creepy evil women men who should not ever be with women ever nice guys threats

How to creep out the entire internet, lovelorn banker edition

Try dressing as a nun. Then maybe he'll go away.

Dating can be tough. It can be especially tough if your personality is a mixture of petulance and insecurity. And even tougher if you think you can argue someone who’s not interested in you into a second date with an angry, accusatory, sometimes hilarious, sometimes deeply unsettling 1600-word email. And no, I’m not speaking hypothetically here.

The email in question, written by a young investment banker named Mike to  an unfortunate woman named Lauren after one less-than-great date, was posted on Reddit a couple of days ago, and has already gotten a lot of internetty attention, but some of you may not have seen it, so I thought I’d give it a little fisking anyway. Settle in; it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride. (Note: What follows below is most of the email; I’ve cut out a few passages here and there.)

Hi Lauren,

I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.

Well, we’re off to a not-so-good start. Perhaps she is, as they say, just not that into you?

FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can’t see someone’s body language or tone of voice in an email. I’m not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I’m honest and direct by nature, and I’m going to be that way in this email.

Gosh, I wonder why Lauren didn’t get back to him.

By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.

Google-stalking – always a nice touch. There’s no better way to charm a nice lady than by tracking down her personal information online.

I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.

Uh, what? She’s ignoring you, dude. She doesn’t want to go out with you. Seems to me she’s sending you a pretty unmixed message here.

Should she have responded to your voicemail and/or texts? In an ideal world, perhaps, but she may have sensed that you’d react precisely how you’re reacting now, and didn’t want to have anything more to do with your creepy, entitled bullshit.

And now Mike the banker makes his, er, “case” for why she should go on a second date with him:

Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:

-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I’ve never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn’t look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.

You were flirting!! Hair-twirling = sex! If you don’t realize it you can google search it!!!

-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I’ve never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.

Eye contact is an Indicator of Interest. IOI! IOI! If you didn’t want to bear my children why did you look at me, with your eyes????

-You said, “It was nice to meet you.” at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn’t interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said–that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.

Well, not really. This is what people say to be polite at the end of a disappointing date, when they don’t want to see you again.  If she wanted to see you again, she would have said something about making plans for a second date.

-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don’t think I’m being delusional in saying this statement.

We had a conversation! You did not flee in horror! Therefore you must have my babies!!!

In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.

And sending someone who clearly wants nothing to do with you a long, creepy, accusatory tirade is polite?

Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don’t go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I’m curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship. 

Dude, you do understand that she has to actually like you too in order for there to be a relationship?

I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.

You cannot argue someone into a second date! That’s not how it works.

Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don’t, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you.


In addition, even if you don’t want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn’t want to go again. Normally, I wouldn’t ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.

Well, banker dude. You’re getting some feedback now. All over the internet.

If you don’t want to go again, then apparently you didn’t think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.

So your argument is that she should go out with you, even though she doesn’t want to go out with you, because life isn’t perfect and you’re probably the best she really deserves?

Way to sell yourself, dude.

If you’re not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn’t given those mixed signals. I feel led on.

Well, she’s not really responsible for you thinking that every woman who twirls her hair in your presence wants to have your babies.

We have a number of things in common.

Oh dear, sounds like we’ve got another “logical” argument coming up here.

I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you’re planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You’re very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn’t take any significant additional time on your part.

Um, what?

I have no clever remark to make here, other than that Lauren is probably going to have to avoid going to the Philharmonic ever again, on the off chance she might run into banker Mike.

According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age.


 I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common.

Also, you both require oxygen to live. Lauren, can’t you see that you and banker Mike are soulmates?

I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date.

Banker Mike: You said you wanted feedback. Here is some feedback. She was apparently not horrified by your physical appearance. It may be your horrible personality that needs some work.

Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars. That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so.

You’re fighting a losing battle here, dude. Just as you cannot argue someone into liking you, you cannot argue someone into being impressed that you manage your parents’ money.

In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer.

And I’m the Queen of Denmark.

That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you.

Oy. As if this email wasn’t stalkerish enough already.

I’ve gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I’m not a serial dater. Sometimes, I’ve only gone out with a woman for one date.)

This last bit I have no trouble believing.

I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens.

I suspect that Lauren has already played out various scenarios in her head already, and that none of them end well.

Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you haven’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date. However, I would be willing to go out with you again. I’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too.

So now you’re being noble and “open minded” for trying to pressure a woman who wants nothing to do with you into a second date?

If you don’t want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life.

Now you’re just making my skin crawl.

I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner. Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.

Here’s a solution, dude: How about she never goes on another date with you, ever. Then you won’t ever have to worry about her being late ever again.

If you’re concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don’t want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt. I’m sad and disappointed about this situation. If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.

I hope you find the feedback that the internet has now provided you to be helpful.

If you don’t want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals).

