The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Dating 2.0 – Selection, Active And Passive

First, credit and inspiration for this post goes to Cedo Nulli, a blogger who lives in Thailand (link below). I found his blog from a link in a comment on another of my own posts (thanks Kev). Cedo presented the dating concept of a woman’s active selection for quality versus passive selection by elimination. He also presents an excellent analogy for these two selection processes. From his blog post [edited]:

The problem, at its core, is very simple. It boils down to active selection for quality, vs. passive selection by elimination.  The first being good, the second being complete shit.

Say I asked you to go out and buy me the best phone you can find for $500. How do you choose the phone?  Do you research the features, try them all out, compare, know your own preferences for operating systems and screen sizes?  That would make sense.

However, here is the equivalent how girls pick their guys, for the most part:

They go to the store and proceed to smash every phone onto the floor. Whichever phone survives all the smashings, that’s the one she buys.

Which phone is that? Is it the latest high-end, big screen Samsung or is it the shittiest button phone?  Duh. The crap will survive, because there is nothing to it.  No awesome screen to break. No complex motherboard to get broken. The crap will survive the smashing.

That’s dating [2.0].  Whoever continues to make it through the flaking, the childish games, the bullshit, that’s the guy she ends up with.  Quality guys with options won’t put up with that.

In effect, the shortage of good men is because too many women have been smashing them to the ground, leaving behind weak men who acquiesce to this (FriendZone!) or dark triad cads who then turn around and smash the woman through ugly manipulation or some form of abuse.

While this other quote originated from the beginning of Cedo Nulli’s blog post, it better serves as a punchline to describe the consequences of passive selection and endless testing:

I’m single, and continue to be so, because girls fuck up. Every flaking out, every dumb excuse, every little lie, every game, every charade, reduces her credibility and value in my mind.  By the time I ‘get her’ it’s just a matter of victory over all the crap. All genuine emotion has long been killed by her bullshit.

This is a large part of Dating 2.0. Instead of a woman actively looking for quality, she’s passively looking through elimination. She finds any almost any reason to reject a man through games, testing, and manipulation. Online dating exacerbates the situation because there’s always another guy’s profile to check out or another message/IM from a guy. Plus, bad dating advice combined with the Greek chorus of well-intended friends encourage passive selection with the “Prince Charming is right around the corner” advice.

Is it any wonder why Cedo Nulli feels so little for these types of women? This kind of passive elimination creates doormats and cads, it does not encourage men of good character. Rather, this repels them.

This is the reason I created this dating exercise for women: Every time a woman sees or interacts with a man, she must find at least one good thing about him. That’s active selection. That dating exercise (link below) can go a long way to shift a woman’s mindset away from passive selection and also see the general goodness that the vast majority of men possess.

To conclude, back to Cedo Nulli with some minor edits on my part:

I can and will not respect a girl who qualifies me as dating potential by smashing my shit on the ground. All she’ll get is the rise of the player who’ll take the challenge and enjoy his fuck trophy. I don’t feel guilty. If you’re not actively choosing me for my qualities but rather for my ability to withstand games and bullshit, that’s all you deserve – games and bullshit.

“Cedo Nulli” roughly means “I yield to none.”

Word.

Cedo Nulli – Why Girls Fail

A Dating Exercise For Women

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

24 thoughts on “Dating 2.0 – Selection, Active And Passive

  1. P Ray on said:

    The thing to be careful here is that women “passively eliminate” so that they come out as “morally superior” in the interaction. Also another reason why many (in their most desirable years) will pick men they later say are “abusive”.
    They don’t notice the nice guys they say they want.
    And by a nice guy they want, actually means “jerk I’m with who I wish was more nice to me but it was his jerkiness that attracted me to him” (I’ve heard the easiest way to get rid of these women is actually to be nice to them when you’re in a relationship with them).
    They’re actually selecting for the one who isn’t going to be bothered too much by her departure from him …
    because he’s got other things to occupy himself with.

    Being a jerk to get her, means being a jerk to keep her … and at any time she can turn around and tell others you were a jerk to her.
    However:
    Women realise that to complain about a man they can’t control … makes other women interested in him: so they only complain about the men they want to remain socially isolated (these are the guys she ISN’T in a relationship with) – “That guy is so creepy” “That guy is so nerdy” “OMG did you hear what he said about women? I’m going to tell other girls about him”. Relational aggression at its finest.

    Women also passively eliminate because she gets to preserve her “image” as a nice girl,
    with the rejoinder “YOU PERSISTENT CREEPY NICE GUYS JUST DON’T GET THE HINT!”
    when it’s actually “you can be as nice as you want, you are not the guy I’m attracted to, I will just tell you to be nice so I can scam favours, expertise, money and information from you”.

    The path to some alpha, begins with the RATT song “Nobody Rides For Free”.
    And with the realisation that stopping the bleeding is an improvement over “trying and failing when you were never going to be given a fair shake anyway”.

  2. just visiting on said:

    I don’t think that you can get around fitness testing. Though the quality of fitness testing is pretty low these days. Some of it is entitlement issues and weak character. Some could be the fast pace of life. In the old days, you grew up with people, and so fitness testing was subtler.

    Perhaps we’re chasing unicorns. In my case, I want a nice guy with confidence. Perhaps the two are at cross purposes.

    The men would like feminine women who are quickly sexually available. Perhaps that too, is at cross purposes. I don’t know.

    ST at the Sanctuary once noted that women are basically the same to men. I would agree. If most men are invisible to women, I would say that most women are the same to men.

    • It’s the amount of fitness testing that is so wretched. It does taper off with age, but it’s constant and never-ending. To Red Pill guys who know the score, it’s possible to deal with it effectively. But it’s sandpaper on the soul. The clueless blue pill guys, the fitness testing is the road to involuntary celibacy.

      ST at the Sanctuary once noted that women are basically the same to men. I would agree. If most men are invisible to women, I would say that most women are the same to men.

      This is very interesting and worth exploring. I would say that the more attractive women are given their own category and all the other women are the same. I would venture three categories of women: worthy of pursuit, worthy of sex, worthy of a deny.

    • Candide on said:

      “If most men are invisible to women, I would say that most women are the same to men.”

      Wrong. Take for example the OKCupid stats where women find well over 80% of men below average, while men rank women with a normal bell curve, meaning men find at least 50% women attractive enough.

      • just visiting on said:

        This is something I hadn’t considered. I wonder how this plays out in real life. Would these numbers skew to an 80 percent unacceptable rate when it comes to commitment?

      • P Ray on said:

        For contemporary marriages, commitment is a function of law.
        How many men are willing to commit, when 50% of marriages fail (and the 50% that “succeed” ain’t so hot either), VAWA exists and states have mandatory arrest-the-man laws, false rape accusations abound (I want to find the first female falsely accused of rape, since to my mind it’s sex (any kind) without consent), and there’s the “kids see him as the father figure” and “kids say he touched them”?
        Change the laws, and you’ll get more commitment.
        P.S. Mothers of boys growing up today are getting mad too, so I like it: generation gap fighting between 2 sets of women. No men necessary, so none of that “evil patriarchal oppression” scapegoat-talk.

      • Mark on said:

        The eighty per cent unacceptable rate would apply to male physical attractiveness for women but it would probably be a lower percentage for commitment because some women would be willing to settle for and to commit to a guy for other reasons such as economic reasons, especially as they get older. This was probably even truer for earlier generations. The hard working provider type of male was probably considered a real catch back when there was no welfare state safety net for women who made bad choices. Human nature doesn’t change and women have probably always found only twenty per cent of men to be attractive. When they got the vote, women basically used it to change welfare rules, divorce laws, and hiring laws (e.g. affirmative action) to transfer the economic resources of the provider males to them so they wouldn’t have to marry them anymore to receive those resources. When you talk about who is invisible to who, it’s that provider male who is now invisible to women while they chase the twenty per cent of guys they want.

    • P Ray on said:

      “In my case, I want a nice guy with confidence.” who earns all the money in the relationship, is taller than me and more educated (again, did you graduate?)
      Fixed that for you.

      “The men would like feminine women who are quickly sexually available.” with looks they can accept.
      Fixed that for you

      “If most men are invisible to women, I would say that most women are the same to men.” if men thought like women.
      Fixed that for you.

      • just visiting on said:

        Oh P Ray, you smoothie, you.

        I think that women being seen as the same is valid. Though, I could see this as something that women in the “sex only” category would feel. I could also see where this would lead them to try to break out of being seen as the same. Nobody wants to be just two t’s and a p.

        At the risk of being a special snowflake……..I’d like a nice guy with confidence. The rest would be nice options, but as it stands, I’m not even sure if finding a nice guy with confidence is realistic.

      • P Ray on said:

        You mean, no woman wants to be seen as two t’s and a p … by a man she’s not attracted to.
        I always chuckle when I hear of pumps and dumps – women are not children, they go into relationships with their eyes open, by choosing guys who won’t stick around.
        There would be no players, if women didn’t want them. 🙂

      • just visiting on said:

        I think the women you’re describing are only too happy to be in that category. It’s how they get their validation.

        The ones who don’t want to be placed there might have been such women. I’m not, but it’s not just riders going ’round and ’round or unfeminine women that need a strategy to stay out of it. I’m a single mom. Lots of pursuit, but I’m not dumb. If I don’t set my self apart, the best I can hope for is serial monogamy. And yeah, that’s with dad’s not just cads.

  3. Alex on said:

    PM

    More accurate to say:

    …three categories of women: worthy of pursuit, worthy of sex, worthless.

    It’s really a binary choice. I’ll approach and strike up a conversation to check her out, then continue if she seems to have some value or abandon and move on.

  4. Candide on said:

    This is why men are taught that prior to sex, a woman always looks for the flimsiest excuse to reject you. Which leads to why you need to make her qualify herself, so she forgets about her passive elimination process.

  5. Pingback: Cedonulli (Part Deux) » Blog Archive » Maah Head, So Big!

  6. bonerstaboner on said:

    @just visiting – when you say you’re looking for a “nice guy with confidence”, what you really mean is a nice guy with SEXUAL confidence (i.e. game), right? I take it you’re not referring to the nice guy who has good self esteem because of his friendships, career, accomplishments, etc?

    • NMH on said:

      What I have found is that “confidence” for a woman is tightly correlated with gina tingle for a woman, so she might just have said “a nice guy who gives me the gina tingle.” If a man does not give her the gina tingle she will claim that he doesnt have enough confidence in some fashion.

      Asking for a nice guy with confidence is like me asking for a hot girly-girl who has a sweet personality. Forget-about-it……………….

      • P Ray on said:

        A confident guy a woman doesn’t like is “arrogant”.
        An arrogant guy a woman likes is “confident”.
        The fun really starts to happen when halfway through her relationship, she tells other guys “You are such a nice guy, I need to share my relationship problems with you”.
        Because, obviously,
        the guy she’s with doesn’t care to hear them …
        so she goes to the nice guy for her emotional needs, and this keeps her stuck with the guy who is “disappointing” her since there is no need to address the “problem” of “emotional needs not being met”.
        I’d say, being the nice guy … keeps her stuck with the “bad boy”.
        She has no need to directly address the problem, since she has someone to bawl to.
        The reason women later will say “nice guys are jackasses” … is because when he points out he is having trouble with women … it takes the spotlight off of her and her problems.
        A unique feature of such women is the thinking/attitude like she’s the only girl in the world, and only her problems matter.

      • “What I have found is that ‘confidence’ for a woman is tightly correlated with gina tingle for a woman, so she might just have said “a nice guy who gives me the gina tingle.”

        Exactly, and guys, use this to your advantage when crafting the online dating profile: Make it ridiculously arrogant. The few that respond are essentially telling you they are DTF. In person, I cannot come close to how cocky my profile is (though I’m getting better thanks to comrades like TPM); however, they’ve already made up their mind when I pull up to meet them and it just becomes a matter of whether I want to do them or not. Nice.

    • just visiting on said:

      Good question. They say a woman models her husband after her father. (He would have been quite comfortable in these forums) For many years I was pretty smug about escaping that. My time in the manosphere has had me take a closer look at that arrogance. My husband as well as the boyfriends leading up to my husband were all very confident. The thing is, we were teen agers when we got together, and though hubby had sexual experience, not enough to justify what most men on these forums are thinking in terms of sexual sophistication.

      Confidence is the main thing that I take from my fathers template. If I look back, these were guys who had enforced their boundaries and had a fair amount of self respect. They all had at least one thing they were very very good at. They could be complete assholes. (Though, for the most part this was not directed my way.) They didn’t allow others to walk all over them. (Though I’ll qualify this with 90% of the time.) They were pretty fearless, sometimes to the point of recklessness. As for gina tingles, well I should hope so. On some level, they followed a form of game. This had to do with up bringing, and if you were to tell them they were red pill, they’d probably look at you funny.

      Though I would also say that there were traits that would have the manosphere flinching as completely beta. And these were for my benefit. But then again, these traits were rewarded. (I had quite the collection of love letters.)

      Though, I worry about compulsiveness. Can you have these traits and not be compulsive? I don’t want to end up divorced again, but I’m not sure if the traits I’m attracted to aren’t linked to destructive behaviour.

      • just visiting on said:

        I’ need to edit something here for clarity. Though my husband could be a complete asshole when boundaries were crossed, most of his time was spent in nice guy mode. Though I think that a lot of how he was able to carry this off had to do with body language and vocal tonality.

  7. NMH on said:

    Definately some girls reject men in this fashion, but I think most of the time most men just “blow it”; meaning they take what they hear from the popular media and pop psychology about what works for women (ie “a kind and supportive listener”) and apply to women: meaning, they tell the girl how nice she is and how attractive she is, and vaguely suggest that he will support her no matter what during the courtship phase. So in some cases women fail the men based on active shit testing as implied in your analytical post, but I think most of the time its not so much that she shit tests, its more that the guy tries to qualify himself and it comes off as weakness for some ridiculuous logic on the women’s part. I think hotter women tend to shit test more, not as attractive do so less but men blow it by opening up tp much.

  8. I have to commend your choice in reading materials. 😉

    Interestingly enough, the other half of that same story, the girl in the preface, is fitting the exact profile of what I say girls ‘should’ act like – at least so far. Just as I write about the big dating fallacy, the incubator of the story turns out to be one of the counter points. The universe is not without a sense of irony, eh?

    As such we’ll see soon enough if I have to eat my player-words on this one … or if just acting right really does keep the Jake dark side in it’s cave.

    Great collection of articles and links, too. Glad I found your site.

  9. Pingback: The EAP Guide to Becoming Marriageable, Part 1 | Christian Men's Defense Network

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: