1 - Sometimes to win a girl, you have to be ready to loose her.
2 - You demonstrate higher value.
3 - You attract the girl and you create comfort.
4 - You approach girls that scare you.
5 - Those who hesitate masturbate.
6 - You approach quickly because it will not get easier if you wait.
7 - You are not needy but you are not dead neither.
8 - Beautiful girls are rarely alone. You sometimes approach sets of 2 girls.
9 - Approaching girls is simple. You do not overcomplicate it. You don t count on magic tricks. You follow the london daygame model if you want to improve.
10 - You learn to speak to girls. You learn to stack. You learn storytelling. My success with girls is correlated with how much girls i talk to.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?