Now we’re back on this again.

In my opinion, you shouldn’t act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. It’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if you’re not interested in going out with me again.

Damn you, foul strumpet, and your devious hair-playing ways! Google it! GOOGLE IT!!!

I would like to talk to you on the phone.

I think you’ve pretty much guaranteed that this will never, ever happen.

Even if you don’t want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt. Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone. Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.

Not much to misinterpret here, Mike. You’ve made it absolutely crystal clear that you’re an undateable creep.

Let me be serious for a moment. Forget about Lauren. Hell, forget about women in general for a while, and work on yourself. Get some therapy; you can afford it. Work through your bitterness, your petulance, your highly unattractive mixture of entitlement and insecurity. Stop being a “Nice Guy” and learn to be genuinely nice.

And don’t ever, ever, ever write another email like this one.



Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
10 years ago

DKM’s promotion of masturbation as a substitute for dealing with icky women is almost as funny as Brandon’s proud announcement of his plan to be passive-aggressive.

10 years ago

Meller: Yes, if the FED were abolished, private banks would tend to keep 100% gold reserves on their deposits. They would be afraid of bank runs (very serious if the government doesn’t bail you out)!

hahahAHAHAhhahahahhahahha Ooh Lord! Dayummmn! We got us a comedian. Banks routinely failed to have adequate reserves for the money they issued. It’s part of why there is a Fed. With no gov’t there will be no one to write (much less enforce) any sort of laws regulating banks.

10 years ago

Pecunium: When you put it that way, the cognitive dissonance gets louder. How does he stand it?!

10 years ago

Brandon: You either don’t understand his point, or you are a rape/abuse apologist.

Full Stop.

10 years ago

On the eternal question of Brandon – trolling or just stupid? I am currently voting for “a bit of both”.

10 years ago

KathleenB: There is no dissonance. He doesn’t really think women are people. As such he doesn’t think they have rights.

If you consider that he thinks of women as a cattle rancher thinks of cattle, the ones who break fences, don’t suckle their young, are aggressive to the ranch hands, etc. need to be put down.

He’s just upset that he can’t say that in plain language, but it leaks out when you look at the common elements in the things he does write.

10 years ago

Also I’m now picturing Meller as this guy, but surrounded by a bunch of creepy little dolls, which he may hit with his cane if he feels that they were being disrespectful.

10 years ago

Addendum to Pecunium’s point, though generally I agree.

Unlike the cattle rancher, who knows that if he decides to put down some of his cattle he can because he has absolutely power over them, Meller knows that in reality he has no power over most women. This is why, unlike the rancher, he is a very angry person. He feels that he has been deprived of a power that he has a right to have, and to add insult to injury now the cattle are talking back. He can’t actually do anything about this, so dolls and screaming at strangers on the internet about how he would totally understand if the man in their life beat the shit out of them it is.

10 years ago

CassandraSays Why hating on the dolls? Their owner is creepy, their only crime is to be too cute for their own good.

10 years ago

Cassandra: Yeah, I should have made it explicit. It’s in the rage which voices itself as, “when the men regain their rightful place we’ll kill all the women who don’t worship us”, and the, “good master doesn’t beat his dog” comments.

He knows what he wants isn’t going to happen, so he has to dream that in the future, after he’s dead, it will. There will be paradise for some men, somewhere, when the women are all adoring slaves who ask to be beaten so they can show their love and adoration.

10 years ago

I have…issues with dolls. I think it’s the eyes. Not all dolls, but the collectible kind that he loves I find really creepy. I keep thinking they’re going to go all Chuckie on me.

10 years ago

I really do wonder if Meller saw The Stepford Wives during a pivotal point in his life and that’s when the specific shape of his dreams came into being.

10 years ago

“I really do wonder if Meller saw The Stepford Wives during a pivotal point in his life and that’s when the specific shape of his dreams came into being.”

The Stepford Wives must be to MRAs what Fight Club is to clueless douchebags. Wait, maybe I shouldn’t have seperated those things at all.

…I suddenly have a wild idea for a weekend double bill…

10 years ago

I wonder if Meller came out of the theater really excited and tried to talk to other guys about how wonderful it would be to create a town just like that, and then was first confused and then upset when he realized that most men recognized that the movie was supposed to be dystopian, not aspirational.

Whenever he starts babbling about Sweet Old Fashioned Girls and how they will totally be down with his future plans I’m reminded of when the Hachi movie with Richard Gere was about to come out, and the American Kennel Club contacted the filmmakers to express their concern about it possibly inspiring a run on Akitas being adopted. Their concern was that people would go “oh, cute!” and run out and get an Akita, not realizing that despite the fluffiness they’re really not biddable, easily trainable dogs at all, and then end up either abandoning or abusing the dogs when their actual personalities became clear. (Try to get an Akita to fetch and it will just look at you like “you’re joking, right?”.)

That’s what I think of whenever Meller starts babbling about how really women’s true natures are just being suppressed by feminism and actually we want to be fluffy, and if we were just trained right…he has fundamentally misunderstood the true nature of women, and because of that every conclusion he draws based on that misunderstanding is of course going to be nonsensical. I’m concerned about what would happen if he ever got a hold of a woman who he initially deemed to be sufficiently fluffy, and then later her actual personality became apparent.

10 years ago

So Brandon is on board with murders now? That is a total shock. (not really)
Oh and he can totally understand abusers too. Shocking. (not really)

10 years ago

Now, the wife and best friend don’t deserve to be killed, but one can understand why he might have committed such a heinous crime.

Explanations are not excuses. You are treating this as partially exusable, which it is not, and it is creepy that you are doing so. Let me give you an example of how we do not speak this way when we are actually explaining things we think are horrendous and inexcusable:

“Hitler used rhetorically tying Jewish people with Communism (partially by using Marx’s ethnic Judaism) as both a way to bring anti-semitism into his anti-communist attacks and as a way to further demonize communists. By emphasizing an association between two stigmatized groups, he further demonized both.”

That doesn’t look like it is excusing Hitler’s actions, though it is explaining what he did.

Would you say something like “Now, the Jewish people and communists didn’t deserve to be holocausted, but one can understand why Hitler would have committed such a heinous crime.”

No, you probably wouldn’t (Bradon wouldn’t, Meller and NWO…okay, they probably would). That looks like excusing or sympathizing with the brutal violence, and would not be okay.

The language and arguments you are using are apologistic ones, and applying them to other contexts makes that damned clear.

10 years ago

Well, Brandon, be that as it may, he’s not talking about something on the level of catching one’s love in flagrante delicto. He’s talking about something on the level of posts made at here at manboobz. He even specifically mentioned MY posts as something that might enflame a man, gentle as a lamb. And, frankly, he really better give details. (Oddly enough, he previously assured me he didn’t think I personally had provoked my abusive spouse… )

Us, right here, commenting on Manboobz. That’s the level of provocation Meller is talking about. You really wanna die on this hill? Even you?

Holly Pervocracy
10 years ago

And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins. Unless they post something you don’t like on the Internet, then, well, you know what to do.


10 years ago

Brandon would totally post something about how the Jews deserved the Holocaust, if he thought it would prove a poorly thought out point. He really is not very bright.

10 years ago

Bostonian: Brandon would totally post something about how the Jews deserved the Holocaust, if he thought it would prove a poorly thought out point.

And then after being smacked verbally around, he would retreat slowly grudgngly rhetorical step by step and explain it was only HIS opinion, and he didn’t MEAN all Jews, only some, and really, why do we keep misunderstanding him, but wow, he has go to now, Ashley is telling him not to talk to those manboobz manhaters!

Then two days later, comes back and forgets he ever said it.

10 years ago

Before I catch up with the thread…

They seem to lack the ability to understand your point. I get it and I don’t see the cognitive dissonance they think these two supposedly mutual excursive ideas would cause.

Does Ashley know that if she acts The Wrong Way According To Brandon that you would find it excusable if you beat, rape, or kill her?

10 years ago

no more mr nice guy wrote:

“I have read a lot of blogs and forums of angry former customers of PUAs and
most of them are socially awkward and many admit that they have Asperger’s and
all of them said that learning PUA techniques was a disaster for them and made
them worst.”

Having Asperger’s is not something shameful to “admit”. Many autistic people already spend considerable time and energy trying to appear non-autistic (in fact, “high-functioning autism” is defined as “being an autistic person who is good at pretending to be a non-autistic person”), having internalized the sentiment that it is a shameful condition. I resent your dehumanization of autistic people. Perhaps PUA sites are not good for autistic people, but adult autists have a right to freely choose where they get information. That is not for you to decide.

As for autistic people and PUA techniques: I myself spent a long part of my adult life being very frustrated about being unable to understand the things that are expected of people in dating contexts. Some years ago, I too came across some PUA sites, and read what I could find. It was not a very good idea. The “greek system” of alpha, beta and omega males seemed to me at the time to make a lot of sense – it matched well with my own experiences in the social dynamics of male groups (I have struggled with understanding such things my entire life, and many of my social faux pas situations have derived from not being able to correctly act in accordance to my position in informal pecking orders). So I spent a lot of time being very depressed over being an omega, and how this system proved that my natural station is life was as a lonely freaky outcast. Repetitive, “circular” thought patterns are a common characteristic of autistic thinking, and reading that your natural role in the social dynamic is to be rejected and picked on can trigger intense self-esteem-related issues. I have since concluded that the PUA “greek system”, and their “algorithmic” approach to dating, appears to be an oversimplification. Systems that include humans tend to be too complicated for simple algorithms. I have since decided to abandon my attempts at dating, and am much happier than I was when I was obsessing about being an “omega male”. Thinking those thoughts were one of the low points of my recent life.

