Wednesday, February 2, 2011

New and Improved Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.

Recently, "game" guru Roissy offered his readers a list of "Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl." Most were fairly standard pick up artist tricks of the "act like an aloof jerk and she'll worship you" variety. According to Roissy, though, these little tricks will miraculously enable guys

to date women one to three points higher than you could be expected to get by societal standards. Do these to a girlfriend and you will be a god to her. A god among penii.

A few examples:

Don’t call back right away. Done properly, you will start to hear girls say things like “I didn’t hear back from you. You were making me nervous!”

Don’t live together. It’s much harder to project mystery living under the same roof, watching each other fold laundry every week. (Not to mention side action will be more difficult to coordinate.)

Cancel dates. (Make the reason seem apparently legitimate, but suspicious.)

Muse wistfully about past lovers.

Never do her a favor before you’ve had sex with her.

Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny. If you must, chuckle under your breath.

When at her place, eat all her food, leave the seat up, change her TV channels, and torture her cat. Act like it’s your second home.

Bo-ring. These tricks may have worked on women once upon a time, but today's women are far too sophisticated to fall for these tired old ruses . If you really want to score with the hot babes of today, you've got to kick your game up a notch -- or three. To help, I have come up with some "New and Improved Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl."

Wear a banana peel on your head like a hat. This will help to create an aura of "mystery" around yourself, as well as a lovely banana-y scent that will follow you everywhere.

Poke her nose playfully after sex and say, in a cheerful voice, "Hitler was right about you!" She will ponder this one for days.

Never laugh at her jokes. Instead, fall to the floor and begin singing "Rock Me Amadeus."

Go out on "dates" with imaginary people. Introduce her to these people, and slyly suggest a "threesome." (Or a "foursome," if you are dating two imaginary people at the same time.)

Muse wistfully about butter.

Don't buy her gifts. Instead, sneak clumps of dirt into her lingerie drawer.

Never call her back right away. Instead, hide under her bed and make low moaning sounds.

If you end up in an argument with her, shout out "mom always loved you better!" Then set her couch on fire.

Don't move in with her. Instead, move into the apartment above hers, and watch her through tiny holes drilled in the floor.

When at her place, eat her cat, torture her TV, and replace her toilet with a sack of potatoes. Act like Meryl Streep in Sophie's Choice, including the accent.

Go forth, my young apprentices, and score like never before!

--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

213 comments:

  1. Nothing turns me on like cat..torturing. (???)

    If you wrote a dating advice book I would totally buy it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think Roisy is confusing "Cheap and Easy Ways to Raise the Value of Your Girl" with "How to get the other person to dump you".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tears of laughter, Dave! Tears! I salute you, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You need to teach a class. Seriously. So much money.

    Just come up with a stupid name (I suggest Boobzman) and you're pretty much there. I think I would go out with a guy who followed your method, if only for the butter-musing. Mmmm, butter. We've had some good times, butter and I. Also, I'd like to be called Stingo. It could be our "thing."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder how successful the adherents of Roissy's system actually are. They certainly claim to be, but I can't imagine anyone being willing to be treated like crap like this for any period of time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I had to dump a guy, I'd rather it be one following Dave's advice than Roissy's. Roissy's advice is just standard jerk-boyfriend. Dave's leaves you with a story.

    Might I recommend replacing the banana with a cored-out pumpkin? Longer shelf life than a banana peel, easier to keep on the head, and an infinitely sexier scent. Plus, bananas have ethical concerns attached to their production, much like diamonds.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anyone who harms my pets gets a visit from the sheriff's office.

    The other stuff is why I do not date. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would have to say, if a guy didn't call me back or if he canceled dates with me, I would - as would any polite person - assume that he didn't have an interest in me. And I also wonder how successful that approach really is. I can't see where it would be.

    And I'm so going to poke random people on the nose and say "Hitler was right about you", in the most adorable and grandmotherly way I can. Maybe I'll even say it when pinching their cheek.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There are so many things wrong with his advice but the part about never laughing at her jokes? Seriously, if someone's an arse like that I can't see anyone staying attracted to them.

    And like others, the part about [even mildly] "torturing" my cat = get the FUCK out; I don't want to hear from you ever again.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cruelty to animals is generally a predictor of... god, I can't remember what. Help me out. Oh yeah, now I remember: Getting laid! Wait.. that's not it... sheesh, my memory sucks these days.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Never laugh at her jokes. Instead, fall to the floor and begin singing "Rock Me Amadeus."

