Paging Dr. NerdLove Episode #10: How Do You Know If She Likes You?

Dr. NerdLove mans the phones to solve your dating dilemmas. When should you let your boyfriend know you come from an incredibly strict religious family? How do you tell if a girl likes you or if she’s just being polite? How do you stop from dating guys who don’t like you and many more!

Have a dating issue that you need Dr. NerdLove’s help with? Call (512) 522-6513 to record a question or comment for the podcast. 

Don’t miss a single update! Be sure to subscribe to the podcast via iTunes and RSS

Check out this episode

Comments

  1. 13:21 "A woman who is interested will also tend to want to qualify herself to you"

    18:30: "you're not trying to signal that you're at a higher social level than they are and they ought to be seeking you approval"

    The latter is the very definition of the former.

    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the idea is that the woman should decide whether or not she wants to "qualify herself to you", rather than you making that decision for her.

      • Who suggested "making that decision for her"? How could you? Getting a girl to qualify herself to you is all about getting her to want to do it by demonstrating a high SMV through words and actions.

        • Commonly known as X says:

          The former is a woman finding you attractive, wanting you to find her attractive, and so engaging in that enjoyable dance of mutual attraction that, wherever it ends up, is a good time shared between you.

          The latter is some skeezy guy trying to create an inequality in the relationship and getting something out of a woman by making her feel inferior to him.

          Even if they may look superficially similar, anyone who really thinks the latter is an appropriate way to think about women is thinking about women and sex in such an unpleasant, transactional way that it will probably come across to her. If the guy is really skilled at hiding his skeeviness, it might work, but there is a reason women often feel creeped out by pickup artists, and hurt if they've been taken in by one.

          • There are inequalities and power dynamics in every relationship. Anyone who tells you differently is spouting new-age feelgoodism. The natural hypergamous instinct in women leads them to desire men they perceive as being of higher status. Your job is to demonstrate this to her. Her qualifying herself is a good indication that you've succeeded.

          • Gentleman Johnny says:

            Its such a shame that women can't just admit that to themselves, isn't it? Then you could just compare your character sheet to theirs and if your Social Status with all the modifiers is higher than theirs, BAM! Wild monkey sex. It'd be so much simpler than all that stuff about them having individual preferences and interests.It'd save so much of that time that people waste getting to know about each other and what really makes them tick as a person.

          • Goldfinch says:

            Being subtly self-confident so that people want to qualify themselves to you is very different from trying to persuade people they are inferior to you, which is arrogant and patronising (unless you're just doing it with irony and good humour to tease them).

          • Dr_NerdLove says:

            I've talked about qualifying before, but the idea of qualifying is “This is why I'm cool and you should get to know me.” Trying to prove you're of higher social status on the other hand is saying “suck up to me, for I am better than you!”One is saying “I'm awesome, I know I'm awesome and here's why.” The other is about telling the other person “You should be craving my approval because I'm so much more than you are.”

          • Paul Rivers says:

            Right, the girl expects you to "qualify" yourself to her – I can't think of any reasonable way that one could claim that you wouldn't expect her to do the same thing for you, if you believe in any sort of gender equality.

            The higher social status thing seems to work to a certain extent as well though…

          • "Right, the girl expects you to "qualify" yourself to her"

            Exactly. She's expecting it. Which is why you shouldn't do it if you want to get anywhere with her.

          • With all due respect, DNL, these are two sides of the same coin. The person doing the first part ("This is why I'm cool and you should get to know me.") is doing it because the other person has accomplished the second part. (In loaded language, "You should be craving my approval because I'm so much more than you are.")

            As it relates to male-female relations, qualifying yourself to her is largely useless. An attractive woman has guys doing this to her day in and day out. She swims in it her entire life. You'll be much more successful with her by trying to re-frame the interaction into one where she qualifies herself to you. The best way to do this is by establishing your relatively higher status.

          • That doesn't make sense. If you're doing the approaching, as it were, obviously you need to qualify yourself. The alternative to needing to qualify yourself is a situation where the other person just assumes you're a good person to date because you approached them. It has nothing to do with "you should be craving my approval because I'm better than you." If someone walked up to me and started trying to establish that I needed to prove I was good enough for their attention I would assume they were an asshole and wander off. If you want to find people with a pathological need to be liked, Vic's suggestion is great. If you want to find people with actual self esteem, walking up to them and attempting to make them grovel for you approval is a great way to make sure you fail.

          • "If you're doing the approaching, as it were, obviously you need to qualify yourself. "

            Nope. You need to reprogram yourself and get out of this mindset. It's utterly counterproductive when it comes to pursuing women. You need to start assuming the sale, so to speak.

            " If someone walked up to me and started trying to establish that I needed to prove I was good enough for their attention I would assume they were an asshole and wander off."

            I assume you are a heterosexual man. So for you, this holds very true. But men and women (despite what political correctness tells us) are not the same. Women impress us with their looks. It's the primary vehicle they use to signal their fitness as a partner. We impress women with our status (broadly defined). Women will desire to qualify themselves to high-status men because they are overwhelmingly hypergamous. As I said, trying to qualify yourself to a woman is a counterproductive strategy. They read it as neediness, creepiness, or worse, desperation, and it's generally an instant turn-off. You have to flip the script.

          • Paul Rivers says:

            "but there is a reason women often feel creeped out by pickup artists, and hurt if they've been taken in by one"

            I know someone who started doing game and pickup artist stuff, and girls are only "creeped out" and "hurt" by guys who don't know what they're doing, or the occassional mistake. In fact before pickup artist stuff people used to find him creepy occasionally, now they pretty much never do. His rate of "hurting" girls is if anything better than most of the guys who date, because he's more upfront about what he wants (guys dating, naturally, aren't 100% sure what they want, just like the girl isn't). Girls seem to mostly just eventually become frustrated that they can't convert him into dating them and they move on.

          • Eh, I'm going to quibble a bit on the general point. I think there is a little bit of a creep factor to some pick up artists beyond the awkwardness of guys who are inexperienced with it: some of the rhetoric about bitch shields and shit tests and game ruling all means that a woman can get stuck in a conversation with a man who doesn't appeal to her and who ignores her attempts to get him to leave her alone. It's certainly not universal, but it's unpleasant and I think it can leave a lasting impression.

  2. I know a love/ relationship advice giver is worth their salt when they say it's ok to take a break from dating. So many people get so wrapped up in the fear and loneliness that they forget taking a break is an option. Not giving up, or becoming some sort of sour pessimist who swears off men/women/both but instead really taking a step back to get in touch with what makes you special. Being alone is the perfect time to really asses your strengths and address or embrace your weaknesses. Kudos, Dr. Nerdlove. Also thank you for taking seriously the plight of women who, like myself, have a harder time finding dates than the "women have it so easy" contingent might make it seem.

    • Prettyinblackxx says:

      I concur, Cee. I certainly know how it feels when no one seems to want what you’re trying to offer. Harris, listening to your podcast reminded me why I started on my self-improvement kick last summer. I got my butt back to the gym, which I haven’t done in awhile. Thanks!

    • Absolutely. Furthermore, "giving up", i.e. deciding that dating/relationships will not be a priority for the foreseeable future, need not be seen in a negative light.

  3. Ray Patterson says:

    Good examples of indications that a girl likes a guy. I've seen those IRL, but never experienced them myself. Anybody have any other examples?

    • One dead giveaway is when a woman playfully calls you a jerk or asshole while maintaining a flirty or lighthearted tone. Extra points if she slaps of punches you in a teasing way. That happens, and it's time to seal the deal.

    • Commonly known as X says:

      Its always much easier to read the signs when they are happening to other people!

      I think one sign is happiness. Your subconscious reads body-language better than your conscious mind. If you want her to like you and you are feeling really happy after a conversation, at least until you start dissecting and double-thinking it, then it probably went well. I've seen friends get that big grin and then stab themselves into misery wondering if they were reading it all wrong.

      • Paul Rivers says:

        The most common reaction I've seen from women that indicates that they like someone is, unfortunately, nervousness.

  4. sadvirgin says:

    Why oh why do us sad lonely male nerds struggle while jerks like this get all the hot beautiful women?
    http://krauserpua.com/2012/10/16/i-bang-my-first-

    • Anonymoose says:

      The girls want it too. Maybe not the outcome, but it's up to them to not get themselves in that kind of situation in the first place.

    • krauserpua says:

      Because jerks like me put in the hard work to become a sexworthy man. If you shifted your ass and did what I did, you'd get what I get.

      • It is absolutely true that you put the work and effort in to becoming 'sexworthy.' But your attitude isn't helpful. Under one caption on your site, it read "I'm entitled to this" or something along those lines. Which is complete bullshit. You're entitled to your opinion, that's about it. If you want to break away from the norm and date lots of women and have casual sex, there is nothing wrong with that. More power to you if you can achieve it. But when you have the attitude that you're entitled or owed sex? Then you're treading into asshole territory.

        There isn't anything inherently wrong with what you do (the sleeping with women part – the general disregard for their feelings [and I realize it isn't quite that simple], that's a different story), but your attitude makes you a jerk. So, I understand why unsuccessful men would take their anger out on you. It's ill-placed, because being angry at you won't help them get girls. But, some (if not most) of the hate you receive is well-earned.

      • Ainuvande says:

        I also notice in the link posted (no, I didn't bother reading your whole site) that you're not simply heaping praise on yourself in that tale. You state at the end that you would rather not have done some of the emotional damage you did, and that you will try to be more aware of it in the future. So it's not like you're being a huge jerk, you were as upfront as possible, given that you tend towards inexperienced women who are likely to fall hard for someone who turns on the charm. While I wouldn't have wanted you as my first (or second) sexual experience, you could have been a lot of fun when I was in my early to mid twenties…. Then again, in my twenties I was discovering that standing straight + smile + witty banter = why is there a man curled around my pinky? Oops.

    • Commonly known as X says:

      I'm sure you can be the sad old git picking up insecure young women without two much trouble, especially if you travel to places where poverty or recent civil wars mean there is a lot more vulnerable youn women. The women will probably learn a sad lesson in what to avoid as they grow up.

      IF of course this whole scenario is real. PUAs almost always remind me of really dorky teenagers bragging about their imaginary conquests. I mean, did he really dump this young hottie or did she suddenly realise that not only was this guy twice her age and half her maturity level, but he was completely selfish in bed. An interest in "sexually inexperienced" women seems like a red-flag for not very good at giving pleasure.

    • Hot beautiful women aren't rationed out based on the recipient's moral worth. The jerk in question approaches lots of women, has either developed or learned to fake appealing qualities, and is fishing in waters where he may have a certain extra appeal as an exotic foreigner. I'd say the first step for sad lonely male nerds is to develop a persona beyond "sad lonely" – that's not a combination anyone finds very attractive.

      I think I'd also suggest taking some of these stories with a grain of salt. I suspect that the writer experienced some harsh rejections he's leaving out, and that at least some of the women he mentions may be more interested in having an exciting fling than suffering from hopeless, virginal love.

  5. krauserpua says:

    Anthony – I mostly agree, but I think you also missed most of my humour regarding things like the "entitled" caption. Understandable if you've dropped into my blog and haven't read it long enough to get my writing style. A strong sense of entitlement is actually very important to develop if you want to date hot women – if you don't believe you deserve them, you won't push past their screening tests and they'll agree you don't deserve them. The hate I receive is mostly from manginas like Commonly Known As X – these are perenial losers who project their own self-loathing onto me and are utterly callous about it. Their total disrespect for anyone they see as non-humans (namely, anyone who enjoys their life) is part of the hateful victim vibe that repels women.

    CMaX – You'd kill to experience the sexual abundance I do, as everybody who reads your comment knows full well. The fact I bang hot girls and you don't burns you up inside because it shakes your whole reality. Let me tell you why. You think you're special and nicer than every other guy and you double-down on identifying with the feminine to try to get laid. Yet it doesn't work. So you fall back onto the pretty lie that success in dating is just luck, outside your control. That allows you to avoid taking responsibility for your failures, and you are a failure. Then people like me come along who not only bang girls that you think I shouldn't be able to, but I even lay out a clear path for how you too can achieve the same success….. if only you put in the same hard work I did. But you're not willing to do that because you'd prefer to be a loser with pretty lies than go through this tough transition period. Hence you have cognitive dissonance. Rather than resolve it with a winner's attitude of "lets learn from this" you resolve it with a losers attitude of "lets try to deny and belittle the achievement". Pure sour grapes. I have no respect for losers like you at all.

    Eselle28 – Totally agreed with paragraph one. Paragraph two is usually true but I'm the wrong example. I've hyper-documented my blog over 480 posts with infield videos, text message exchanges, facebook chat screenshots, post-lay interviews. I've also talked plenty about the harsh rejections. No probs if you didn't know this, can't expect everyone to be interested enough in my blog to read every post!

    I've written 480 posts on how to get good with women and my own personal journey from when I initially couldn't get laid. My technical mindset ought to appeal to nerds. My journey ought to inspire readers here that they too can succeed. Anthony is quite ironically wrong in saying my attitude is unhelpful – I've donated hundred of hours of my time to providing a free online resource that any guy can use to improve his success with women. I'm really fucking helpful to those among you who are willing to put in the hard work. I'm really fucking unhelpful to the spiteful pussies among you who just wanna hate and play victim

    • Dr_NerdLove says:

      Free hint: stop the referring to other people on here as “manginas” and other insults.

      • krauserpua says:

        Your board, so your rules. The reason I use this term is not to disparage men who are unsuccessful with women (I have no time for shaming decent men) but rather I consider men who identify with the feminine imperative and thus backstab their fellow men and undermine male interests are nothing more than traitors and ought to be thrown out of the men's club. That's what I mean by mangina. But sure, if I want to use your platform I have to follow your rules and there's no reason why you have to agree with my terms.

        • Oh shit, there is a men's club? Man, how do I get in?

        • Dr_NerdLove says:

          I'm a fan of debate and conversation. Insults don't foster intelligent conversation and gendered insults like “mangina” aren't welcome here, no matter what reasons you may have for using it.You want to debate with folks, that's fine. But keep it civil.

          • Richard Tator says:

            It’s an interesting example of gendered comment moderation policy how you shame men who speak in non-flattering terms about the feminist mainstream (“manginas”) yet when the feminist mainstream piles vituperative attacks upon vulnerable men and boys (“sad old git”, “really dorky teenagers”, “bragging”, “imaginary conquests”, “half her maturity level”, “completely selfish”, “not very good at giving pleasure”) you remain silent.

        • Gentleman Johnny says:

          Its interesting and informative to replace the references to gender with terms for racial groups. Pick any two and try it yourself.

          • Richard Tator says:

            Its interesting and informative to replace the references to one sex with terms for the other sex. Try it yourself.

          • Gentleman Johnny says:

            Yep, he still sounds like a bigot when you do that.

          • Paul Rivers says:

            Its interesting and informative to replace the references to gender with terms for racial groups. Pick any two and try it yourself.

            It's neither interesting nor informative – take any heated or emotional exchange and replace the characters with racial terms and it sounds terrible. If you took the transcript from the presidential debate and replaced references to Obama, Romney, democrats, republicans, etc with racial terms it would sound horrible as well.

          • Gentleman Johnny says:

            Exactly my point.

        • The feminine imperative, is that related to the subjunctive or the plus-que-parfait? I didn't know I needed so much grammar for dating!

    • I figured it was a joke. It's a bad one, and one that is unhelpful for society. I didn't mean you were unhelpful in getting guys to have sex with women. But I don't like your attitude, and I do think it's harmful for society. I disagree that you need to feel entitled to have sex. You need to have self worth. There is a huge difference between the two. You are not entitled to having sex, plain and simple. But you can be worthy. Saying that you're entitled takes the choice out of the woman's hands, and it means you should get that sex no matter what. Being worthy of having sex with said woman lets her still have a choice in the matter. I'm not trying to say that you rape women, but the attitude of entitlement is one that absolutely leads some rapists to walk down that path. If you changed it up and started saying you're worthy instead, things might be different. I think you'd still deserve the hate.

      Also, I'm fairly certain X is a woman.

      • krauserpua says:

        "Also, I'm fairly certain X is a woman"

        Either a woman or a man who very heavily identifies with the feminine imperative until he's taken on it's colour. I often can't tell on the internet without reading alot of a person's posts.

        • Then maybe you shouldn't launch into a whole bunch of vituperative remarks and assumptions when talking to someone you've hardly read anything from at all? At least X stuck to criticizing to things you actually talked about in your post.

        • BritterSweet says:

          What's so wrong with a man who "identifies with the feminine imperative" anyway?

    • I kind of have to laugh at your rant at Commonly Known As X, because as many of the people here who read her comment will know, she's a woman. So no, I'm pretty sure she's not sitting there thinking what a "nice guy" she is and loathing herself for not "banging" as many "girls" as you do, and I suspect she can "identify with the feminine" without any particular effort. :) People can disagree with your methods without being jealous of you–shocking!

      For someone who takes such issue with other people being spiteful and playing the victim, you sure were eager to spew a whole lot of defensive insults and rage at a person you clearly know nothing about.

    • Ainuvande says:

      Ooops, I was wrong.

      Mangina? Pussies? Screening tests?

      Here I thought you were interested in having fun sexy relations with other human beings. Instead you've commodified women and revealed yourself as a potential MRA. Eeewwwwww.

  6. krauserpua says:

    A hater whining on a male dating forum can quite reasonably be assumed to be a man. Sounds like I assumed wrong in this case.

    Her entire comment was an unprovoked insult at me, calling the women I date "insecure young women", me a "sad old git", "poverty or civil wars" a reason to diminsh the attraction/emotion content of our relationships, their experience with me a "sad lesson" followed by unsubstantiated insinuation I'm a liar ("IF of course this whole scenario is real"), associating me with "really dorky teenagers", calling me "half her maturity level", and being a failure in bed (" not very good at giving pleasure")

    That's eight straight unprovoked insults.

    If you can't see insults when they come out of a woman's mouth, or just refuse to acknowlege them, then you are a very sexist person.

    • I never said her comments were complimentary (hence the use of the word "criticize"). But some of her comments are just repeating what you yourself noted in your post (the woman it's mainly about is clearly young–23–and insecure–I recall a mention of her having told you that if you broke things off with her, she'd shatter to pieces or some such–and from a country that's had trouble with both poverty and civil war). And at least she acknowledges in the second paragraph that she's merely speculating based on her observations of PUA culture in general. There's a pretty big difference between saying, "I don't trust this–this is how it seems to me" and "you are clearly x, y, and z" (the latter being your approach).

      I'd also argue the "unprovoked". For a woman, reading a post in which a guy talks about women like objects to be manipulated into providing sex until he's tired of them is pretty provoking. Why is it okay for you to respond to her uncomplimentary opinions and insinuations with multiple offensive statements presented as facts, but it wasn't okay for her to respond to your degrading talk about women with uncomplimentary opinions and insinuations?

      You complained about people like her having "total disrespect" for you and being "utterly callous" about it, but I see nothing but total disrespect and utter callousness in your response to her. And "But she hit me first!" is not a valid argument for five year olds, let alone adults. If it's sexist for me to suggest you should hold yourself up to the same standards you're holding others up to, then I'm happy to be a sexist. :P

    • Commonly known as X says:

      You are right. I did express things harshly and I shouldn't have called you a sad old git – the rest of the comments are about my general experience of older men travelling to poorer countries with an interest in inexperienced younger women. I guess my reading of your journey, as you expressed in your blog, is that you sound like some of the middle-aged sex tourists I observed while I was in Thailand and the other areas you reference. I had never thought of this behaviour as something that requires any particular skill or expertise so I was surprised to see this presented as advice. I don't actually know you – I have only the words on your blog and here to base my reading on.

      I also note that, despite indicating you are an older man, you refer to women over 30 as table scraps, and again, you prefer sexually inexperienced women. This to me suggests a fear of women who are likely to be more assertive emotionally, socially or intellectually. This makes me feel that your advice regarding how to relate to women may not be of the best quality.

      • Richard Tator says:

        CkaX, if you cannot distinguish between paying for sex (what you refer to by shaming terminology “Thailand”) and seduction (what Krauser practises), you have clearly never in any form or shape reflected on human sexuality and gender relations.

        Another indication for your absence of understanding of human sexuality is the bizarre insinuation that sexuality needs to involve emotional or intellectual exchange. While the latter may be interwoven with sexuality, sex is often better if one keeps these things out of the bedroom. People hook up, have one-night stands and steamy holiday affairs precisely because they want to avoid emotional or intellectual involvement.

        Finally your ageism is awful. Why should older men not have satisfactory sexual relations with women they find attractive?

        • Gentleman Johnny says:

          It seems to me that if you want an orgasm without intellectual or emotional exchange, your hand is a lot cheaper than flying to the Eastern bloc. So why don't we start by admitting that krauserpua and PUAs in general aren't engaging in pure sexuality for its own sake. There is certainly an emotional involvement. Its the high that comes from bending others to your will, knowing you have power over them. For some people its even a form of revenge against all the women they couldn't get before they adopted that lifestyle. Yes, people have one night stands or short term affairs but that's not really what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about a guy willing to fly halfway around the world to prove to himself and others (else why blog it) that he can get hot women.

          You're both welcome to "bang hot girls" all you like, even if they're half your age and don't speak your language. Personally, I've found that I can get my sexual needs met and have interesting conversations and emotional relationships in the process. Yes, there's work and practice involved in both but that in no way makes them equivalent. I'm sure there is an audience for krauserpua's brand of training but I also would like to think that most of the guys on this website are looking for a little something more than just a place to warm their genitals.

          • Richard Tator says:

            First, your reply is mostly a non-sequitur! I was pointing out CkaX’ sexism, shaming language, and his/her inability to distinguish between paying for sex and seduction (a frequent shaming technique used by misandrists against vulnerable men and boys) as an indication of a total absence of understanding of human sexuality. Why somebody like CkaX who clearly has never though seriously about human sexuality comes to a board like this is unclear to me. In any case, I guess your non-sequitural answer should be taken as implicit approval of my characterisation of CkaX.

            As to the points you raise, it’s empirically unclear what people are here for, but most probably a wide variety of
            reasons. Clearly what most men want most of the time is a changing harem of loving, intelligent and fit young hottie to have intense polyamourous relations with. Since equally clearly most men are completely and utterly unable to pull that off, and since men who openly admit to their polyamourous cravings are traditionally brutally shamed (and have often been brutally persecuted), as the reaction to Krauser’s here makes perfectly clear, they demonise that which they most desire. The grapes are too sour indeed.

            Be that as it may, what you fail to realise is that the skills to pull tight young hottie for a quick bang, the skills the likes of Krauser possess (or appear to possess) and, in hard to match generosity, freely share, are exactly the same skills that also make you able to get high quality girl material for long-term monogamous relationships, including family building. So my recommendation to you is to go to the likes of Krauser’s website
            with an open mind, read and learn. Only if you have substantial empirical with the material can you form a valid opinion about it.

          • Gentleman Johnny says:

            Very well, allow me to re-sequitur it. You implicitly claim that Krauser's adventures are just about sexuality. You also implicitly claim a better knowledge of human sexuality than CkaX. My reply addresses these two implicit topics, to wit that pulling a tight young hottie for a quick bang is not about sexuality with no emotional or intellectual attachment. That instead it is used to inflate the ego by proving to oneself that one can do it and by sharing these conquests with others. This is an important empotional payoff of the process. In other words, the PUA style is as much about the ego stroke of getting sex as it is about getting sex.

            Now, moving right along – I think what most men of a certain age and type think they want is what you described. Having has exactly that sort of sex life in the past, I can tell you that its not all its cracked up to be unless you're willing to brutally ignore the feelings of those involved besides yourself. Even if everybody is on board, maintaining even a casual friends with benefits relationship with several people at once while holding down a full time job can be incredibly draining.

            Finally, I do in fact know the skills for getting casual sex. I also know the skills for building a relationship, whether sexual, friendship, monogamous, polyamorous or other. They have almost no relationship to one another. I won't speak too much to Krauser's specific techniques since I haven't had time to read his 480 posts. I will say that the techniques I would have used to successfully seduce someone for a one night stand and those used by PUA's (note, not the same techniques) are quite different from the ones I use to build lasting friendships and/or relationships. I don't have 480 posts to back that up, just a woman that I'm deeply in love with and am building a life together with.

            There's nothing wrong with you wanting something else from your life. I would say that as long as no means no, what you do want and how you get it isn't much my place to criticize. I don't think you're going to find much advice on this blog that suits your style or objectives, though.

        • BritterSweet says:

          "Why should older men not have satisfactory sexual relations with women they find attractive? "

          What she took issue with was HIS ageism! HE referred to women over age 30 as table scraps.

        • Commonly known as X says:

          I have no problem with honest, consensual relationships (including casual sex and one-night stands) between people of different ages. I do have a problem with a man who consistently prefers a vast power differential (ie. they are younger, less experienced and poorer). Also, while I fully see that an older man might go on a holiday to Yugoslavia and have wonderful consensual casual sex with a younger woman, I question how wonderful Krauser's seduction techniques are if he usually has to go to places with a large sex trade catering to middle aged British men for them to work. The cost of a plane ticket to the UK is an expensive gift to a young woman in Yugoslavia, when you barely know her. I don't think he is engaging in direct prostitution, but I think he's kidding himself that its all due to his pick-up artistry.

          His blog did get me riled up, but for the misogyny and not for the casual sex. He refers to women his own age with contempt, he thinks we deserve to get paid less because we can't think abstract thoughts, and he seems to get off on believing that all these inexperienced young girls are falling for him hard while he goes heart free to the next one. Even if he is mistaken about the latter, I think attitudes like that make women scared to be sexually liberated.

  7. Ainuvande says:

    I loved this podcast. Especially the "here's $20, please go see a movie." Really, if you're all in college or beyond, you should be able to discuss, or at least insinuate, the need for occasional private sexytimes in your shared abode.

  8. My apologies for participating in it.

    • Dr_NerdLove says:

      No worries all around. I just didn't want to end up with another 300 comment thread that's mostly “Well you said X”/”Well YOU said Y!” Especially since I have to read all of 'em.Debating the article that got linked, cool. Talking about the podcast cool. Just so everybody's chill about it.

  9. sadvirgin says:

    Kausser, I take back the "Jerk" slam. My first experience of this blog was your latest conquest entry. I found it quite surreal, and it made me jealous. I WANT THAT.

    And kausser, I enjoyed your London Real interview, but I would stay away from the EvoPsych claims in regards in how many ancestral males were sexual losers. Is that settled? This book argues that ancestral humans tended towards sexual socialism in addition to monogamy going against our nature:
    http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Prehistoric-Origin

  10. I Love Lamp says:

    Someone said earlier that entitlement was not necessary or helpful for seduction.

    I have to respectfully disagree.

    I would also say that if you are looking to date higher-quality women, it is very helpful indeed.

    Also worth bearing in mind is the idea of ‘entitlement’ in dating and seduction can get twisted or made to sound more Patrick Bateman-like than is really the case.

    But facts are facts – if you don’t feel you are worthy of the person you are trying to date, you won’t get to date them. They will see it, and it is hugely unattractive.

    Also, take it back a notch to the commentors original question – why do jerks get laid?

    Entitlement.

    Why do this irritate you more than, say, a Nobel Prize winner getting laid?

    Because his entitlement is based on an IRRATIONAL sense of self-worth. Yours, however, is very rational indeed.

    Psychological research indicates people look for a mate of similar self-esteem. You may not see it, but with an attractive woman, most men blow themselves out. They get chewed up by their own insecurities, and makes a complete mess of conveying themselves in anything resembling a seductive manner.

    Contrast this to the jerk, who simply feels he deserves it…

    If you want to date women like Krauser dates, look at what these women respond to. What they want and need. Change your self image. Improve on what you can offer her. Don’t whine. At the heart of every question like this is the subtext “why won’t women love me for ME??” – you don’t want to change yourself to get women, you want acceptance for the path you’ve chosen. Tough. Sadly, who you are isn’t a good enough package at the minute. I sympathise. You have no idea.

    This could be a wake up call if you heed it. Or you could forget the whole thing ever happened and soldier on.

    • Gentleman Johnny says:

      I think you're confusing self worth with entitlement. Its the difference between "I know I'm worthy." and "You owe it to me."
      Otherwise, I generally agree with you. If you want a result, whether its a job, to be better with women, to run a marathon, you have to find out what it takes to achieve that goal and work towards being the kind of person who can.

      • I Love Lamp says:

        Hello Johnny,

        I don’t think I am. Self-worth is a noble goal, but does not by itself bring dating success.

        Also, self-worth is far from a static concept. I can think of several close acquaintances with high self-worth who have struggled to achieve what they want in the dating world. In fact Id venture it’s more common than you think.

        Self-worth – general
        Entitlement – specific

        Self-worth – I deserve a nice girlfriend.
        Entitlement – I deserve HER.

        As I suspected, people have very negative connotations attached to the term ‘entitlement’. There is nothing I can do about that. It’s neither good or bad – it just is.

        I’d advise listening to a woman when she has come back from a date with a man she liked, where the man took no demonstrable action to show his interest. Listen carefully to her complaints. Ask yourself “if he had felt he deserved to be with her, would she be sat here feeling like she’d wasted her evening?”

        • I Love Lamp says:

          And just for clarification, I am not saying self-worth shouldn’t be an aim; it should. I’m not saying their isn’t some overlap between self-worth and entitlement; there is.

          I’m saying they are not mutually inclusive, nor should they be conflated. Self-worth sounds nicer, and dare I say it more palatable, but if you want dating success it’s only part of the solution.

          As for the negative connotations towards entitlement, look at how you phrased it (“you owe it to me”) and how I phrased it (“I deserve HER”).

        • Gentleman Johnny says:

          Listen to a woman who came back from a date with a man who felt entitled to her and didn't get what he wanted. Listen carefully to her complaints. Ask yourself "if he was entitled to her, why is she calling it sexual assault?"

          • I Love Lamp says:

            Re-read your example, and tell me if a ‘shy, awkward guy’ is going to push the boundaries to the point you suggest.

            Seriously?

            That’s not an entitlement issue, that’s a complete lack of social skills and empathy issue. I’m frankly amazed you can equate the two.

            Rather than taking up arbitrary positions and arguing them on the Internet, keep an open mind. You’d be amazed at what you can learn.

            I think if we debate this any more, its going to involve more absurd comparisons whilst avoiding the actual words I’m typing.

            In future, please be a bit more careful about bandying rape comparisons about, especially when you dont know the person you’re discussing them with. At best it’s crass, at worst completely socially inept.

            You are using an extreme to make a point, but you

          • I Love Lamp says:

            And yet again, more subtle manipulation of my words.

            “If he was entitled to HER”

            What on Earth makes you think I’m referring to ‘her’, when discussing entitlement? As opposed to going for the kiss on date, going to hold her hand, making date plans, walking up and talking to a girl, asking a girl at the end of a conversation for her phone number?

            I don’t mean to be rude, but you are not actually reading what I’m saying. Nor are you asking for clarification. You are arguing against your own negative context, replete with tasteless rape comparisons.

            I’m happy to debate this with sensible people, but I think we’re done here Johnny.

          • I'm pretty sure what made him think you were referring to "her" when discussing entitlement is that's exactly what you said. There was no "subtle manipulation" needed. Direct quote from the comment of yours he was replying to:

            "Entitlement – I deserve HER."

            It's interesting that you said that before as if it was the key to dating success and now you're offended that anyone would imply you said something so negative.

            I don't think anyone here would argue that you're not entitled to act however you want–you have every right to ask for a date, try to hold hands or go in for a kiss (assuming the context is correct), etc. What I and most commenters here, I suspect, would dispute is that any guy is entitled to is a positive response or attention from the woman.

    • There's a difference between confidence and entitlement. You can have great self-esteem and believe yourself worthy of any woman's interest without believing you're *owed* their interest. In fact, I think it shows greater self esteem and confidence to be able to recognize that different people have different tastes, and to decide that you'd prefer to spend time with people who actually like you for who you are, not because you put on a big show to convince them you're entitled to their attention.

      Many people are worthy of my attention, but no one is entitled to it.

      I'd also suggest that what makes a woman "higher quality" is a subjective thing–one guy might simply want someone who's gorgeous, one might want a great conversational partner, etc.–and for some guys at least, the type of woman they want to be with is definitely not going to appreciate a sense of entitlement. So in their case, it's not helpful at all.

      • I Love Lamp says:

        Hi Mel,

        I’ll reply to your comment here. It seems fairly manipulative to me:

        I said “Entitlement – I deserve HER”

        Johnny has gone from ‘I deserve her’ to ‘I am entitled TO HER’ (already twisted beyond what I said) to crass rape allegories.

        I can plainly see the difference. I’m saddened you don’t. But hey.

        I stand by what I said. No change. And according to you, I’m right in everything I’ve said apart from the word entitlement. Fine, call it whatever you like. A wise man once said calling things by their proper names was the path to wisdom, but whatever makes you happy.

        I find it funny no-one, and I mean no-one, has objected to anything I’ve written without adding a good dash of their own context and quickly jumped-to conclusions.

        Re-read my original comment, and tell me exactly what Ive backtracked on. Please.

        “We see things not as they are, but as we are”

        If anyone out there has a sensible opinion about the words I’ve actually written, please post. I’m rather perplexed by the pointless semantics and logically questionable responses I’ve gotten so far!

        • It seems to me that you're the one who keeps bringing it back to semantics when people argue with the content of your comments. When you disagreed with Johnny earlier, you objected to his referring to "her" as the subject of entitlement (even though you did this yourself). Now you're saying it's "deserve" vs. "entitled" (both here, and in your comment to Anthony). But if to be entitled to something means to deserve it (as you indicate in your definition below), then saying "I deserve her" is the exact same thing as saying "I'm entitled to her".

          DNL has already asked us to stick to talking about the subject itself, rather than getting nitpicky over the exact wording each person used. Since you keep bringing it back to word usage, I'll drop out of the conversation here.

    • I'm the one who said entitlement isn't necessary (the helpful part was about something else). And I stand by it. Just like the two people above me pointed out, there is such a huge difference between entitlement and being worthy/self worth. I don't disagree that jerks and PUAs can get laid by projecting self confidence and a feeling of self worth. And, if that was where it stopped, then it (being the act of getting laid) wouldn't be a terrible thing. But when you walk into the realm of feeling like you 'deserve' sex, then you're taking it too far. No one 'deserves' sex, because it isn't something that is earned. You don't fill up your sex bar each time you get rejected, and then finally once you've filled it all the way, sex is unlocked. You don't fill up the sex bar by buying women drinks or complimenting them or saying certain phrases or following any kind of game plan. Ya, sure, some of those things may lead to sex. But none of them EARN you sex, because you simply don't earn sex.

      Plain and simple, sex isn't something anyone is entitled to. Ever.

      • I Love Lamp says:

        Hi Anthony,

        I’m confused how me saying a sense of entitlement is needed by those who are ‘nice guys but not really having dating success’, equates to me saying ‘act like you deserve sex/act like someone owed you sex’. It seems like you are substituting your own negative concepts for what I actually said, and simply arguing against them.

        Adding a platitude like “no-ones entitled to sex” doesn’t really foster a critical debate either. Did you expect me to disagree with that? I’m reminded of Kang and Kodos’ speeches when they run for President (“forward, not backward. Upward, not downward. And twirling, always twirling”).

        I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this one :)

        • Gentleman Johnny says:

          It sounds like we're using different definitions of entitlement. You're certainly welcome to yours but if we're not dealing with the same definition, clear communication isn't possible.

          • I Love Lamp says:

            Agreed. Here is mine, straight from good ole Wikipedia:

            In a casual sense, the term “entitlement” refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit.

            Mines fairly standard, without the negative connotations that other commentators have attached to it. As previously said.

          • Now I'm confused. If your definition of entitlement is the belief you're deserving of a particular reward, how is saying you need a sense of entitlement to get sex different from saying you should feel you deserve sex, which is what Anthony was arguing against?

          • So, contrary to an earlier comment you made, "I deserve a nice girlfriend" is entitlement, not self-worth.

          • Gentleman Johnny says:

            I was using it more in the way its used in policits. From Wikipedia: An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation.

            There's a big difference between being deserving and having guaranteed access based on being deserving.

          • Paul Rivers says:

            Agreed. Here is mine, straight from good ole Wikipedia:

            In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit.

            Yeah, as a guy, that's exactly the definition I think of when I hear the word "entitlement" as well.

        • I suppose we just will disagree. There is a difference between being worthy of something and deserving something, and I don't think anyone is ever deserving of anything in regards to relations. I did take what you said and apply it to sex, because that is what PUAs in general and Krauser specifically are doing, and that is where this conversation began. But I still can't say that someone deserves a relationship, in any way. One absolutely has to feel worthy of a relationship, because without that feeling of worth, problems are going to arise.

          But saying that you deserve (dating) HER, implies the your actions merit her dating you, that you have a claim to be dating her, or that you are qualified to be dating her (using the dictionary.com definition of deserve). Two of those things (merit, having a claim) are harmful. The third (being qualified) I can agree with. Saying that you are worthy doesn't have to be a general statement. I can say I am worthy of dating HER. If the narrow definition of entitlement that you're using also uses a narrow definition of deserve, then we may not be that far apart. But given the more broad definitions of both of those words, you're going to run into problems with people not understanding what you're saying. The negative connotation of entitlement stems from the fact that it can be used in incredibly harmful ways. That same wikipedia article defines entitlement as "a guarantee of access to benefits [. . .]". When you apply that to relationships, that's when people make rape allegories.

  11. To clarify – dating more and meeting more women means putting in time and effort. That time and effort does not necessarily include approaching complete strangers.