I am not sure if “Mike the banker” is autistic. He gives descriptions of several non-verbal cues he noticed. Many autistic people do not notice such things at all, unless they make an active effort of watching for and trying to keep track of them. It is also common that autistic people perceive the actual, physical actions of people, but are clueless about the intent. For example, a non-autistic person can literally look at another person and see “that person is happy” – their brains are able to sub- or unconsciously gauge the emotional or mental states of other people from body language, facial expressions and such. Autistic people generally just see “the edges of that person’s mouth is pointing upwards”, and must consciously try to figure out whether that means a happy smile, a sign of imminent laughter, or a sarcastic grin. It is possible to practice these “checklists” reasonably well, but at least for me, it involves the same kind of deliberate thinking as working on a mathematical problem, not like the much more fluent and automatic process of reading.
“Mike the banker” writes down very specific physical signals, and “textbook” definitions of what they conventionally mean, which is one indicator that he might be on the autistic spectrum. His letter also seems to indicate trouble putting himself in the position of “Lauren”, which is also a common characteristic of autistic people. However, it is not a good idea for laypeople to throw around “armchair diagnoses”; it contributes to the “shame-oriented” view of mental disabilities, and are not generally likely to be correct.

For what it is worth, when I was younger and had been rejected, shamed or otherwise had an experience of social failure, I would often write long letters, actually very similar to the one “Mike the banker” wrote. Then I would read them to myself the next day and throw them away. It helped me process these things. Even if “Mike” is autistic, then he is still acting very entitled, and that is still not all right. Some autists are good people, others are complete bastards, and being on the autism spectrum is not a “get-out-of-trying-to-act-decently-free” card – it just means that the person has to work harder for it, and that there will be more or less frequent miscommunication issues in that person’s interactions with others.

10 years ago

Thanks for that, RocketFrog, especially the last part.

I’m not appreciating the “autistic people are freaks!” turn this conversation took because one of my best friends is Aspie. She would never send anyone a letter like this. Some of the ways the writer is categorizing and analyzing things do indicate that he may be on the spectrum, but in terms of actually sending it to the other person, thus making demands of them? That part isn’t autism, it’s just being an asshole.

10 years ago


If “Mike” is on the autism spectrum, he may or may not be aware that sending such a letter will in itself be perceived as making demands. He does make a number of requests, such as mentioning that he would like “Lauren” to call him. Having trouble understanding how one’s words and actions are perceived by others is a common problem for autistic people. But since it is a spectrum, some have more trouble with this than others. Personally, I am very poor at it – but on the other hand, I have no problems dealing with abstract thinking, which is otherwise a well-known problem for autists.

Honestly, the kind of things he writes mostly appear entirely reasonable to me. He is just stating a set of facts, and telling her how he feels about a number of things. The way he writes about these things reminds me a lot of my own thoughts about similar situations – which is why I also think it is likely that he is somewhere on the spectrum. It is only through David’s commentary that I can see how those words are actually received by another person (also, I have been told by others that trying to make arguments about such things when one has already been turned down or are currently being ignored will be perceived as being entitled, because many people will tend to interpret it as a kind of passive aggression, as applying pressure). For many people on the autism spectrum, it can be incredibly puzzling and frustrating that stating facts (including one’s feelings) are often assumed by others to have a hidden agenda, where there actually is none (this also works in reverse – autistic people often miss out on “hidden intentions” in things people say that are semantically just statements of fact, but pragmatically are supposed to carry additional information). It is *difficult* to avoid hurting others, or “creeping people out”, for a person who has trouble imagining how other people perceive his/her words and actions.

But that does not mean such a person shouldn’t *try*. I do not know if “Mike” is autistic, or if he is, to which degree he is aware of how his words are likely to be received. The reason I think he seems to feel entitled is that he apparently will not accept that “Lauren” has rejected him, and not being able to accept rejection is a thoroughly unpleasant character trait for any person, autistic or not.

10 years ago

“It is only through David’s commentary that I can see how those words are actually received by another person (also, I have been told by others that trying to make arguments about such things when one has already been turned down or are currently being ignored will be perceived as being entitled, because many people will tend to interpret it as a kind of passive aggression, as applying pressure).”

I think there’s an easier way to understand this. If a person turns you down or rejects you, the reason that it’s not OK to then put forward arguments is that you’re not accepting the fact that they already told you no. The idea to take away is that a rejection is a dead end – there is no point making arguments, because the other person has already made a decision. The reason making arguments in that situation is seen as entitled is that it indicates that you are not willing to accept the other person’s decision, which will tend to make them feel even more negatively towards you than they already did. Does that make more sense?

1 18 19 20 21 22 41
%d bloggers like this: