In fact, even two of the most respected authorities in the space have given absolutely terrible advice.

Robert Glover, of No More Mr. Nice Guy acclaim, published a second book more recently called "Dating Esentials for Men."

It actually has a lot of good information, but one nugget in particular caught my attention.

Direct quote:

​

"If you want to get a girlfriend, or if you want to get laid, you have to get out of the nursery.

This means you have to quit hanging around with women with whom you're not having sex.

This includes mothers, sisters, and female friends in general.

These women are "safe" because they don't represent any kind of a sexual challenge.

Spending too much time with women with whom you aren't having sex, makes sexless relationships feel normal.

When you spend too much nonsexual time with women, you quit seeing women as sexual objects. This is important even though we've been told we are bad men if we sexually objectify women.

Spending too much time in the nursery with safe women stifles your healthy male sexuality."

Holy cripes. So much nonsense in one paragraph.

First off, sexless relationships should feel normal. I love the platonic female friends I do have, and they have certainly gotten me laid plenty, either through introductions to other women, or by teaching me so many things about myself and how I interact with women.

So many of the guys I've met who can't get laid aren't lacking in the stereotypical dimensions like humor, looks, money, status, intelligence, etc. The only thing I could really point to is that they can be weird and uncalibrated when they talk to women. E.G one of my buddies used to stand way too close when he approached. Any female friend could've cleared that shit up in 3 seconds if she was out with him at the bar.

Second off, and maybe this is just semantics, but sexually objectifying women as a rule is not "healthy." Sometimes women really like it along with kinky degrading sex, but in my experience only if they're loved on and treated like a respected human, autonomous woman directly afterwards. I think any guy who has a lot of experience with meaningful sexual relationships could agree that connecting emotionally is often critical to the process of sexual arousal in women. You're not gonna manage that as easily if all you see her as is a sex object. There's a reason so many women prefer erotic literature full of flowery, emotionally charged language when they masturbate.

Thirdly, belittling time spent with female friends as "spending too much time in the nursery" is just toxic. It's reaching beyond what's effective for seduction into implying that you're a baby if you still have a good relationship with your mom and sister(s). That's ridiculous.

​

Again, I think Mr. Glover has put out some good content. I'm just cherry picking here to make a point.

​

Let's take another example: the beloved Mark Manson. Dude came out with maybe the first healthy book about seduction back in the day.

He's since rewritten this section I think, but the original section on physicality in his book said "our general guideline here is that we continue until a woman makes us stop."

A guy who has trouble reading signals is gonna read that and traumatize some girl who freezes up and is scared to push him off.

That idea could be better phrased as:

"Don't reject yourself and avoid escalating if you haven't gotten any negative signals from her. Move the interaction forward physically, 2 steps forward, 1 step back as long as she's responding positively.

Check in with her with questions phrased as statements like "I bet you'd love it if I with your your clit right now, yeah?" It's a way to confirm consent without sounding supplicating. If she doesn't respond positively, check in with her. Some women will freeze up when they're scared and not into it because they don't want to disappoint you or upset you."

​

The point of this post could be best summarized by quoting Bruce Lee.

"Absorb what is useful. Discard what is not."

This is not an exact science. Take content from this community at face value, and play devil's advocate to see if you can't poke holes in ideas before you accept them into your model of reality.

Nobody gets everything perfect because it's not a science. We're not doing controlled experiments with huge sample sizes here, we're just trying to extrapolate the best information to share that we can from personal experience.

Tl;DR even the best authorities in the space say some really dumb shit. It doesn't mean you shouldn't learn from them, it just means you shouldn't accept what they say without questioning it and considering other possibilities.