Post: #51

what an ego trip!

Post: #52

I would have for sure known something was up and not partaken. Sounds crazy suspicious, like she's selling something or setting something up. At the same time my Tinder game (a couple years ago now) was strong enough to get some kind of expectation from the girl ahead of time, of what she wanted, and if it didn't involve alcohol or at least an intimate setting like a coffee place, there was no chance of it going anywhere, particularly in Manhattan.

That said, considering that Tinder is such a dead end these days (from what I hear), and that she might have been the ONLY date these guys have had set up through the app in weeks, maybe that alone was enough to excite them to stop by. As many guys here are pointing out, this might be a sign of peak, or peak-ing thirst. It certainly riled up the anger in some dudes, so at least a few guys may not put up with this crap again and spread the word.

Post: #53

(08-23-2018 08:41 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 06:01 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  Someone posted the text script they used to Twitter:

I wouldn't have shown up based on that word salad "she" spits out. No woman is that verbose on tinder, you have to fucking drag shit out of them.

Right. Those men got what was coming for them. Those replies are the equivalent of this:

Post: #54

I bet most men thought it was fake but thought there was a small chance she was a slut enamoured with their look. Nevertheless, never let the woman pick the venue or anything, it's just bad game. I doubt these guys learned their lesson and I have a bad feeling this practice of mass Tindertraps will become more common unless punished.

Post: #55

A great example why daygame and nightgame will still be alive and well into the future.

Post: #56

I disagree about the men knowing better. How the fuck can anyone anticipate that they were going to be a part of a scam that sets up hundreds of guys at once? It's unprecedented. I've met girls off tinder and while it is not common, the ones most keen did leave strong words/details in messages. Nevertheless, I was more heated when I first opened this thread about the state of men, but reading through it some more with time to reflect and watching the videos attached on the experiment, it's not as bad as I originally thought.

The reason I say the above is because what I liked about the experiment was that it originally called out tinder as a whole, which we have been doing for years anyway. I think they originally had an ok idea for a point, but they executed it horribly by scamming real guys out of time and possibly money for traveling or skipping work, and also they didn't go after the girls side of their point in the live experiment. The same point could've been addressed with actor guys and girls that were willing to take part in a live social experiment in more of a "What Would You Do?" style seeing how real people would react around them.

With that said, I think the video had clear winners and losers on the guys' side with the 100 or so guys trying to meet the maybe 6 Natasha.

The clear winner was the black dude that took the mic. He called out the whole experiment plain and simple, and that took balls considering no other guy seemed to directly call Natasha and her crew out, plus he took a hit from the security guard doing it. He's a hero alpha in my book. Other small winners could be the guys who just left the scene as soon as she said they would have to compete for her. Good to know some guys knew she wasn't worth all that.

Now, the losers are clearly the 20 or so guys that ACTUALLY COMPETED FOR THE DATE. Like what was said earlier, it seems more of the higher value guys or those with self respect left when the real motive was revealed, with maybe some surprising guys sticking around, but others seeming to be slightly lower value anyway. Seriously, where is their self respect? Luckily, this was only a fraction of the guys that started, but it says a lot about how far some dudes are willing to go.

Other dudes seemed to stick around just to watch the experiment play out between Natasha and the remaining competing dudes. I'll give these guys a neutral point, as I'm thinking curiosity and maybe making fun of the guys competing won out here for them to stay and watch. Don't fully blame them here, as again it's unprecedented and if I was there, I think my jaw would've been dropped that 20+ guys would be willing to compete for one girl.

I do think this experiment is going to wake guys up or make them more aware the US dating market is highly skewed. I'm not far from where this took place, so if anything, it's telling me to get my ass back on a plane to SEA sooner rather than later where western men rule the dating scene more. Oh, and off topic but I know western women love to talk shit about western men exploiting eastern women, well, now we have ammo to show them why western men get exploited in the dating scene here. I've said for a while now for the dating scene, women rule the west, men rule the east, which makes for an equal world. Now there's more proof than ever.

Post: #57

^ Great analysis. If it wakes a good number of men up, then this is a net win for men. The more women flaunt and abuse their power in the West, the more it should hopefully backfire. And by the way, yankeetravels, you’re a more level headed man than I am.

Post: #58

This was an utterly unethical psychological experiment. Check out what was posted about this:



That said, this guy's a pussy, who needs to stop whining about his feelings and toxic masculinity. Don't hate the player, son, hate the game. And nut up, for the love of God.

Post: #59

(08-24-2018 12:10 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:  ^ Great analysis. If it wakes a good number of men up, then this is a net win for men.

On the other hand, if it demoralizes a good number of men, then this is a net loss for men.

Post: #60

Are those men who walked away from this rigged game MGTOW? If so, are they seen as losers for not bothering to compete because the cost, risk, benefits appraisal came back as a firm negative?

Post: #61

(08-23-2018 08:41 PM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 06:01 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  Someone posted the text script they used to Twitter:

I wouldn't have shown up based on that word salad "she" spits out. No woman is that verbose on tinder, you have to fucking drag shit out of them.

Yeah, but even with Game knowledge - would men turn down potential sex? She alluded to it which is very rare unless she really is horny right now and finds you super-hot.

It was written by Blue Pillers and women.

Even with massive automatic looks appeal, then women don't go into text tirades. That happens at best after sex:

Post: #62

(08-24-2018 02:00 AM)N°6 Wrote:  Are those men who walked away from this rigged game MGTOW? If so, are they seen as losers for not bothering to compete because the cost, risk, benefits appraisal came back as a firm negative?

That's more like monk mode. If a lot of guys could suppress their hormonal urges or fear of loneliness then the plurality of men would probably do it?

Anyway with the state of maledom in 2018 chances are someone thinks of you as a loser within 10 seconds anyway. That's fine by me because I don't need women or salesmen trying to steal my money or wasting my time.

Post: #63

(08-23-2018 11:44 PM)yankeetravels Wrote:  I disagree about the men knowing better. How the fuck can anyone anticipate that they were going to be a part of a scam that sets up hundreds of guys at once? It's unprecedented. I've met girls off tinder and while it is not common, the ones most keen did leave strong words/details in messages. Nevertheless, I was more heated when I first opened this thread about the state of men, but reading through it some more with time to reflect and watching the videos attached on the experiment, it's not as bad as I originally thought.

Thing is it isn't just Natasha.

Because most real life game has shifted online it means the typical female in 2018 is getting spam gamed on Facebook and Instagram a lot. A stunt like this 10 years ago would had been impossible to pull off and the SMV for most men was better back then too (there were more women in bars and few dating apps back then were like Plenty of Fish which was just single moms and fatties so nobody cared).

Post: #64

So was this a way from humiliating men for being too picky on tinder haha, most guys that I know who use tinder swipe left or is right (to show they like someone) automatically.

Apart from her getting some validation and pleasure from rejecting men on mass what is the point of this social experiment.


The dynamics between men and women in the West, remind me of when you see that recently married couple, where the guy is nice and sweet trying to do everything for his woman and she just has the up most contempt for him.

I think in general, even 'game' is not going to hit the switch with these women. Currently I live in London which of course is similar to New York and the bitchy attitudes here are off the roof, and there is a direct correlation with the media and popular culture that they consume. I've heard it at least several times from different women in the last month who say "Men are all assholes, I hate men".

Meanwhile the men are see around in the majority are either 1.gay, 2. so feminine that they are on the way to being gay. 3.carefree and just doing their own shit. 4. opting out with video games/internet porn. Then there are the criminals and psychopaths which you occasionally see knocking about.

I do want to see the end game for this. Personally myself and my friends would stay away from girls like this who exhibit red flag signs, and in general are pretty clued up on girls and how the world works. I believe that men in general have ways to adapt and we always have done throughout the ages. However it does both me to see the major corporations and even governments promoting these hardline feminist stances. Even in the stoic anglo legal system has changed over the years due to cultural changes, quite dramatically indeed. If you feminism is the natural 'default state' ideology for the masses, which it appears to be now, at least in the big city. Then you can see all these wackos introducing legislation change which is going to just look ugly.

Post: #65

(08-24-2018 03:09 AM)BaatumMania Wrote:  

(08-24-2018 02:00 AM)N°6 Wrote:  Are those men who walked away from this rigged game MGTOW? If so, are they seen as losers for not bothering to compete because the cost, risk, benefits appraisal came back as a firm negative?

That's more like monk mode. If a lot of guys could suppress their hormonal urges or fear of loneliness then the plurality of men would probably do it?

Anyway with the state of maledom in 2018 chances are someone thinks of you as a loser within 10 seconds anyway. That's fine by me because I don't need women or salesmen trying to steal my money or wasting my time.

Unless you are married or in a long term relationship, aren't men going to go long periods of time without having sex anyway ?

I mean, I am literally working around 18 hours a day on average at the moment on my job and side business. When I have a day off or my hours are reduced, I'll be either going to the gym trying to regain the fitness I lost during the week or just monging out at home in an attempt to chill out.

I know a few other guys in their mid 20s who are doing the same thing, none of whom are in relationships. This is life in London however when I was living overseas in places which appear on the travel section quite often, I had an easier life and I was seeing lots of women, because time and the environment allowed me to.

Then again around here (London) there is not a great deal to aspire to in terms of high quality women. Work and business is the name of the game until I am able to relocate somewhere better.

Post: #66

(08-23-2018 11:44 PM)yankeetravels Wrote:  I disagree about the men knowing better. How the fuck can anyone anticipate that they were going to be a part of a scam that sets up hundreds of guys at once?

I only do online dating when I travel and haven't used Tinder, so maybe I'm an outlier. Would you not feel strange going to meet a girl you've never even talked to?

I always make a call as soon as I get her number; no more texting from that point except for an anti-flake "On my way. See you in an hour".

Given the incidence of SIFs, fake photos and enhancement filtering bullshit during the past couple of years, I won't meet without a video call. Sometimes a girl won't answer a video call if she isn't wearing makeup. In that case, I would make a voice call, chat for a few minutes, then tell her to ping me later when she's ready.

What's the point of getting her number if you're just going to keep texting?

Post: #67

^I've done it enough times where meeting without a call or video doesn't bother me at all. Thing is, I'm also someone that meets a lot of people professionally along with guy friends from forums like this without phone calls or videos first, it could literally be just email or text for previous communication. So it's how I network to meet new people and I guess I treat dates the same.

The point of getting her number for me is to get her off whatever dating app she's on, stand out, and don't beat around the bush for a date. I tend to push for the date immediately after the number then use the number for texting logistics.

In terms of meeting girls without calling or texting, I think I've banged double digit girls doing this. Like anything else I lose some and others flake, but I find it to be time efficient and gets rid of bullshit. Some of my best girls have worked out this way.

Post: #68

(08-23-2018 01:04 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

(08-23-2018 12:18 PM)Big Papi Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2018/08/23/tinder-tra...ping-guys/

Stupid cunt liberals - so the crap was officially to prove how evil you are when having a bunch of requirements and quick selection criteria based on looks?

Bitch - most of those you mentioned height, race etc. - they were unalienable requirements of women. The list of female conditions is legion.

The men who posted "no tats" or "no fatties" are likely few and far in between - besides - those criteria are not unalienable. You choose to get tattoos and it's up to you what you make with your body. Besides - everyone has looks preferences.

I hope that the black "winner" gets to hate-fuck her - though I very much doubt that. I also liked that other black anti-feminazi hero who interrupted her in her ego-interview.

You don't waste time of people and play with their emotions just for giggles, business and your own political agenda.

Fuck off with that bullshit - no wonder that some guys were even talking with the cop over whether this was illegal. It's not - it's just fucked up and bad taste. You saw it in the faces of all those men when they heard it was some kind of stupid scam.

I predict that the stunt will backfire on the company.

(SNIP)

And here her own statements:

Quote:Interesting quotes from Natasha from her Elite Daily article: "I wanted to show the world that women are the ones with the power nowadays. For years, women have been oppressed in society by men, and only recently have we managed to turn the tables."

"My main goal was public humiliation, to showcase the obsessive nature men have (as is evident by the fact that lots of them stuck around after the ruse had been revealed.) I feel like this goal was achieved."

"This was something I had been thinking of doing for a long time ever since my ex-boyfriend [editor's note: name has been redacted] cheated on me a couple of years ago, and at last I was finally there. The humiliation factor of it for the men was a great feeling, and I felt very desirable."

So yeah - her MAIN GOAL WAS HUMILIATION BECAUSE SHE GOT DUMPED BY HER EX (and likely quite a few other good-looking high-achieving men in NYC)

Problem is that she is attractive, but not super-attractive and she is a cunt. Who wants that?

The quote from Natasha in her Elite Daily article reads: "I wanted to show the world that women are the ones with the power nowadays. For years, women have been oppressed in society by men, and only recently have we managed to turn the tables."

This is a TOTAL misinterpretation of history. Unfortunately, it's what's taught in schools and on TV. Let me set the record straight.

Women were not oppressed per se in Western society. Before we had an information-oriented society that afforded them workplace equality, we had an agrarian civilization and then an industrial one. Women were BIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE of building and maintaining either.

This has been misinterpreted as "oppression" by people who only know what they see out their window TODAY. But everything you see WAS ONCE NOT HERE AT ALL.

How did it get here? MEN put it there.

Look at your computer screen. Look at the maze of highways outside your house. Heck, look at your house. Men designed and built all that -- and even brought it to you via trucks. (To quote the old trucker's slogan: "If you got it, a truck brought it.")

Women didn't do any of this. Not because they were "oppressed." Because they were biologically incapable of doing so en masse. (Please note the "en masse" in that sentence. Certain individual women are able to do a lot, but I'm discussing women as a group.)

If women could have, they would have. But they didn't. I'm sorry some women can't deal with living in a man's world, but that doesn't mean they were oppressed. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. All the technology and conveniences liberated women and gave them more opportunity. Thank men for that.

***

In the second part of her statement, she talks about how women are now able to "turn the tables." Yes, to a degree they can -- using the very technology that men built. (Gee, you'd think that if women were really "oppressed," they wouldn't want to use the spoils of their oppressors, but I guess not.)

But two can play this game. Any man with a few hundred bucks can use the same digital technology and get on an "arrangement" Web site and have sex with a younger hottie without any of the drama we've seen here.

And considering how this Tinder mess played out, my guess is that a lot of guys are going to be doing just that. The end.

Post: #69

Shit like this is exactly why I tell men to avoid dating sites. For god sakes, why would you bother with them? There are always women playing stupid silly games like this. I first noticed it in Yahoo Personals almost 20 years ago. Nothing has changed since then, except they are now apps on smart phones.

Post: #70

Post: #71

She's not very good looking..

   

Post: #72

So is it possible to type in Tinder from a PC?

That must be how the agency did this scam? No way someone would copy pasta all that text in a phone.

How does one access the Tinder app from a PC?

Post: #73

(08-24-2018 02:08 PM)monster Wrote:  So is it possible to type in Tinder from a PC?

That must be how the agency did this scam? No way someone would copy pasta all that text in a phone.

How does one access the Tinder app from a PC?

They got the number as fast as possible, when they got that, then it was easy to do it via a software. And even then - they claim that they had 50 female employees texting back and forth between the men. 250 showed up, but they must have been talking with 1000+ who did not show up for various reasons.

The last viral stunt with the girl walking through NYC also somewhat backfired, but to a lesser degree. She started a lawsuit demanding 500k and they alleged that the had edited out the sexist comments of White men.

This stunt got far more backlash even from women and normies.

Post: #74

Fucked better then this for 50 Deutsche Mark's.

Post: #75

(08-24-2018 01:51 PM)Roosh Wrote:  She's not very good looking..

On looks WPND (would pump and dump) on looks unless she made up for it in femininity and not acting like trash (which we know she doesn't.)