Ask An Asshole: Round 1

by Frost on April 15, 2011

{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }

Charlyn Shorb May 25, 2011 at 10:23 am

Useful blog website, keep me personally through searching it, I am seriously interested to find out another recommendation of it.

mikerosss May 22, 2011 at 5:53 am

Terrific work! This is the type of information that should be shared around the web. Shame on the search engines for not positioning this post higher!

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 1, 2011 at 8:50 am
Mina May 1, 2011 at 3:21 am

Ops, premature posting.

The thing is that the whole society discuss the flaws of women. (and sometimes the flaws of men, that is the same stupid way of looking at it) And as I see it, that is the biggest problem.

Men an women are mostly the same. Start treat eachother

Mina May 1, 2011 at 3:15 am

Now. I dont’t live in America. So that is perhaps something that I might get wrong here… The sex-and-the-city girls probably exists. But so what? Why does woman quote: “need to settle”? Who are you that is concerned? Could not the approach to this “problem” just as well be solved by telling men to start imitating alphas in a higher extent?


Norm May 1, 2011 at 1:34 am

Well travelled. Sounds to me like a metophor for many partners. :)

Jameseq April 30, 2011 at 7:53 pm

Well travelled is a euphemism for well-heeled…

yourebuying April 30, 2011 at 2:24 pm

I love the smell of charred hamster in the morning.

Opus April 29, 2011 at 9:09 am

@Pryanka Chopra

Actually it is even worse than that.

Not only are men not the slightest bit interested in well-travelled, but well-travelled is almost certainly synonymous, with ‘I travelled to score and have screwed loads of guys on my travels’. She may be playing hard to get with you, but outside her home town or home country….

Anyway those girls are not to be taken seriously. Thirty is not old. Their complaining just tells me that these girls have no patience and are the complaining sort – and who needs that! What man ever complains in like manner?

Priyanka Chopra April 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm

Opus, I have to disagree. I’m extremely well-travelled, as is my family and my close-knit circle of friends, and we’ve not done it to screw the United Colors of Benetton.

Matt April 29, 2011 at 6:24 pm

It means, at best, that you can lengthen by about two hours the aggregate length of the stories that you tell each other about your pasts, before you each start repeating yourselves.

Even somebody who cares about that statistic _a lot_…like, to an almost pathological degree, is not going to get all that much value out of their partner’s previous travel experiences.

You love travel? Great…let’s talk about where you want to go in the future, which might plausibly relate to the relationship between us, if one forms and it lasts long enough.

The more you’ve already done, the more “been there, done that, bored now” I’m going to be fighting against if/when I try to impress you. Which is a substantial increase in the cost you bring to a relationship without nearly as substantial an increase in the value you bring.

No, I don’t assume your prior travel was driven by fucking. If I did, I wouldn’t still be talking to you at all. But that doesn’t make it an inducement, either.

Priyanka Chopra April 29, 2011 at 2:15 am

Here’s a comment I left on Date Me DC

A Foreigners Perspective said…


It appears that “well-travelled” in a man is something that women would find attractive, whereas “well-travelled” in a woman is neither here nor there for men. Everyone on this blog saying “well-travelled” makes someone more attractive is a woman, and everyone commenter saying “well-travelled” doesn’t mattter is a man.

I think its safe to assume that while there are some traits that overlap in what men and women consider attractive in the other, there are also some things that we as women just have to take mens’ word for with regards to what they do or do not find attractive in us. To a man, good looks are probably more important than “well-travelled” in a mate. I’m willing to bet my life on it.

Notice how quick you were to tell Mike that he and Megan would not work out based simply on her finding “well-travelled” attractive and him finding it neutral!

And what was Mike’s response? “I’ve seen Megan and SHE’S CUTE. I hope to still have a chance with her.”

Again – CUTE.

Yep, men care more about “cute” than they do about travel.

Cute > Well-travelled. All day. Everyday.

Something we women are just going to have to learn to deal with.

Ladies, men are not obliged to find the same traits we find attractive in them, attractive in us.

Wanna know what a man finds attractive?


The answer might not make you feel good about yourself, and it might not be what you find attractive in him, but … men and women are different.

Don’t try to superimpose what you think he SHOULD find attractive about you onto him.

That’s just plain unattractive!

One more thing, the use of the word “soulmate” wrt Mike and Megan not possibly becoming because of the travel issue.

How about “soulmates don’t exist”? How about marriages have been arranged for most of the world’s history and still are in most parts of the world?

How do those people manage? Surely they have no expectation of “total package” or “soul mate” but they manage to marry, reproduce, stay together and yes, even fall in love and bond deeply with each other.

Now, I’m not suggesting post-modern America turn back the clock or emulate the cultures of countries that you love to travel to (hee hee), but perhaps something can be learned from not having overblown romantic notions about marriage (or an LTR) and approaching them in a more pragmatic sense.

There’s a famous qoute: Love is a CHOICE.

(And Mike and Megan – choose to have a great date!)

Leon Battista April 28, 2011 at 2:46 pm

Fantastic post

The Private Man April 25, 2011 at 1:13 pm

If we could militarize those hamsters, our enemies wouldn’t stand a chance.

Regardless, this was an excellent post!

Malcolm Tucker April 20, 2011 at 11:40 pm

Jesus they really have no clue.

I mean, this is honest. They really believe their own bullshit.

Mike April 20, 2011 at 5:54 pm

I read that Lilly’s page. It’s a great example of how amoral women are. Reading sites like hers salve any guilt I feel from “fucking chicks over.”

Check this.

So The Lawyer is going old school romance on her. He’s calling her, talking 2 hours a night. He’s really into her, thinking about cancelling a trip to be with her.

How does she repay him?

She starts sucking The Persian’s dick.

While sucking cock, she sees a text from The Lawyer that makes her feel bad, so she doesn’t like The Persian beat the pussy up. Still, she was about to.

Read that blog, boys. That’s what the women you romance are doing: They are sucking cock and taking dick.

Never feel guilty for being a player.

Extinguish April 20, 2011 at 11:03 pm

Sad huh?

kidstrangelove April 19, 2011 at 2:42 pm

dude….. wow

anon April 18, 2011 at 3:38 am

Frost, this is amazing. Now go finish trig damnit!

ExNewYorker April 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm

I suspect their will be no responses to original post. To address it would likely be to much strain on the poor hamsters. Even hamsters need rest…

samseau April 17, 2011 at 5:06 pm

Yes Jim, that is correct. Roissy’s alpha definition is based on their pussy pulling power, and not their actual partner-count. In theory, an alpha COULD have 100-300 partners, but they need not to.

My Name Is Jim April 17, 2011 at 2:54 pm

Think I would’ve tried to keep it shorter n’ quicker to the point myself (but I don’t blog so can’t complain much). Think Cosmo in terms of length and attitude, no graphs, one-friend-to-another-over-lunch in style. Otherwise she’s likely to just TL;DR or pick nits.

Am I the only one who thinks Roissy’s numbers for the alphas are overinflated? Instead of having 100 to 500 sex partners, most guys I’ve known to have lots of appeal to women know to just start being more selective and not have sex with anyone who wanted them. The guys who claimed to have over 100 weren’t the most desirable, just the ones with something to prove I guess, and I think a lot of them were just outright lying anyway.

Susan Walsh April 17, 2011 at 2:21 pm

Twenty’s comment is perfect accompaniment to Frost’s post. Yin and yang.

Proph April 17, 2011 at 10:21 am

so. fuckin’. money.

anon dude April 17, 2011 at 10:13 am


awesome break down of her stupid post

Twenty April 16, 2011 at 11:58 pm

Ooh! Ooh! Ooh!

Pretentious, self-satisfied, half-smart urban chick drivel like this is like waving a steak-covered red flag in front of my minotaur. I normally avoid it because it’s such a huge time sink, but seeing it here, I am unable to restrain myself from being mean.

… a plethora of our other fabulous female friends …


5-yard penalty for self-congratulation. You don’t get to decide whether or not you’re “fabulous”, nor does a mutual-admiration-society get to so decree its members.

… precarious and perplexing position …


Aliteration foul!

We’re cute.

Pics or GTFO.

We’re smart.

Suuuuuuuuuure you are. That’s probably why you don’t know the difference between “she”, “her”, “me”, and “I”.

We’re articulate

See above.


I will never understand why chicks think travel makes them more desirable. I mean: “So, you’re well traveled. This makes you a better mate … how, exactly?” More generally, it’s not like travel is particularly demanding these days; you buy a plane ticket, book a place to stay, and go. If you do package tours (or the hipster’s package tour, the Lonely Planet backpacking trail) it’s even less demanding.

Furthermore, there’s a reason why the expression “let me tell you about my vacation” is feared the world over.


Translation: Flightly


Now there’s a word that means nothing.

down to explore

Translation: Entertain me!

And yet, at 29 and 28, respectively, we are still single — standing on 30′s lonely doorstep — with ZERO reasonable prospects.

Hun. Maybe you’re not such great catches?

In the past, we would have resorted to self-flagellation — “What is wrong with me?” we may have asked through tears and a bottle of pinot. “Why aren’t there any guys who want to stick around?”

I call BS. This just isn’t the writing of a woman with a self-critical bone in her body. I don’t believe said self-flagellation ever occurred.

It’s not us. It’s them.

Technically, it’s you, and them, and the environmental conditions. But thanks for playing.

You read the second paragraph I wrote. There’s nothing wrong with us!

Yes, I read the second paragraph. It wasn’t exactly a searing self-examination, was it? For instance: Can you cook? Are you a bore? Do you whine a lot? Are you capable of forming a pair-bond? What are your macroeconomic views? Mac or Windows? Glock or H&K? You’re not a vegan or vegetarian, are you? Etc.

Sure, we’ve got myriad flaws just like any other person on this planet

Ah … you’re a little vague on what those “flaws” are. Care to elaborate?

but there’s nothing so major there as would send anyone running for the hills to return with torches and pitchforks.

Says you.

It is NOT us. It’s you people

As stated above … actually, it’s you, and us, and the environment. Keep up, dammit!

you men and your wayward penises

“wayward penises”? WTF does this even mean? (Well, we all know what it means, don’t we? It means that the men she wants prefer to fuck other women after fucking her, rather than settle for just fucking her for the rest of their lives. And feminism and the sexual revolution have made that a viable option for them. You go grrls!)

Megs and I have spent enough time with you all to come to the depressingly stark conclusion that at our ages, there are simply no acceptable men to date.

Actually, I think what you meant to say was that no men that you find acceptable want to date you. (Well, date you long-term, anyway. I think that “wayward penises” remark sort of gave the game away.) And what’s this “at our ages” business? Were there acceptable men who wanted to date you when you were younger? What happened to them? Why didn’t you marry them? Do you feel any responsibility at all for your situation?

It’s a strange phenomenon that slowly builds as you enter your late 20s/early 30s as a woman. We are watching the window of opportunity inch toward closed because from our vantage point, there is literally something entirely undateable about every single man we meet.

Every man you meet, or every man who wants to date you? (Ahem: Date you long term, that is.) There’s a big difference. If it’s the former, you’re quite simply out of your damn mind. If it’s the latter, well, see above.

greenlander April 16, 2011 at 8:51 pm

Dude, that was awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Susan Walsh April 16, 2011 at 1:04 pm

This is so good I’m speechless. I’m on the edge of my seat waiting to see if Katie will respond to her pingback.

MrLettuce April 16, 2011 at 10:50 am

Been Browsing Pre-Crisis. Ugh, god, the comments! So many entitled princesses and manginas…

Good men exist. They’re imperfect, and probably boring, but they exist.

MrLettuce April 16, 2011 at 9:57 am

Frost, now this is the kind of posts I’d like to see on your blog. Keep it up!

CSPB April 16, 2011 at 9:51 am
Ceer April 16, 2011 at 12:22 am

I saw the diagram in the center and instantly had the same impression as the OP. They claim they are looking for “single”, “normal” men who aren’t “flawed in some other insurmountable way”.

This is literally no man. Men are people, and as such, have flaws. The more you get a man to open up, the more evident you will find they they are all deeply flawed. One of a woman’s true virtues is the ability to find a man somewhat to her liking, develop a relationship, and accept in him what he’s not willing to change. This is how your married sisters found those “normal” men who are married.

Anonymost April 15, 2011 at 11:45 pm

Meh, in their current state, with redlining hamsters, they don’t deserve a stable guy. He’ll have to put up with her pathological horseshit all. the. time. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. She’ll never be satisfied with anyone except the top 5%. So, I’d advise them to hold out and don’t even think of settling. They owe it to their faaaabulous selves to expect and demand the best life has to offer. While accepting zero personal responsibility for their attitudes and actions. Harems and pump and dumps coming right up!

Extinguish April 15, 2011 at 9:26 pm

Every girl I’ve ever dated I have liked less each time she opened her mouth and some shiny new vulagarity or meanness popped out. It makes your demure friends more attractive than you. Not that you should think of your friends as competitors. Even though if you do snag a good guy they will all be trying to sleep with him.

Men are far, far, far, faaaar, from being anything like your worst enemies on their worst day.

anon dude April 15, 2011 at 8:05 pm

This post is GOLD!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you do know-it-all

justadude April 15, 2011 at 6:09 pm

“Men like sweet, feminine, genuine girls – sarcasm is the ultimate turnoff” man ain’t that the truth. one of the defining characteristics of the modern urban woman is their screeching sarcasm and pathetic attempts at being funny. ladies, news flash – you’re not funny and even if u were, men are not attracted to that. stop trying plz.

Dalrock April 15, 2011 at 5:18 pm

Devastating. As Pode pointed out though, hamsters are very near indestructible. Either way, a good carpet bombing is always enjoyable to watch. Nicely done.

St. Simon April 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm

Hahaha, hilarious.

Pode April 15, 2011 at 2:52 pm

Jason seemingly has not confronted many hamsters. Consider the following hamster “proof”
1: Truth is beauty
2: therefore beauty must be truth.
3: These statements make Katie and Megs feel bad.
4: Feeling bad isn’t beautiful, therefore
5: That which makes a girl feel bad cannot be true
Quickly Enjoy the Decline.

Jason April 15, 2011 at 2:28 pm

Brilliant. I hope you get some takers on this series.

Katie & Megs’ hamsters might have just exploded though.

{ 10 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: