand, are based on his "experience" of being a predator and what drunk guys at the club tell him. 

"Well-researched post with actual statistics" being where?

The first part with some numbers included may as well be pulled out the ass without any sources. How do they know the number is 80% if it's unreported?

The part near the end being her own experiences, as opposed to mine?

If you wanna talk telling, it's very telling that not a single person here has referred to anything from the first 40% I linked above. Is there anything bad about any of that advice, mystic?

I'm not going to bother reading through 30 pages to look for gotchas so will assume it's credible. What's the point of that, an agreement from me that rape is bad? Yeah I've been fucking saying it constantly lmao.

Are you aware that the length of the total writing is over 100K and I don't know the exact number yet? Yet everyone is focusing on approximately 1% of that (and checkmating themselves while doing so for the most part). That's a bit different than your scenario.

 

I think the issue is not "is rape bad". That's obvious and that's a given. The issue that we disagree with you about is what constitutes as rape, and you don't seem to get that pressure, repeatedly asking, confusion tactics, scaling up gradually by saying "let's do this, let's do that" and before she knows it, you've completely bypassed her stated boundaries, and not taking soft nos for an answer.

You only see "No! Get away from me creep!" and physically pushing you away as a clear rejection and a sign that you need to stop, but even a softer no, maybe her trying to reach for her phone, telling you that she has to meet with a friend, or even smiling in an uncomfortable way and just trying to go along with whatever you say until she can get to a safe place are all signs. But no script or manual can tell you this, only life experience will help, so guys who follow your advice will say, "but that particular sign wasn't in Cel's manual", or "She didn't do any of those things!" when she did but you just didn't notice.

Cel, do you have platonic female friends? Like, women in your life you're not romantically involved with, who you're not trying to exploit or get anything out of? If so, talk to them. Hear their experiences with an open mind. Understand what they think is creepy might be different from what you think is creepy. Center women's experiences and try and see how many precautions they take and the way they have to literally shape their lives when they go out to avoid dangerous men. Women aren't off the clock, and at any time, there's always a baseline level of danger that comes with being a woman.

You only see me only taking that as a sign, but I assure you I am well aware of what's an actual no. Better than most of the participants here. I would genuinely put my life on the line that no woman has regretted doing it with me.

But you are right that I don't actually explain the precise minutiae, and some retard may end up causing shit somewhere because of that. Please see my response to Gryphon, and thank you for being one of the rare few with a valid argument.

"I'm Cel and I know when a woman really means no. Did I ask a woman or take her advice? No! That doesn't work. Only men know when women mean no and when "no" means "build a cumrag mountain on my floor."

Oh right, that's a really good point. @Celicni did you ask Cricket before you sent her that picture? Did you even stop to think for a second with your pea-sized brain that something like that would make her uncomfortable? That interaction is clear evidence that your judgement of what is and isn't appropriate behaviour around women is flawed and cannot be trusted. Checkmate.

Did you even stop to think for a second with your pea-sized brain that if I behaved IRL as I do here I would be ostracized and definitely not able to test out what works with women and what doesn't?

Take a look back at Malk's post in Will's thread about the difference between online and irl interactions if still unclear.

If Cricket did not wish or ask you to send her sexual content, it is sexual harassment to send her sexual harassment anyway regardless of online/offline status

He traumatized my internet sister!

I think Malk's point was more pertinent to banter and talking without filters as opposed to sending sexually explicit content and images. I don't think that falls into the category that Malk was talking about when he was explaining the difference between real life and forum behavior.

His point was that saying "lol, fag" in real life is a faux pax and would make you look like an asshole, while saying it on CYS would be no issue since people would know that you are referring to a meme.

But sending a picture of used cum rags or a naked woman doesn't apply here in that case. That's still creepy regardless.

I'm not familiar with the Cricket thing nor want to be at all, but from what I can easily gather, yeah I agree that this is just a wildly bad interpretation of what Malk was talking about in the other thread. "Well durrrr it's just the internet durrrr" is a lame excuse for outright harassing someone and sending them sexual content and isn't anywhere near the same territory of online banter as calling someone a fag on the forums as a quick jab. Like this is outright apples to oranges.

So you admit that your behaviour on here would get you ostracized everywhere else? Well, it would be unreasonable for this site not to enforce the same. Consider yourself in custody until your execution is ordered.

As far as I know, I've been ostracized since like... The beginning?

I've always been the outsider... looking in.

I would like to take this opportunity to praise whose purged his profile. 

Alright @Celicni, serious question here. Did you think sending that picture to Cricket would make her uncomfortable?

Because if the answer is yes, that means you've deliberately put her in that terrible situation, which is a bannable offence. If the answer is no, that means you still have a lot to learn about what does and does not make women uncomfortable, therefore putting a rest to the "I know exactly what women want and everyone telling me otherwise is wrong" argument you're attempting to advance.

Did I in 2023 think sending a pic to cricket would make her uncomfortable? Probably not.

Today is not 2023.

So let me get this straight (although being straight might be too difficult for you): your argument is that in less than three years, you've gone from being so socially inept that you don't know sharing such inappropriate pictures is going to make someone else uncomfortable, to apparently knowing better than everyone else about what constitutes consent?

Besides, you've been confronted with clear evidence of your lapse in judgement, so it is statistically likely (from the agreed-upon facts, not your irl interactions which you've probably misread) that you've been wrong again. 

Yeah, this defence is unsustainable and I invite the judge to enter a summary judgement on the ground of the defendant having no real prospect of success.

Also please apologize to Cricket at the very least.

It's certainly leagues better than your sources which, in your words, are "the experience of many men I know irl, the experience of many people online, and the experience of probably any man who's had more than 2 or 3 women in their life". 

Not a single woman. And when women come at you for your objectively wrong statements, rather than listening to the actual contents of posts like this one and conceding that what you've done is fucked up, you come at the most random things like the stastics? Even if you have some sort of mental illness that makes you physically incapable of listening to women, at least listen to the men on this thread telling you exactly what consent isn't. 

If you want to talk about the first 40% you linked, sure. That's the most basic things you can find within seconds of googling relationship advice alongside some things that most reasonable people would already know which I can only assume you need spelled out for you like "women are people too" and "always take action to fix your life". 

Do you know what I think the worst part about that advice is? You obviously know this, as you've posted those excerpts and not the ones we've brought to the light, but they're designed to be deceptively harmless. That introduction tricks inexperienced young men or other incels into thinking the author (and by extension, his advice) is reasonable and halfway through you realize you're reading the manifesto of a sexual predator, detailing how he emotionally manipulates his victims through techniques of artificially-engineering intimacy. 

There's a section titled "why asking women for advice doesn't work" which would work wonders towards explaining why I don't "listen to posts like this one".

Honestly the fact that you even have a section dedicated to that in a 100k-word text dedicated to learning how to succeed with women is just proof that you and your loser incel students should just try fucking men instead. Preferably catching, not pitching.

Ah yes, that's exactly like conducting a study on students and surveying everyone except students. Tell me, what part of treating women like human means not listening to anything they say?

You know what, since you wanted to talk about the first 40%, here's another quote the site would enjoy.
 

If you get in a fight (and you will), and she tells you to "let her go" and "go away", surely by now I do not need to tell you that's something you mustn't do?

Hug her and don't let go.

Let me get this right. You've just had a messy fight, she's angry and likely frightened and definitely not in the right state of mind to reasonably consent to you, and you just...strong-arm her into a hug? I don't even want to get into the whole idea of getting her in bed after fights which is another topic I remember skimming past earlier. 

Well you didn't have to post that quote, cause I already have, up above. Which nobody has still seemingly read.

Anyone that reads this with the slightest desire of interpreting it in any way except the worst way possible will know what this actually means, rather than "man grab woman in every single situation and no let go" you intentionally misinterpret it as.

That said, clearly I've not put ENOUGH disclaimers, you're certainly right on that part.

Tell me, what part of treating women like human means not listening to anything they say?

You know, up until this point I've given you the TINIEST sliver of doubt that you may be here to actually discuss, rather than just attack, but intentionally misinterpreting "don't ask women for dating advice" as "don't listen to anything she says" has sealed the deal.

I find it amusing how one of his rebuttals to Anthraxus is literally "well that wouldn't work in a club!!!" Like buddy, I go clubbing in the city pretty regularly with cuffed and single friends, and before there was the club, there were house parties and basement shows. The field might change, but the game's core rules are the same. Guaranteed that Cel is the kind of grabby creep I would warn another girl in the club bathroom about.

There are about a billion different issues with this and I worry about wasting my time making an effortpost that'll go in one ear and out the other but maybe someone smarter than you can get anything out of this so it may be beneficial anyway. 

Though there's so many things to point to here, a lot of other people in this thread have already done a decent job breaking down some of the other various weirdo elements in your book, so I'll try to focus on stuff I haven't seen said. Namely, two big issues:

 

1. You say a whole lot of things, including some stuff that sounds nice and correct ("women are people just like us") but then you go and contradict it even in your own screenshots (the parts that you conveniently chose not to highlight in red, I had the misfortune of reading most of it) - like when you immediately go into "women especially do not care for logic in social situations" - you can't simultaneously say "I view women as people, just like me and you, no different" to cover your bases and then immediately weasel in a "they're just not logical rational thinkers like you and me" shortly after. Suggesting that women are creatures of emotion does not make it seem like you view women as "just people" - especially when you can pretty easily see that a majority of the non-physical differences between men and women stem from various complicated social standards as opposed to outdated unscientific views of biology. There are a lot of women who view things reasonably and rationally and logically, and plenty of men who don't. It isn't because those women have a 'male brain' - they don't, they have a female brain, which is also capable of logic and reason much like any other brain. 

You clearly do not view women as people 'no different than the rest of us', if you believe that from birth they have a brain that is different and incapable of doings things that the male brain can do. There are billions of people on the planet, with cultures that change from country to country, do you really think half the human population is just, from birth, exactly the same? This is irrational and very contradictory to the flowery language you used before it.

 

2. You also wrote a whole lot of shit without answering maybe the most important question, and that's "why?" 

You keep conflating romance with hooking up, have you ever even asked why you want to do either of those things? Not from some grander biological/social standpoint, just you - personally. You said you "hit on some ugly girl to get your self esteem up and ended up having a relationship for a month that you didn't even enjoy" - then why did you do it? What the fuck was the point? 

If you want to hook up with people, then yeah go work on yourself and make yourself someone that other people want to have sex with - that includes not being an offputting incel freak that gives anyone the ick the moment you enter the same room as them. But don't call hook-up culture 'romance' or dating. You aren't going to find the person who meshes perfectly with you and has the human standards you want in a lifelong partner at some club or on some shitty app. If you go to a bar and see someone you find attractive, that doesn't mean you want to fuckin... marry them, you don't know shit about them off their "vibe" or whatever cope words you'd use to say "I think this person is attractive and want to have sex with them." 

If you want companionship, start viewing women as people (but, for real this time) and get yourself a bunch of good friends. No one is impressed by you 'bagging 10 bitches last week bro' or having 8 girlfriends in the course of a year (that just makes you seem incapable of holding long term relationships). If one of your companions and good friends ends up becoming someone you like enough to spend all your time with, congratulations - you basically found yourself a partner. 

Why would anyone waste the short and limited life they have spending all their time with someone they don't actually care to be around all that much? This isn't the fuckin, 1920s where women had to be like "well, shit. Time to go be some grubby, crusty, gross fuck's property and do my duty as a woman" - that shit didn't make anyone (including men btw) happy. You're trying to live up to this imaginary standard of what being a man is, a person who has to 'find a stupid irrational woman to guide in the right direction and make her my tradwife who cooks and cleans for me and acts like my mother' while you go work and die in the mines. Grow up, stop wasting your time with this stupid shit, it's unfair to you and especially unfair to whatever poor woman makes the mistake of liking you. 

1. Don't worry, I haven't read anything here that was added since I was here yesterday.
   1. The things I was seeing there + the warning are what are keeping me away
   2. Purely only here to add one tidbit:
2. Oh hey look, someone's starting to put in a bootleg/redneck post rating. Nice.

Yep, I figured if there's any thread that needed a maturity rating, it's this one.

It’s free commendation night for girls only in this thread! Guys must pay 15 points for a commendation!

Yahoo! And Screw Cel!

I'll pay 15 points for a comm in support.

Don't mind if I do!

:D

Damn this thread blew up, almost 200 posts in a day?

Nice it had a feelgood ending though, and I'll take one commemorative commendation please.

This is all fucking disgusting and it's in your best interest to put down the shovel and admit you're trying to retcon this garbage.

Man do I even wanna read this thread 

got it, thanks 

Mystic: Epic Lawyer Babe

There's going to have to be a sentence given after this.

Given that he's so fond of saying that consent is given until proven otherwise, we might as well take a guilty until proven innocent approach. 

You can do the honors whenever or if you want, then.

I'm having fun seeing him scramble when there's still screenshots of him talking about the blood on his dick from when he's taken women's virginities.

They say he's taken so many, they call him 'bloody dick Cel' but not to be confused by dubious consent, ass-grab master Cel.

Thank you, MHD! I'm going to update my profile picture.

 

Except Cel would never actually apologize 

lol. Based reference. It's crazy that those books came out 20 years ago

Rodrick Heffley would NEVER write a 100k incel interpretation of talking to women

He's too smart for that

That sounds like a fun idea, a betting system could work alongside contests too.

Well I won't be able to catch up with any of this until I can charge my phone. Oddly Cel seems too be failing to convince all these women of anything though. I guess because they're older than 15.

So since this is supposed be a trial, they appointed me as your advisor.

Note, I said advisor, not defender. Since I see that you’ve been acting as your own defense and that’s not really working out and there wouldn’t be much anyone could do anyway even if someone was willing to help you.

Somehow you’ve managed to outdo yourself once again with getting not just the CYS server gang, but also the general CYS public hating your guts.

Talking about gassing Jews is one thing, but whipping up the lady folk into a blood frenzy when they make up like more than half of the site was pretty much a death sentence and you were sort of always running on borrowed time as it was. There really is no way to spin any of this.

I can’t lie to you about your chances, but the best thing you could do is take a long vacation to Argentina.

In any case I will ask though in the likely event of a guilty verdict, do you want your stories to stay up? You do have that right to request them to be unpublished.

Personally I’d rather see them stay up, but you did create them, so it’s up to you.

I'd rather go somewhere other than Argentina.

Anyway, I did not figure any of this punishment talk was serious, but hey, what can you do. I figured I was punished rather more than enough.

All I can offer is to do better in the future I guess?

The whole "advisor not defender" thing is what hurts the most I guess since it's well established you're likely the only reason I start participating in the site in the first place.

I can only concur that I consider my contributions to the site over the (not so recent admittedly) years should mean more than what I do outside the site.

Anyway, if such should come to pass I, of course do not want the stories unpublished, both because I care for the site and also because you've requested it now.

Can't say much more than that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Don't try sucking his dick in front of me, please.

 

Go out with some dignity.

You know very well it isn't just what you've done outside the site that has incurred all this ire. It's a combination of the events which led to your exile from discord, the morally vile and reprehensible views you've claimed you're willing to die defending, and the fact that your only recent contributions seem to be insulting as many groups of people as possible. 

Not to mention that by adding that link onto your profile and complaining about the mods, at all material times you have been the one to adduce new evidence, and all we've done is correct the misinformation you've been spreading. If you claim that the mods were wrong to purge your profile, don't expect us not to be equipped with reasons as to why. And then, if you've repulsed most of the site with said reasons, well, you can't expect End to defend you. When the act is done, remember that you brought this on yourself and have only you to blame.

I suggest you spend your time backing up any unfinished stories or articles you have. The hammer may fall when you least expect it. 

On a side note, I find it hilarious that we're reducing the toxicity of the site by holding a public execution. That's such a CYStian approach. 

I left the discord of my own accord.

I'll grant you that my recent contributions have not been very productive as of late, I've had much the same thoughts. A break from the site is definitely deserved ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, I did not realize how serious any of this "hate" was. When I told Thara the other day to enjoy end's dick or whatever, I was very much bantering, but seems it wasn't so from her side.

I ask you not to bother with actually pressing the button, since I'd like to keep the avatar and possibly be able to leave potential comments in the future. For all intents and purposes, consider me gone.

Much as with the discord, I will leave of my own accord.

Lol, nah.

No avatar for you. Die Faceless, faggot.

Now hold still for this next part...
 

Wait. That makes it sound like I'm the one doing the honors. Still, get fucked. Lel.

Hmm, he never gave a firm no when you removed his avatar, that must mean he has consented.

I need to know if it’s a no or a noooooooo!

Maybe I should grab his ass really fast, and try to kiss his lips, but if he turns his head, it has to be the neck. But damn it, this is a forum so it isn't possible.

Aww man~

Remember, if that doesn't work, tell him it's Wednesday and talk about midgets, that will get him flustered.

He's lucky it's not the rimworld version, Cystians are literal cannibals there.

Catch me on a bad day

You can follow your leader instead.

Commending this not for the jab, but for so succinctly proving End's point that people will just find another way to say the same thing no matter what actual rules are put in place.

The "outside the site" factor was considered and discussed, but the reason people know about this in the first place is because you put a link on the site. And it was discovered at a time we had a big influx of younger users too.

Throughout the whole thread you've been trying to defend this stuff as not a big deal, I think you really need to consider though that if pretty much everyone human who reads it has this visceral reaction of revulsion, maybe the problem in perspective isn't everyone else, but you.

If nothing else, I'm certain that if you had a daughter Avo's age you wouldn't want her anywhere in DMing distance of that little circle of incels you've been cultivating, you know that whole culture is predatory and gross.

I hadn't quite known the full extent of what was in those quotes, I don't think anybody did until you started complaining about wanting to see evidence and prompted a deep dive. So you bought this on yourself in more ways than one.

Oh shit, looks like it's finally about to happen. And at the hands of... Everyone? I would say farewell, but the only well wishes I have for this animal involve him laying at the bottom of one.

(this was AI. Shhhh)

Damn forgot to put the well. Fixed.

Should've been out on your ass for the nazi thing a long time ago.

Well, even though Cel is an abhorrent piece of shit that looks down on women as silly creatures to be manipulated. On top of being a Nazi and racist.

Is there anyone that is in favor of him staying?

Anyone?

 

Should we poll it? I'm waiting on mizal to come to this thread.

Does anyone think he might change some in the few years of his voluntary exile? Not that I'm about censorship, but at some point, being not just a racist and misogynist but also insufferable about it makes it tough for a forum to deal with (not to mention the fact that it besmirches the entire site's reputation <= probably the most important issue tbh).

But on the other hand, he did concede a couple points here so maybe long reflection might make him a little different, perhaps a bit less of an incel edgelord.

To be my own Devil's Advocate's Devil's Advocate: the mods have banned 13-year-olds for far, far less. Maybe just flip a coin?

We'll lose nuggets of wisdom like this, but we need to stay strong.

Damn. I was hoping to learn more ways to "not" rape someone.... Good lord though, I hadn't read through all of this before. Unreal.

I mean in theory anything is possible, but Cel is already what, late 20s? And there's also the autism. No offense to our many, many, many other autists or course, but there's a certain flavor of it that tends to latch onto some off kilter opinion or behavior that just clicks with them for some reason, like a delusion with an unbreakable death grip few others can understand.

(Cel for instance, in addition to the rest and despite all evidence in the mirror, still believes that he's white.)

You might as well ask if Ben and Corgi can adopt normal posting styles, or if Enter can roleplay without spreadsheets. Some are just too far set in their ways.

This eclipses the Will thing by far. I doubt he will ever redeem himself.

What if this thread is another inside job, this time a "distraction" from the full release of the Will-Stein files?

Will would be really proud of you all for not telling him to kill himself!

Oh ick! Somehow I missed this whole thread. But no big surprise, Nazi + Incel + PTSD always go well togther. (Think I even post that a few weeks ago.)

I feel like there's not much I can say here that has not been said before, especially with Cel finally biting the bullet on this site. It's absolutely despicable and horrifying that there are people on this Earth who would knowingly manipulate, trick, and assault others just for the sake of their own twisted sense of pleasure and self-gratification. To even defend yourself on multiple occasions by way of the age-old "well, she probably wanted it anyway" makes me sick to my stomach.

No amount of positive contributions to the site can wash that away. To host a Discord server dedicated to teaching other illiterate, basement-dwelling, ugly incel invertebrates how to manipulate women so that you can assault them and gaslight them into believing they are crazy makes you subhuman. Not that you were human at all to begin with, I think that was made abundantly clear some time ago.

The dildo of consequences rarely comes lubed. Rest in piss, fucker.

It’s still the most hilarious thing that Cel's account was killed by a woman.

You can say it’s a Smiling Friends moment.