Let me start by saying that my PR guy liked this piece a lot. I did not, simply because I am one of those weird people who is a stickler for not creating a story and then molding the facts to fit it, I like it when someone writes what actually happened:

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/63680.htm

She was fairer to me than some writers, but I have specific issues with some things:

-She flat out lies at least once, when she says that I "decode" everything for her at the end of the night; that quote was from the very beginning of the night. Beyond that, I explained further what I meant, and she left the rest of the explanation out, which I thought was intellectually dishonest considering that she uses it so prominently. My favorite part of this is that a women who is possibly one of the most "broken" I've ever met, tries to claim that the only reason a woman would hook up with me is because they are broken. Go read her site and see for yourself: Elizabeth Hayt [and I really like how she never mentions my site. It's fine, I'll still plug hers, after all, my site gets more traffic in a day than hers does in a year, I can share]

-Flabby? She never saw me without even my coat on. Fleshy mole? That's just stupid. Go look at my pictures, see if you can find one. And to even show that I am fair, I will say that she looks much better in person than the pics on her site. On a purely physical level, she is pretty good looking, especially for her age.

-She talked to at least 5 other women I fucked, all of whom are smart (and most of them are pretty stable...well, at least for me) and all of whom offered pretty good reasonings as to why they were attracted to me. None of that jibed with the story she wanted to write, so she just pretends that she never talked to them. Convenient.

-"bareback sex" -- I have no fucking idea what she is talking about. To my memory, the issue of condoms never came up, and if it did, I told her that I use condoms (who doesn't?). She's just making things up that fit the story she wanted to write.

-"up to 12 e-mails a day" --no, I said that I AVERAGE about a dozen requests for sex a day. Some days I get more, some less.

-She slightly misquotes me when I am talking about strategy and Musashi. What I was explaining to her was that I don't have a "strategy" or an angle to get women. I just am who I am. This concept was completely foreign to her; she literally stared at me uncomprehending, as if I was speaking Tagalog or something.

-If you detect bitterness in the tone, that was probably my fault. I am pretty sure I really pissed her off when I pointed out that even thogh she got a huge advance from a big publisher and got reviewed everywhere, and my book got no mainstream press coverage, my book still crushed hers in terms of sales (I made The List, she didn't). I tried to explain to her that it was because of the way that the internet has changed the entire nature of content delivery, and that I had actual fans who searched out my stuff while she was read widely only because she was in the Post, and that she wasn't a "destination writer." She didn't care about that, she just stared at me steaming. It was kinda funny at the time, but then I have to live with a piece like this. We make our choices in life, I guess.

This guy actually does a really good job breaking her down and explaining her. I love how in her book she puts up with abuse from rich men simply because they buy her shit. That's why she couldn't figure me out; the idea that a woman would be atrracted to something other than a man who indulges her is a foreign concept. What a gold digging whore.

To her credit, everything else is pretty accurate. I did actually stink when I met her; I had just gotten back from the gym and didn't shower before I went out, but that was accidental. I had just forgotten about the date thing until she called me right beforehand.

At least she didn't try to say that I was into her and she rejected me. We had zero sexual chemistry; I could not have been less into her. As unattractive as she found me, I had the same reaction to her. She was like a real life Carrie Bradshaw, except in real life Carrie doesn't end up with the glamorous job and the big dog alpha male; in real life, Elizabeth is a divorced, recovering alcoholic and drug addict, alone and desperate and as unself-aware as a person can possibly be (this is not my characterization, she admits to all of this). I may attract some broken women (and I do), but even I have standards, and this one was fucked up beyond all repair.

But hey, I can't be even slightly pissed, after all, a piece in the Post is a piece in the Post. Any press is good press.

EDIT: This is what my PR guy wrote about this piece. He's fucking smart:

"Totally see where you're coming from. I'm almost inclined to say that this is a byproduct of dealing with the Post, which is the ultimate PR catch-22 situation. I can honestly tell you if you asked 100 pr people in NYC what print outlets they'd love to get their clients in, almost every one would have the Post in their Top 3. If you asked them what print outlet is one of the hardest to crack, the Post would also be in that Top 3.

Circulation numbers aside, since it's the "everyman's" paper, virtually every producer, editor, etc. reads the Post first thing in the morning looking for new material. It's shocking to see how many media people actually follow Post stories. It's clearly no beacon of journalistic light and integrity. If I wasn't in pr I'd NEVER read the Post. In fact, I know I've said on numerous occasions "...the Post represents all that is wrong with journalism today..." And it's true. Editorial oversight is a laughable concept there. Long ago the powers that be decided they would cut every corner in order to maximize profits, and they've stuck to that forever. I mean, hello, this is the proud home of Page Six, who never met a blind item it wouldn't print.

Where am I going with this? Elizabeth all but acknowledged to me last week that the standards for her column at the Post are a far cry from when she writes for the Times. Like, all the quotes she had from me last week? COMPLETELY spliced and combined from multiple email and phone conversations. She all but turned my quotes into a make-your-own jigsaw puzzle. She said the Times would never ever let her do that, but it's totally fine at the Post.

So when I read her cougar story last week, aside from the questionable ending which was total bullshit, I could clearly see multiple instances where she had taken creative license, sometimes liberally. Had it been the Times, it would've been a huge deal, but it's as if PR peeps in the city have become conditioned to expecting shadiness from the Post, getting shadiness from the Post, and we're almost just thankful to have our people in there for the exposure. You know, nothing better than going to work on the Subway in the morning and seeing literally a train full of everyday New Yorkers reading about your client.

I wrote far more about this than is necessary, but given the well laid-out post you did on it, I decided to respond. Definitely not defending her. And based on the details you noted, it seems she could've written a more interesting/amusing story, even if she did want to rag on you a bit. But hey, you had her pegged after your first conversation with her. And you were completely right."

EDIT2: This is an email from the girl that was quoted in the article:

"As the girl Ms. Hayt described as having "abysmally low standards" I would just like to clarify a few things. She totally missed the point I was trying to make and butchered what I said. I was simply trying to state that Tucker was attractive because he is intelligent and funny. Also I explained I respect him simply for the fact that he has created this whole site and his fame without the help of any outside media. I explained that Tucker is my idol because I would connect with a literary figure rather than a pop star. The motley crue quote was completely out of context. I was simply trying to explain that famous men naturally attract many "groupies."

Also I did not say "he took me home so he was nice." She asked me if he took me home to which I replied yes. Then she said "well that was nice of him."

I guess I should not be surprised that a New York Post reporter could print something that misrepresented what actually happened. I just think it is funny that she labels me as having low standards yet she says she went to Tucker's place intending to fuck him."

EDIT#3: An email that is fairly representative of what I have been getting in response to this:

"Dear Tucker,

I've been a faithful reader for about a year now. I've never emailed you before, but after reading that bitter cunt's dribble I simply had to take a stand in defense of all the educated, self respecting, non-broken women who read your site.

As you can see from my picture, I'm no dog. [ed note: She is good looking] Not only am I good looking- I'm also incredibly intelligent. I graduated college in six semesters, with honors. I work in development at a major network in Hollywood. I'm only 23 years old and I've already sold multiple shows to my network.

Not only am I good looking and incredibly intelligent- I also have gads of self respect. I'm not a whore. I can count the number of men I've had sex with on one hand. I am also in no way 'broken'. I believe I deserve the best in life and will someday settle down with a man who loves and respects me.

That being said, given the opportunity, I would 100% hands down no question FUCK TUCKER MAX.

Why? Are my standards incredibly low as the HaytBitch suggests? Am I broken, desperate, or stupid? Fuck no. I'm a woman who enjoys sex, and Tucker Max is a man who is clearly good at it. I'm a woman who enjoys the company of men who can keep up with me and make me laugh. I'm a woman who has never had a one night stand, but if I'm going to- why not have one with Tucker Max? There would be no pretenses, no airs or illusions. Just a good fucking time. And who wouldn't be interested in a good fucking time?

I'd be willing to bet I'm fairly representative of more than 2 out of 10 of the women who read your site. You're as much of a guilty pleasure for the ladies as you are for the men who live vicariously through you.

Take care Tucker. Good luck with the lawsuit as well. Don't let these fucking schmos get you down. You're TUCKER MAX damn it! Fuck em.

Best,
Molly"

EDIT#4: This is what one of the other girls that I fucked and she interviewed said. That is what I love about telling the truth--everyone comes to your defense when there is a question of validity, because you are the honest one:

"This woman is ridiculous. Tucker warned me before I talked to her that she is a moron, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt before passing judgement on them. However, as soon as I hung up the phone from my "interview" with Ms. Hayt, the first words out of my mouth were, "Jesus Christ, Tucker wasn't kidding."

After briefly blowing smoke up my ass about how much she enjoyed my writing and the story I wrote about about Tucker and how smart she found me, she proceeded to talk at great length about her experiences with Tucker. At one point, I actually had to interrupt her and ask if she had any questions for me. I have virtually no experience previous to this of being interviewed, but I don't think it was normal.

Maybe I didn't give her the most articulate answer as to why I found being dominated or bitten during a sex act a turn on because I was genuinely surprised that a 44 year old "sex writer" didn't understand or at least have an appreciation of the appeal for some people to being dominated. She was far more interested in telling me about her "cosmetic dermatology" and her stringent requirements for her sex partners to shave and even possibly "wax their faces" for her. I did talk about Tucker pushing my female insecurity buttons and the whole appeal of the Alpha Male, but she quickly dismissed that in order to tell me about how she is older and wiser than me and would never fall for his game and to express her horror [again] of him bruising me. She never made even a cursory attempt to understand what motivated me to sleep with him. The horror of the bruising it should be noted really had more to do with her neurotic obsession with the appearance of her skin than it did with the typical accusations that it meant Tucker tries to objectify and dehumanize his sex partners into mere meat.

The one positive thing I take away from this, is it gives me hope about breaking into the writing business. If this woman can get published and a column in the Post, there is hope for the rest of us aspiring writers."

You can follow the rest of the discussion here if you want. Some interesting things come up about her later in the thread.