Notes for Inexperienced Men on Making a Move on a Girl

Some thoughts prompted by Aidan Maclear’s Game test
His answer key is here:

The first question:

1) Imagine that you’re a very young man, still first year of college or the summer after highschool, and you’re not exactly bad with women, not an incel, not a virgin, but you know nothing of the dark arts, have swallowed the blue pill, so your true potential is held back. An attractive female friend who you had considered out-of-your-league invites you over to her house at night to hang out. You’re thinking “damn, she was into me after all, I’m getting some tonight”. But when you get there, she’s treating you like an asexual platonic friend, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the two of you are all alone in her house. You don’t feel any sexual tension from her end, i.e. she hasn’t shit tested you at all, and there’s no flirting going on, but nonetheless you push the thought of her tight curvy little ass out of your mind and have a fun time hanging out, drinking a little liquor, and watching movies. Later, you realize that the night is winding down without any progress, and if you want to fuck her, you need to do something soon. She’s sitting on the couch next to you, close enough that you smell her intoxicating scent, but not touching you. What do you do?

Some of Maclear’s commenters have misapprehensions about this situation, essentially seeing it as an almost-lost cause that requires some sort of desperate long shot. No, no, no!

One commenter said the correct answer to this (multiple-choice) question is
(d), since she’s out of your league.
Answer d is basically Just go for it, which is the correct answer, but this commenter’s reason for it is all wrong: However much sense a girl being “out of your league” might make in some contexts (a complicated topic), it doesn’t make sense when she has invited you over (at night, no less) with just the two of you there.

Another commenter:
1d) Direct action seems the only chance.
The situation is not at all so dire as to be melodramatically talking about “the only chance.”

Another commenter:
1: c, reality is you blew it but it’s worth a try.
No, no, no, no, no! This is very wrong! Pathologically wrong! Forgive me, if you chance to read this, but this view of things suggests you’re not very experienced with women.

The reality, based on experience:

1. When a girl deliberately maneuvers herself into being alone with you, she wants you to make a move.

2. Whatever you did earlier to make her attracted to you was the important part. Her wanting to fool around with you has little or nothing to do with how you make the move. She decided she wanted to screw you in the preceding hours, or weeks, or whatever.

3. Due to point 2, you have way more leeway than you might think in how you make the move, by which I mean the first overt physical move. (When I was single it was almost always going for the first kiss, though maybe single men these days just start by grabbing the girl’s clit, for all I know.) Your timing can be bad, your pass can be clunky, you can even screw up by talking about making a pass at her before you actually do it, and she’ll still enthusiastically go along with your move.

I’ve made all of these mistakes when I was young, and it only sort of mattered once. It was the talking one, where I asked a girl I liked (I was 14) “Can I kiss you?” She said “No.” That was that, but only for the moment: years later I had my cock in her mouth, so it wasn’t a lethal mistake in the long run. When I was in college I made similar mistakes on two separate occasions, and both times I got laid anyway. In both cases the girl had invited herself to my dorm room late at night. One of those times I actually said something like “Did you come here so we could fool around?” Now this is bad, for two reasons: One, it’s clunky and socially graceless; why not just make a move instead of talking about it? Two, being this explicit runs the risk of activating her anti-slut defense. She shrugged off my lack of smoothness and fucked me anyway.

I got laid the other time too, because that’s why each of those chicks had invited herself to my dorm room late at night in the freakin’ first place.

4. One time a girl invited me to her apartment for the weekend. That evening after dinner, before there had been any fooling around, we were lying/sitting on her bed talking when I just randomly, with no particular context, went for the kiss. We started making out. Later, after blowing me, she told me that my timing had surprised her. But that made no difference. Why do you think she’d invited me to her pad in the first place?

5. Some inexperienced men worry about the details of making that first move. People, this is the least important part of it. It’s actually the easiest and most fun part of the Great Dance. It’s almost trivial, really. Generating attraction, before that, is when all the important questions about you are answered in her mind.

Actually, let me qualify the statement “making that first move is actually the easiest and most fun part of the Great Dance.” I remember that it could be somewhat adrenalin-y when I was really young, like 12 or 14, and not very experienced. A young man has to just decide to go for it, just make yourself do it. It’s part of being a man (as opposed to merely a male human).

By the time I was in my twenties, I had a saying that the only thing that made my pulse rate rise from 71 beats per minute to 72 was making a move when I wasn’t sure how the girl would respond. It’s pure fun, once you’re experienced.

Making an overt move also is good even if she’s not actually into you, since games girls play that revolve around their being coy little flirts who aren’t really interested in you can be destroyed by simply going for the first kiss: A girl who’s not attracted to you won’t go let you jam your tongue down her throat. Then you can move on, avoiding a further waste of time.

One more thing: What about if you really thought she was attracted you, and you’re attracted to her, but your move is rejected? IMPORTANT TRUTH: This is not remotely as bad as you think it will be, if it has never happened to you before. Say you go in for the first kiss, she leans back and says, “What are you doing?” or “I just think of you as a friend” or whatever. It’s nothing. You’ll just handle it. You’ll just be like, “Oh, OK. Well, I’m gonna go hang out with my buddies at the bar.” Or whatever.

One of the most liberating things that ever happened to me was the first time I had a move shot down. I was disappointed, but not flustered. I was like, “THAT’s what I was thinking would be a big deal all that time? That’s nothing!” That’s when I started making more passes, and fooling around with more girls, because I realized that having a pass rejected is no big deal at all.

Also: When you look back on it later, you’ll regret the passes you might have made but didn’t, not the passes you made that got shot down.

Though now there’s the Title IX/Affirmative Consent stuff, which makes it harder for men. If you’re a college man in an “affirmative consent” state like California or New York, it may be more complicated for you. Or not. My advice would simply be to vet the girl before you make a move. Remember, the vast majority of women are not psychotic feminists; they’re not looking for an excuse to cry “Rape!” Weed out the crazies before it ever gets to the “making a move” stage.


Having a move rejected is not a big deal. You’ll just handle it. Don’t let that possibility stop you.

In making a move, most of the stuff that matters is in whatever generates attraction before you’re ever in a position (alone with her) to make a move. How you make a move is much less important. Women who want to have sex with you are incredibly forgiving if your pass isn’t perfect.

The U.S. is not a “proposition nation.”


The U.S. is not a “proposition nation.” If it were,

(1) its advocates would actually say what the proposition is,
(2) you’d have to swear adherence to that proposition to be a U.S. citizen.

The first of these is rarely true, and the second one is not true at all.

For example, if the proposition is that “the Constitution is good,” then why are people who call it “a worthless scrap of paper,” etc., allowed to remain American citizens?

These days, the phrase “proposition nation” is a propaganda phrase used by our enemies to deceive us. That may or may not have been true in the past, but I am talking about the situation now. Thus the actual content of the phrase “proposition nation” is, “You can be an American citizen whether or not you agree with the proposition.” This is, literally, the opposite of what “proposition nation” actually means (if it means anything).

Some people may try to get cute and argue that the proposition is the meta-proposition that people should be allowed to believe any proposition they want. But the modern left is explicitly against this idea, and is imposing ever-increasing restrictions on the advocacy of propositions the left disagrees with. Yet, none of the people who yap about “proposition nation” advocate stripping leftists who stifle others’ speech of their citizenship.

In summary: Not only is the notion of a “proposition nation” nonsensical, but apparently none of those who push that phrase are sincere about it.

How to Ice Skate Repost

Reposting this today because it’s October first, a good date to put up stuff about skating. If your local rink isn’t open for the season yet, they will be soon. I think I’ll repost this every year in October (until I forget or get bored).

Aright, bitches, ’tis the season, so listen up.

Ice skating is awesome. When you’re going fast it is the closest a human being can get to flying. The American Psychiatric Association defines “not liking ice skating” as a mental disorder. It’s in their diagnostic manual.

I always see a lot of n00bs ice skating, which is great! Here are some tips.

(1) You will fall. Get used to it.

(2) Ice skating is not walking on ice. The physics is different.

When you walk, you push backward with one foot. (See Figure 1.) If your foot has good traction on the ground, it can’t slip back, though, so instead you are pushed forward. (Newton’s third law of motion, “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”)

Figure 1

You cannot do this on ice skates, padawan, because you are on a blade that’s like a sixth of an inch thick. If you push your foot straight back, there is not enough area of the blade making contact with the ice to produce good traction. (See Figure 2.) Instead of being planted on the ice and thus propelling you forward, your foot will simply slide back. Then, because you’re a n00b, you’ll fall down. (Newton’s lesser-known fourth law of motion, “N00bs fall down.”)

Figure 2. The thin black line is your blade’s contact with the ice.

How do you deal with this? Well, plainly you need more area of the blade making contact with the ice. Simply turning your foot somewhat sideways does it. (See Figure 3.) This gives your foot enough traction, so when you push it back, the only thing that can happen is that the rest of you goes forward.

Figure 3. (The extent to which the foot is turned here is exaggerated for clarity.)

Meanwhile you are pointing the other foot in roughly the direction you want to go, so you glide forward on that foot. (As per Newton’s fifth law, “Ice is slippery.”)

Then the feet switch roles, with the gliding foot becoming the foot you’re pushing back with, and the pushing foot becoming the gliding foot. Repeat.

Once you learn this, it really is easy and natural.

(3) On falling: One of the problems is that your instincts about righting yourself when you’re off balance are all wrong. Moves that help you regain your balance when you’re on terra firma don’t necessarily help you, to put it mildly, when you’re skating on blades on ice. You have to learn new reflexes (if learned reflexes isn’t an oxymoron). I can’t re-wire your neural wiring that handles these reflexes, so I don’t know what to tell you here, except that you have to practice.

(4) “Crossover,” logically enough, is the term for when you cross one foot over the other. You’ve seen this: It’s that thing a skater does where it seems like his feet are moving independently of the direction his body is traveling in, so it looks like he’s moonwalking or something.

Crossovers function best when you’re turning at high speed and really leaning into the turn. You do this naturally when you turn while running on ground, but when you do that your foot is planted. When you’re skating, in contrast, you continue to glide on that foot as you shift your weight into the turn, so that for a moment the foot is actually moving in a different direction from your body’s center of mass.

Crossovers are a great way to add speed with relatively little effort, because gravity is doing some of the work for you. When you change direction you lean in the direction you want to go in. So you start to fall in that direction. Before you fall very far, though, you put a foot out under yourself so you glide in that direction instead of falling.

By the way, when you take a turn with a fast series of crossovers, it actually is as fun as it looks. Hell, it’s much more fun. There’s a power and smoothness that is like nothing else. Cf. comment above, in re: “flying.”

(5) Control: As long as you’re not going too fast, turning is so easy that it’s practically subliminal. (No crossovers for the moment; I’m not talking about that level of speed.) What is actually going on, of course, is that you’re shifting your weight ever so slightly in the direction you want to go in. But it feels like you’re just thinking yourself into changing direction. Telekinesis!

(6) Efficiency: Another way you can tell n00bs, even after they’ve learned to not fall much, is by how much energy they waste. In extreme cases it looks like they’re expending half again as much energy as they need to per foot-pound of work accomplished.

If this is you, don’t worry; this takes care of itself over time. Your body’s natural reluctance to waste energy will quickly make you adjust so that your motion is economical.

(7) Stopping. Several n00bs at rinks have asked me for advice, particularly about how to stop.

The correct answer is: Stopping is for the weak and timid! Are you a wuss!? Are you!? Huh!? Good, I didn’t think so. Let’s have no more nonsense about stopping.

If you insist, though, you can just point yourself at a wall. That usually works.

All kidding aside: There are basically two ways to slow yourself down, and if you keep slowing long enough you’ll stop.

The first I call the two-feet method: Just point your skates toward each other, while keeping your legs stiff so your feet don’t actually come together. If your feet bump into each other you’ll fall, obviously. But if you hold your feet apart at that angle, the blades will scrape against the ice, slowing you. And if you keep doing it, stopping you.

You can feel and hear the scraping, at least if you’re not at a rink where they constantly blast fucking country music over the sound system at full volume, what the actual fuck, not that I’m complaining or anything, but what the fuck? Don’t they know that playing that shit voids the warranty on your speaker system? Anyway…

The second method of stopping is the much-admired “hockey stop.” That’s the one you think of when I say “how to stop,” where they turn sideways and kick up ice shavings.

Just turn sideways and dig the blade of your leading foot into the ice. You’re also using your trailing foot, of course, but more for balance than friction, at least the way I do it (YMMV). Also, you’re doing some rapid adjustment of your balance, naturally.

When you first try this you’re going to think, “I shall now attempt a hockey stop.” That’s well and good, but you learn faster if you just think, “Shit! I need to stop!” and imagine what you’d do if you really needed to stop suddenly. This makes it more instinctive and less cerebral.

(8) Sharpness matters so your blades dig in. You need this (a) for acceleration, so your pushing foot can bite into the ice, (b) to slow yourself and stop, and (c) to execute a crossover. (Probably for six other reasons that I’m not thinking of at the moment too.) When you’re doing a crossover, the gliding foot has to bite into the ice to a certain extent or the foot will just slide out from under you. This happened to me once when I was trying to take too steep an angle with my gliding foot. Foot shot backward, rest of body went, “Hello, ice!”

The blade has some thickness; it’s not a knife blade. It’s the blade’s edges that are sharp. Once I actually drew blood from my hand accidentally with the edge. But that was probably right after they’d been sharpened; normally blades aren’t that sharp.

(9) Miscellany:

(A) Little kids on the ice are cute, but DANGER DANGER DANGER!!! Partly this is because they can’t control themselves yet, and partly because even the ones who can control themselves have no social awareness whatsoever. If they see Mom over there, they will simply turn with no warning in that direction, and if you’re behind them you’re going to be doing some fancy dancing to not hit them. This leads to hilarity and occasional bruises, because of course you’re going to steer yourself into a wall or shift so that you fall, instead of plowing into a little kid.

I recently cracked my elbow into the wall of a rink because I had to dodge a little one who seemed to execute a right-angle turn right in front of me with no warning. I had to do something to avoid smashing into him and ended up saying Hi to the plexi-glass. He didn’t even realize it had happened, but I did get a sympathetic look from someone on the other side of the glass.

They can also turn quite suddenly because their centers of gravity are so low. It’s like they’re equipped with little inertialess drives.

Just remember this:

Little kids on ice = Brownian motion + inertialess drives.

(B) Use your ears as well as your eyes to help maintain awareness of other skaters in your vicinity. Thus you can avoid pulling a “little kid” and turning suddenly just when someone’s coming up behind you.

Caveat: In the corners of the rink, noise bounces around weirdly. Sometimes it sounds like someone is coming up behind you and just about to smash into you. You’re like “Gah!” but when you look around there’s no one within ten yards.

(C) Downhill skating. Sweet! But why didn’t they have this when I was 19? You kids today don’t know how good you have it, let me tell you, when I was your age I had to skate 40 miles to school, and it was uphill both ways! By God!

(D) This is a politically incorrect blog, so an observation about the sexes. Normal people, continue to read; shrieking feminist shrikes, go somewhere else (permanently).

Still with me? OK, a fun observation:

All good skaters have both power and grace, strength and fluidity. But there is a difference between good female skaters and good male skaters. Good female skaters have power – you can’t be a good skater without it – but they have more grace compared to male skaters. And good male skaters have grace – you can’t be a good skater without that, either(*) – but they have more power compared to female skaters. Just a nice little “the world is gendered” observation to affirm normality and freak out the screaming SJWs.

If you’re like most people, i.e. psychologically normal, you understand (there was a time when no one denied this!) that the sexes are different and that the differences, in so many ways, can be a source of delight to everyone. This is just a small example of that.

* Even the most brutal hockey player, 190 pounds of muscle and missing three front teeth, who starts throwing jabs at the slightest provocation, has grace on the ice. If you don’t believe me, Youtube is your friend.

(10) Have fun!


Miscellany 16: Miscellany All Night, Every Night, Baby

(1) This news story has a bad immigrant AND a good gun. Double the political incorrectness!

Police in West Virginia say a man was trying to abduct a child at a mall when the mother stopped him by pulling out a gun.

News outlets report 54-year-old Mohamed Fathy Hussein Zayan of Alexandria, Egypt, was arraigned Monday night in Cabell County Magistrate Court on a felony charge of attempted abduction.

(2) From “Dirk Manly” in the comments at

Perhaps you have seen or heard of a book from some years back: People of the Lie… Some people will gladly lap up any lie rather than the truth.
The “there’s at least 57 genders…maybe even millions!” crowd is a perfect example.

They know it’s a lie. They know that you know it’s a lie. But they’re going to continue spouting until it their last dying breath, because nothing warms their miserable hearts more than making you angry by dint of having to listen to their lies. Doubly so if you are coerced into silence and can’t voice an objection.

And if they can coerce you into repeating the lie….or ANY OTHER of the implausibly stupid lies coming from their camp, for that matter, then that makes their cold, blacker-than-coal hearts grow 3 sizes larger… for among other things, they are also emotional vampires…. what really picks them up is seeing someone who is feeling helpless, especially if they are the cause (in any way, large or small), for that person to feel helpless. What energizes them is running you down.

TL;DR: They GET OFF on creating misery.

(3) Flashback to July 2018: Victor Davis Hanson starts to notice the concept of a holiness spiral.

Hanson notes what the left wants these days—open borders, etc. —and notes that it’s not a winnable political program.

…progressives fear that their base will not allow them to move to the center to capture the old blue-collar white working class, or the Perot, Tea-Party and Blue Dog voter. Nor can they afford to move much further leftward, given they are increasingly dependent on Obama-like identity politics candidates without an Obama-like charismatic candidate.

Democrats privately acknowledge that Obama wrecked the Democratic Party—losing Congress, the presidency, state and local offices, and now the Supreme Court. But they must praise the forces of that wreckage and seek to trump them by becoming the party of hyper-identity politics. In other words, the Democrats know what sort of agenda might bring them back into power as it did in 1992. But they feel that Clintonesque cure is worse than the disease of being in the purer political wilderness without power.

So, for now, they rant, they rave, and they stew, accepting that they cannot do what might save them and therefore they only do more of what is destroying them.

They really are stuck in a holiness spiral.

The Dems contesting for the party nomination know that, e.g., taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants is lethal political poison in Middle America. But they also know that they’ll never get to the general election if they don’t win the primary battle, and to win the primary battle they have to cater to the Democratic base. And the Democratic base is now vertiginously insane.

(4) What Knuckling Under to the Left’s Rhetoric Gets You:

Ivanka Trump on Twitter, August 4, 2019:

“White supremacy, like all other forms of terrorism, is an evil that must be destroyed.”

Hard-core leftist Reza Aslan in response:

Ivanka adopted leftist rhetoric (“white supremacy”), and that’s the result.



(5) The ideology doesn’t choose the person. The person chooses the ideology.

I used to think that ideas are determinative: An idea goes airborne in the intellectual environment. It latches on to someone and forces him to believe in it, unless he has a good enough critical faculty. Memetic infection, in other words. And that does happen sometimes.

But the reality is at least as much the opposite: Bad people seek out or create ideas that justify their badness. Some people are born parasites who want to grab your stuff. Thus they embrace Marxism or any other ideology whose last line is, “…therefore, you have the right to grab their stuff.” Relatively few people start with no desire to grab your stuff and are really convinced by Marxism to want to do so.

Thus refuting bullshit is a necessary condition for saving the world, since it can convince the convinceable, but not a sufficient one, because most of the enemy are not convinceable.

(6) On Civil War 2.0:

“A Theory of Power Wars,” by Herrera, Morelli, and Nunnari

Abstract: This paper provides a theory of how war onset and war duration depend on the initial distribution of power when conflict triggers a reallocation of power but the loser is not eliminated. In the model, players take into account not only the expected consequences of war on the current distribution of resources, but also its expected consequences on the future distribution of military and political power. We highlight three main results: the key driver of war, in both the static and the dynamic game, is the mismatch between military and political power; dynamic incentives usually amplify static incentives, leading forward-looking players to be more aggressive; and a war is more likely to last for longer if political power is initially more unbalanced than military power and the politically under-represented player is militarily advantaged.