    Okay, I really did lol.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Johnny-combine it with bedwetting and you got yourself two strong indicators of serial killing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. And I'm so going to poke random people on the nose and say "Hitler was right about you", in the most adorable and grandmotherly way I can.

    It's such a spectacularly wicked idea. I am in awe of the brazen display of asshattery.

    ReplyDelete
  14. bedwetting is a total pussy magnet.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Actually, the whole list is funny, and a few things- like the banana- would actually work with a quirky girl or even in anotherwise staid relationship. Women in general LOVE humor in men.

    And geez, guys, obviously Dave didn't mean to REALLY torture a cat. Some of his list is so over the top that it would more likely cause the lady to think you're a nutty creep than attract her to you. But actually, some of this stuff works because it's funny and unexpected and people SHOULD play with each other like this more often.

    Roissy has his points too, but if you act like a jerk all the time that will get old quick. Then again, Roissy never claims to be about building "relationships" though he claims to value them. He's mostly an "intrigue her with the dark triad, get in her panties and get out" type of guy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Which begs the question if some woman came up to Roissy and said "I literally want only one instance of sex. Please refrain from contacting me again afterward" would he get upset?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Elizabeth:

    Almost certainly not. He's not looking for any girl to get her "hooks" into him, and while he'll say sluts are damaged all day long, he will still admit they are the type of girls that keep him rolling in the poon, he just doesn't want to marry them, or ANYONE for that matter. Guy's like 45 and childless and doesn't want a kid. Like a lot of the more radical fems, radical male "ghosts" , and silly women who "wait too long" he won't be leaving his genes to the next generation.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My boss (I work at a call centre) is actually a disciple of this guy (or was, before he converted to Islam) and used to teach a pick-up class himself. He told me about the tactics he taught and a lot of them actually made sense if you were just trying to get with a girl, not have a relationship with her.

    ReplyDelete
  19. He told me about the tactics he taught and a lot of them actually made sense if you were just trying to get with a girl, not have a relationship with her.

    They're particularly helpful if you get off on having sex with women who have low self-esteem and are desperate for validation. Even more so if you view sex as a form of conquest and automatically think of every woman who sleeps with you as a slut. So it's great for misogynists is what I'm saying.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Women sure do hate arrogant and aloof men. That's why no woman on the face of the earth fantasizes about the likes of Mr. Big, Mr. Darcy, and Rhett Butler.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Women sure do hate arrogant and aloof men. That's why no woman on the face of the earth fantasizes about the likes of Mr. Big, Mr. Darcy, and Rhett Butler.

    The point is that women are individuals who want different things. That's one reason these lists of rules that will supposedly work on any woman are ridiculous (that and the sexism).

    Certainly there are some women these rules will work on. Not generally the kind I'd want to date, but that's me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Another important point is that, if a man is aloof and a little arrogant, but sincere and genuinely not misogynist, there's nothing wrong with that.

    But many of the lists of "rules," including the one David is mocking, are basically guides on being a manipulative and abusive boyfriend. And the people writing this list justify it because they believe women are all manipulative and abusive, so the end result is they're trying to make relationships into an antagonistic, zero-sum conflict. And then they wonder why they keep getting screwed in relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's one thing to be aloof and arrogant.

    It's another thing to be kind of whiny and insecure, and then attempt to mask these traits through a series of bizarre behaviors.

    Funny thing, I've been accused of being aloof and arrogant, and I've never taken it as a compliment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. everything he suggests would be something that would make me dump any guy I dated. So if the PUA's goal is to have the opposite effect of what we are all thinking it is then it is working. Otherwise I think YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG

    ReplyDelete
  25. This is one thing that is insane with guys like Roissy, he gives advice to have one-night-stand with women that have psychological problems. And yet, he and his admirers believe that he's an expert in the way to find (and to keep) a girlfriend.

    ReplyDelete
  26. LOL!

    Roissy is not considered an expert on "keeping" a girlfriend. Most of the men on his blog want their one-night stands. Dave in Hawaii, Married Man Sex Life - those are blogs that work on using positive parts of game to enrich long term relationships.

    As for Roissy, if his advice gets some shy , awkward guy laid - well, that guy is still better off than if he listened to the BS that is normal dating advice such as "just be yourself" - which should be "learn how to best present your strongest traits", but since its not it leads many men astray.

    This thread is funny, in a way though. I half expected most of you to go that this stuff doesn't work, and that Roissy has a small penis, and never gets laid , and all that other crap. It seems this part of the feminosphere has graduated to attacking the quality of the lays..hey, keep going. Maybe someday Roissy and the men like him WHO ARE after only one thing will give a crap. Roissy's evil, but he's at least partly the result of the neglect of shy or awkward guys in this society. Said guys will find him instead of some feminist as a guru. Then the feminist will whine about misogyny and all that crap, but when it comes down to it what Roissy says will work, and what the feminist says will mostly not work and will saddle a guy who has issues with women with lots of unneeded guilt as well and a tendency to walk on eggshells lest he violate someone's boundaries - things which shift from woman to woman.
    Oh, and then there's the wonderful feminist women who will say that helping guys approach girls in a feminist way is not the responsibility of feminism.

    You reap what you sow, and this is only the first part of payback.

    I remember reading Susan Faludis "The Backlash" 12 years ago and wondering if this woman had any idea of what a REAL "backlash" was.

    This is part of that real backlash. Enjoy ladies and gents.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This list totally reminds me of this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cAfoZWzl8M

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I would have to say, if a guy didn't call me back or if he canceled dates with me, I would - as would any polite person - assume that he didn't have an interest in me. And I also wonder how successful that approach really is. I can't see where it would be."

    Yeah, now that I'm happily married and out of the dating scene, I realize that I avoided a lot of crappy relationships by being clueless enough to think that if a guy acted like he didn't like me, it meant he didn't like me. When a guy snubbed me or insulted me, I just felt bad and moved on. Not until much later did it occur to me that some of these guys were probably trying PUA moves on me or something, and I was supposed to go crazy trying to win the magnificent gift of their attention. This was one area where my limited social acumen saved me.

    I don't know who this Roissy guy is and I'm not even sure how to pronounce his amusing made-up name, but... Clarence, are you him?

    ReplyDelete
  29. shaenon:
    You flatter me. My name links to my pathetic little blog (though to be fair, only because David boy chickened out on allowing anonymous comments ) whereas Roissy has spread across the internet like a plague and pissed off people from Conner Friedsdorf to Amanda Marcotte.

    Go over to the left hand side. The blog used to be called "Roissy in DC". Now, it's called " Citizen Renegade".

    I don't write anywhere near as well as the evil gifted one. But thanks for the compliment. My only issue with your accusation is that I'm interested in LTR's with gals, and hence I don't do notch-counts with other guys, and I'm either wimpish or ethical enough (your pick) to only use the "light side" stuff that Roissy peddles.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This is absolutely the saddest item on the list:

    "Don’t ask questions about her. A high value man does not find the lives of others very interesting in comparison to his own."

    Yeah, when I think, "man who gets bored talking about anything other than himself," I think something a little bit different from "high value man."

    (The "high value" and "raising your value" stuff is another thing that fascinates me: this weirdly consumerist approach to relationships. But enough for now.)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm manipulative, sure. But so what? It's alot better than being manipulated. It's a cliche but it's true: all's fair in love and war.

    Listen, I'm not some bitter MRA with an axe to grind. I'm just a guy who tried being a nice, gentlemanly, evolved, and sensitive 21st century male for the first 27 years of my life.

    How did that work out for me? Well, I ended up with a lot of heartbreak, cuckoldry, and humiliation as I watched the women I wanted go for all the assholes, douchebags, and bad boys.

    So instead of crying in my beer, I started to emulate the men that women fawned over. I judged women by their actions rather than their words. And yes, I took alot of advice from Roissy and the so-called PUAs.

    And how did this new method work out for me? My sex life - and therefore my life as a whole - has never been better. Every time I approach a woman I'm attracted to, I know I have a pretty darn good chance of having sex with her.

    So go ahead and tell me Roissy's advice won't work, or that it will only work on depressed and emotionally stunted women. I'll just laugh, because my life is proof that that's a lie.

    And you know what? There are thousands of guys out there with the exact same story as me. We're Roissy's core audience. When we defend him, it's not because we agree with every over-the-top and intentionally outrageous thing he writes. And it's not because his advice works 100% of the time. It doesn't, and he never claims it does.

    We're loyal to the bastard because he literally helped change our lives for the better. And that is a very rare thing.

    So if all of this makes me an asshole and a misogynist, then so be it. Of all the unpleasant things a human can endure, being the target of feminist snark is pretty low on the list.

    Better to be a bastard who's happy than a good man who's miserable.

    ReplyDelete
  32. What the hell.
    His advice seems so surreal.
    I mean, not laughing about your date's joke, even if it was funny?
    Torturing your date's pet??
    I got nothing.

    Dave's advice is kind of awesome, though. In a cloudcookolander-ish way.

    @ RomanCandle
    So, you just proved my suspicion that one of Roissy's target groups are Nice Guys (TM).

    You know why his shit may work for you? Because when you were a Nice Guy, apparently you only were nice to get laid.
    But you didn't get laid.
    So you tried the douche-bag approach and were a lot more sincere about your intentions.
    Congrats! Now you were able to bed girls with no self esteem who wanted to get some kind of validation after you made them feel like shit!

    SPOILER:
    You actually never were a nice person to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  33. shaenon-- Roissy is named after the chateau in Story of O. This provides more evidence for my theory that he is a frustrated dom trying to make the rest of the world fit his fetish.

    RomanCandle-- I have never met a woman who went for a douchebag. The closest I have come-- literally-- is one of my friends who had a very traumatic life, who dumped her boyfriend for being too normal and unable to understand what it was like to Baker-Act your sister at seven. But even then she decided to go for a kind guy who also has a traumatic past.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "I wonder how successful the adherents of Roissy's system actually are . . ."---LVvS

    No question, Roissy is infinitely more successful than David will ever be despite all of his feminist kow towing. Full stop.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Better to be a bastard who's happy than a good man who's miserable."RomanCandle

    QFT

    ReplyDelete
  36. To shaennon:
    Insulting a woman to get her is called a Neg and guys that do that are negging women, or playing "Asshole game"

    To ClarenceComments:
    Most Roissy supporters see him as an expert in women - including finding a girlfriend and keeping her.

    To triplanetary:
    "... automatically think of every woman who sleeps with you as a slut."
    These ideas are widespread in the manosphere, they think that sex is dirty. That's one of the reason they have no girlfriend.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "No question, Roissy is infinitely more successful than David will ever be despite all of his feminist kow towing. Full stop."

    I think most people don't adopt feminism to "pick up chicks". You're drawing a rather odd comparison. Anyway, I've managed to be a pretty successful dater as a feminist. As it turns out, if you treat people like human beings you can have some success. Maybe I should write a book with that as the only line.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Oh, Johnny, you are soooo cute.

    I just want to pinch your cheeks, you lil sprite.

    I bet if someone was to videotape your "success" they'd find you were using some "game" techniques without even knowing it. Now, I'm willing to bet your a good, decent guy who mostly only manipulates and "objectifies" subconsciously, but you still do those things. Every human does.

    As for your advice, it's not really good advice. What it means tends to vary from feminist to feminist, and it doesn't help some awkward guy create any attraction. It's almost as bad as "just be yourself", which only really applies in LTR.

    Oh well, maybe you will grow up a bit and realize the world doesn't operate on slogans.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Kollege

    Riddle me this: if I was such a phony nice guy before and women could see through my exterior to my dark and twisted soul, then why did they all think I was sweet and funny? Why did they all want to be my friend?

    Getting women to like me was not a problem. Getting women to be attracted to me? That was.

    Could it be that maybe, just maybe, you're projecting what you want to be true onto me? That men, generally speaking, have more romantic and sexual success with women (all types of women, not just those with low self-esteem) if he is a bit of an asshole?

    @Ozymandias
    You've never seen a woman go for a douchebag? Really? There's a reason the website is called "Hot Chicks With Douchebags" and not "Hot Chicks With Male Feminists".

    And look at the romantic archetypes I mentioned above: Rhett Butler, Mr. Darcy, Mr. Big. Women fawn over these characters, and they were created by female writers. Add Don Draper to the list while you're at it, along with the entire cast of Jersey Shore! The thing they all have in common is an aloof, cocky attitude.

    Why wouldn't a single man try to emulate them? It's only logical.

    ReplyDelete
  40. RomanCandle-if your sole goal is to get laid, perhaps it is better to be a bastard. But if your goal is to have a happy long term relationship, this advice does a lot stop the possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  41. RomanCandle-- Douchebags tend to mate with other douchebags. Therefore, over-muscled shirtless orange men tend to mate with fake-breasted too-much-makeup orange women. My contention is not that all women hate douchebags; it's that most women hate douchebags.

    On the other hand: Michael Cera. No one goes to see his movies because of the excellence of his acting, y'know? It's because he's sweet and gentle and slightly nerdy, and some women like that.

    ...Jersey Shore? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I don't think it's "game" if you're just carrying on. I think "game" is when one uses techniques to hide less flattering traits of their personality.

    Your speculation about "subconscious" manipulation is pointless. I derive success from being honest about myself. I also derive it from understanding the thing that seems to be lost on most MRAs: at the very core, all humans - women, men, other - all want the same things, they have the same hopes, desires, fears and anxieties. Speculation of course - but it's made me successful and relieved me of a lot of bitterness I once had.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Getting MRA's mixed up with PUA's doesn't do you or your argument a service, Johnny, though I will say that there is some crossover.

    It's not as if MRA's speculate on what drives male/female desire, I must have missed that pickup book by Glenn Sacks and the videotapes by Warren Farrell, so I don't know why you are grumping at them when you should be grumping at Roissy for exposing the fact that many women, esp. young women are very vacuous and shallow and understanding this can help one get "laid" if that is what one is after. Ooopsie. Did I just criticize females? Well, shut my mouth!

    In my 14 years on the 'net I've run into many "feminists" who refuse to apply the same standards to females that they do to males. It's rather grimly amusing.

    "I derive success by being honest about myself". So, should I take that literally and assume you mean that every time you find a young lady's conversation boring or stupid you immediately tell her? Wouldn't want to have "tact" and "hide" anything now would we? You never observe the social niceties even when they make you grit your teeth?

    You truly are an admirable person! I wonder what you did when you suddenly became aroused when you were talking to a female friend and started imagining her with no clothes - did you immediately tell her this, or did you instead cover your discomfort, make some small excuse and end the conversation?

    See, I don't believe you for a second. Everyone advertises the better part of them in social settings - indeed, that's partly why "manners" were invented. There is absolutely nothing wrong with showing the most attractive (yet nonetheless true) aspects of your personality when you want to get to know someone. Only once a relationship has started, do they get to know you "warts and all" and guess what? That relationship ain't starting if you decide to treat your local club as if it's your bedroom and start nose-mining.

    What? You don't nose-mine in public? You disgusting manipulator,you. I'm sure there's been women who've had sex with you but haven't seen all your bad habits and warts. These women have been raped. Turn in your feminist badge immediately!

    That last paragraph was sarcasm. I trust you get my point.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I have no idea who Mr. Big is, but I sure don't remember Mr. Darcy or Rhett Butler torturning small animals. What page was that?

    ReplyDelete
  45. I suppose if men are fine being manipulative, self-absorbed assholes and treating women like dirt; and if there are women who want to sleep with manipulative assholes - they deserve each other.

    The rest of us, the sane people who recognize that members of the other gender are actual people, should be grateful that these people are sequestering themselves away from our dating pools.

    This is why I wish high school health classes taught relationship skills, not OMGHERPESBAD!!!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mr Big is a character of Sex and the City : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Big_%28Sex_and_the_City%29 And he doesn't torture small animals.

    ClarenceComments, do you understand that the only things you can get with PUAs technique is a one-night-stand with a drunken slut ? While all other guys have girlfriends. I know you must despise these guys and call them Betas.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Clarence, how is this " Everyone advertises the better part of them in social settings - indeed, that's partly why "manners" were invented. There is absolutely nothing wrong with showing the most attractive (yet nonetheless true) aspects of your personality when you want to get to know someone." in any way reasonably related to Roissy's cat torturing plans? If 'sociopathic asshole' is your best trait and you feel a need to emphasize it, please opt out of society and live in a hut somewhere away from the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lady VIctoria Von Syrus:

    While it would be nice if that was to happen, it's rather impossible to do for liability reasons, if nothing else. I don't see how one could do a class like that without risking offending someone - and offending anyone is a big no-no in todays public schools. And of course there'd be the inevitable arguments over what to teach and what was true and false...no, it would just be a big mess. You already know what happens in terms of sexual health classes int he schools.

    And for much the same reasons, colleges would not and could not make "dating skills" a required course, though I suppose they could hire some faculty.

    ReplyDelete
  49. DarkSideCat:
    Reading comprehension is a good thing to acquire. Since when did I ever state I sign off on everything Roissy says to do?

    ReplyDelete
  50. avpd:

    You are silly. I don't have to confirm to your idea of what a PUA must be: I've already said I use game techniques that I consider "light-side" as part of my search for a long term relationship. Indeed, I just got over a relationship, so I'm not actively looking, but I haven't tried to get any cheap sex in about 3 weeks either. And that's all you need to know about me. I use game as a toolkit for my own purposes. And no, it's not true that you have to do "club" game and short term escalation and all that stuff, if you are not looking for a one night stand, though it's good to be able to if that is what you want.

    Also, there's no Law that says PUA's have to wear funny hats or dress outrageously, though as Dave shows above, having a banana on your head does help. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  51. By the way, and I must warn people potential trigger warning: Weird Al Yankovic song below.

    Here's a socially savvy man at work:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_U377vst5o

    ReplyDelete
  52. So you're saying that it's a bad idea to teach teenagers good communication skills and what realistic expectations are for a romantic relationship? Some schools already do add a relationship skills segment to their health ed, but it's usually bullshit.

    I would like to see a segment where we taught teenagers to be honest with themselves and their own desires, and then teach them how to communicate them to potential partners.

    But our society is too fucked up when it comes to public discussions of sex, it'll probably never happen.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Lady Victoria, you are correct.
    Our society is fucked up in relation to sex. Our laws and social norms are all over the place (mixtures of rad-fem, neo-victorian, puritan, and even some "sex positive" stuff), plus we don't like to imagine teenagers thinking about or having sex, in part since we've redefined sexually developed and developing adolescents as children.

    Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Riddle me this: if I was such a phony nice guy before and women could see through my exterior to my dark and twisted soul, then why did they all think I was sweet and funny? Why did they all want to be my friend?"

    They were being polite.

    Riddle me this: if you were a genuinely nice guy, why did you take their friendship as some kind of insult?

    I have never met anyone who whines about what an unappreciated "nice guy" he is and is actually a nice guy. If you were nice, you wouldn't be whining. You wouldn't think that just being pleasant and friendly was some kind of extravagant special favor you were performing for women at great personal effort (gawd, it's so HARD spending time with those goblins with the holes between their legs!), and that it was appropriate to get angry if these women didn't fall all over your cock in gratitude.

    Look, it's not hard to get laid. Next time you're in line at the DMV, look around and consider: all these people have probably managed to have sex at some point. Even that shirtless mullet guy and the woman with no eyebrows. "I think it gets me laid" is a piss-poor excuse for acting like an ass.

    ReplyDelete
  55. About Roman Candles and the like, I think what is really going on here is they started being themselves and were able to bed girls that genuinely were attracted to them. When they were pretending to be someone else (caring, sensitive, evolved) they did not bed the girls who would have been attracted to their real personalities, and were not convincing enough to bed girls attracted to their fake personalities, so they got nothing.

    Because of societal disapproval for not being nice, caring, sensitive, and evolved, they spin the "I'm just doing this to get laid" story.

    Personally I think that some people are sort of dicks, some people love people who are sort of dicks, and there's nothing wrong with any of that.

    Of course there is something very wrong with torturing a cat.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Honesty does not mean keeping people apprised of your bodily functions at all times.

    It's being up front with people about your desires and what you want out of an interaction. I don't get involved with people who don't want the same thing out of the interaction as I do. There's no deception involved in meeting a woman and the two of you deciding you want to go back to your place and do whatever with no strings attached. In fact, you might be surprised at how many women are interested in this sort of thing if you canned the deception and false pretenses and tried asking them about it. There are a lot of cool, sex positive women out there who really don't care about these social mores.

    I'm no Don Juan or anything, but I'm pretty satisfied.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I've never watched "Sex and the City," but the other two examples don't support the "women love assholes" theory.

    Rhett Butler is an asshole...but he's not the guy Scarlett O'Hara is in love with. She spends most of the story going to humiliating lengths to win the love of Ashley Wilkes, a sweet, kind, gentle man who just isn't into her. Eventually, after Ashley marries an equally sweet, kind woman and Scarlett fails in all her attempts to seduce him away, she accepts that Rhett is a better match for her because, well, she's an asshole too. P.S. It doesn't last.

    Darcy is standoffish and snarky, but he's not actually a bad guy. That's the entire point of the book: that he and Elizabeth get misleading first impressions of each other and have to suck it up and admit they were wrong. Hence the title. Once Darcy realizes that his Asperger-y attitude turns Elizabeth off even though they get along well otherwise, he spends the center of the novel apologizing for page after page, then goes to great effort to prove that he's a stand-up guy. He does not say, "Fuck it, if she's not going to sleep with me I'll just kick her cat. That'll make her respect me!"

    He also finds her conversation fascinating and laughs at her jokes. That's seriously in the book.

    Also, you're aware these are fictional characters, right?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Johnny?

    Ever heard of the "apocalypse" opener?

    This is where you go right up to the woman or young lady and ask her flat-out if she'd like to go to your place or her place and have sex with you.

    It may be rude, it may be crude, but sometimes its as honest as you can get. It also gets one rejected between 90 and 99.99 (depending on your attractiveness level)percent of the time, and possibly slapped.

    Tell me, have you ever done such an opener? I'm assuming you've had such interests or thoughts whilst chatting to a new young lady if you are honest with yourself. And if you haven't done such an opener, why not? NSA sex means you don't have to get to know each other, right?

    No. For the vast majority of women, even sex positive ones, you have to get to know them a bit first. They have to feel comfortable with you. This is called the "comfort" phase in Mystery's parlance. But many women get hit on a lot. So before you can get to the point of getting to know them you have to ATTRACT them or they will brush you off. And part of attraction is advertising. Unless you are trying to tell me that you've used the apocalypse opener on many of your "hookups" you are lying if you say you relied entirely on "honesty" the whole way. You had to attract the young lady first. There's deceptive advertising, and there's truth in advertising. I advocate truth in advertising, but I know that when I initiate with a woman I must advertise!

    ReplyDelete
  59. shaenon:

    I've only ever seen the movie "Gone With the Wind" because my mom loved it so much. So I'm not going to argue with you about the book. Indeed, I think I remember somewhere hearing that Darcy and his wife had a good marriage or something like that, even though Darcy is (in Roissy terms) a "beta" male.

    But Roissy did do a post on Rhett Butler in the movie and here it is:

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/great-scenes-of-game-in-the-movies/


    Now, I've seen all 3 Twilight movies, but only to humor my mom (rather sad, isn't it?). I've read about 1/3 of the first book. That is it. My brother has a long time female friend who has read all the books and loves to burn his ear about how the movies mangle something in the books. Plus, he has to watch the dang movies twice -once with mom and me, and once with Ms. Twilight. Poor guy.

    Anyway, feel free to tell me how the movie differs from the book. But I'd also like your thoughts on Roissy's analysis about this scene from the movie.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  60. RomanCandle:

    Regarding the likes of Mr Darcy and Mr Big attracting women with their behaviour, I fear you are missing the point somewhat. An old school friend of mine shared these characters’ arrogant, aloof demeanour, as well as their dazzling and effortless success with the ladies. However, this may have had something to do with the fact that he also shared their exceptional good looks and awe-inspiring wealth.

    Arrogance was not this lad’s true selling point. Any more than a high calorie content is the true selling point of Ben and Jerry’s – or an outrageous fuel consumption rate is the true selling point of the Ferrari Scaglietti. Or that the ridiculous, wooden dialogue holds the key to Star Wars’ world-conquering success – and that any aspiring screenwriter simply needs to make his dialogue more ridiculous and wooden in order to become the next George Lucas.

    At the risk of battering you over the head with this point. Megan Fox, while I have no personal knowledge of the lady and may be doing her a disservice, gives every impression of being a vapid, unpleasant bitch. Yet, observing Megan’s effect on the male race, a woman with the appearance of Meg Griffin may infer
    ‘clearly, I am being too pleasant and bright to appeal to foolish, masochistic men. What I need to do in order to be worshipped by these idiots is to become more vapid, unpleasant and bitchy.’

    If you still do not ‘get it’, you still do not ‘get it’.

    Clarence:

    Your devotion to your 'evil gifted one' lord and master is touching. It is almost as charming as the relationship between Smithers and Mr Burns, yet with more homoerotic tension.

    A word to the wise, however. Such cringingly sycophantic displays of prepubescent hero-worship are frightfully un-alpha. Whatever would your newly-acquired harem of girlfriends think?

    If your life has been changed by this gentleman’s advice - 60% of which is hugely obvious to anyone more socially astute than Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, and 40% of which is hugely disturbing to anyone more emotionally developed than Jeffrey Dahmer – then so be it. I am glad it has helped you achieve a level of sexual savoir faire most normal men instinctively acquire by the time they are old enough to shave.

    As for your adoration of his sparkling and timeless prose, allow me to recommend Stephenie Meyer, Barbara Cartland and Cecelia Aherne. For you, my friend, there is a vast universe of gloriously-written literature out there, just waiting to be discovered.

    You may also admire the literary genius of Danielle Steel.

    As Confucius has said in his wisdom, ‘the only man sorrier than the man who actively seeks out the title of Dark Lord at the age of forty-five is the man who seeks to become this man’s bitch.‘

    ReplyDelete
  61. "No Strings Attached" sex doesn't mean you don't get to know the person - it means that there are no expectations of dating or romance. It's just two people coming together, who have chemistry, enjoying some fun sex together and then being able to part again as friends when the relationship has run its course. Your NSA partner will still doubtlessly want to be treated with respect.

    Getting to know a woman, advertising your good qualities and making yourself attractive - these are all good things that will help get you laid. And if some guy is making a million bucks by telling guys to take a shower and say 'hi', then more power to that dude.

    You know what the problem with Nice Guys is? It's that they don't see women as people. And I don't mean that they dehumanize women. Instead, they see women as these mysterious, alien life forms that they can never hope to comprehend. They're stymied on what to talk to a woman about, because they cannot imagine what she would find interesting. It never crosses their mind that she is, in fact, a person and would probably take quite nicely to being asked what book she's currently reading or what kind of music she listens to. Or how her day is going. I had a friend who as a virgin until he was 24, and had to hammer it through his head that it's silly to be afraid of women (he was also later diagnosed with Asperger's, which makes me wonder if many Roissy adherents are Aspies. It would certainly explain why they like rules and formulas so much, and why they had such a terrible time relating to people before they adopted these codes. Come to think of it, it would probably also explain why they rate women on a numerical scale and why they freak the fuck out when people deviate from The Way Things Ought To Be).

    ReplyDelete
  62. citizenlemonade:

    I know who you are, as you've seen me before. You hang out at LadyRaine's and, on your blog, with maria. Greetings, Escapist. I actually find some of the Sexy P, to be funny. Now, that being said:

    "If your life has been changed by this gentleman’s advice - 60% of which is hugely obvious to anyone more socially astute than Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, and 40% of which is hugely disturbing to anyone more emotionally developed than Jeffrey Dahmer – then so be it. I am glad it has helped you achieve a level of sexual savoir faire most normal men instinctively acquire by the time they are old enough to shave. "

    Beautiful. Really funny, and partly true, esp. the 60/40 part. I'd say it's more like 70 percent useful advice, 30 percent disturbing stuff, but hey, that's quibbling.

    On the other hand, I don't want a harem, and I've never thought of myself as an "Alpha Male".

    And if you want to hate on me, you should hate on Erick Von Markovic, aka Mystery, for he has influenced me and a friend far more than Roissy.
    I'm one of his success stories, though I'm going to be the first to tell you I don't hook up with 9's or tens every night , nor do I want multiple girls at the same time, and I can live without a 3some. My previous girlfriend rocked my world as far as fulfilling my *I'm slightly kinky* pedestrian sexual fantasies. We are still friends. I'm happy. Why can't you be?

    Oh, and I've read some Danielle Steel. Not to my taste. I'm more an HP Lovecraft, Issac Asimov type of dude.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Lady Von Syrus (Hey, I'm trying multiple greetings to get it right):

    I actually pretty much agree with everything you said in your most recent post. Remember there's two types of "niceguys" - the manipulative jerks that feminists always put the trademark symbol near, and the shy and socially awkward who truly believe that being nice and sweet and non-threatening attracts females, and believe in treating everyone with kindness. The second type just never get the social cues, and they never understand the power of confidence. I know. I used to be one.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Clarence:

    You are coming dangerously close to persuading me that some of Roissy's followers are normal, humorous, likeable and pleasant. Perhaps you are not all like greatbooksformentalcases after all.

    Although I am not the Escapist Pterodactyl. Just to clarify. I post at LR as Nice Lurker.

    ReplyDelete
  65. And if some guy is making his career off teaching Aspie men (or just socially awkward men) how to approach women and talk to women, then he's actually probably providing a valuable service. I think one of the good messages is that it's okay to get shot down by one woman, because you can try again with someone else.

    But then it's wrapped up in a bunch of bullshit (like Roissy's list which is the inspiration for this post) that paints dating and romance as an adversarial game. The man is convincing the women to give up something (sex), and achieves some kind of victory over her when he does. And then to prove his superiority, he has to treat her like dirt. You can still see how their insecurity about women permeates everything.

    Women want men who are confident, and that's what a lot of timid Nice Guys don't seem to get. They watch a confident man getting dates, and interpret him as being an asshole. It's not that at all.

    ReplyDelete
  66. At risk of pimping my blog, I would like to point out a post I did relevant to the issue of "whether women like nice guys": http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com/2011/02/its-always-more-complicated-and-playing.html

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dammit, why didn't the link work?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Lady Von Syrus:

    I wish I could believe that, but I don't. You might wish to look into studies involving "dark triad" traits. It's not just confidence (and honestly, if you don't have confidence you have to fake it till you make it) that explains why so many bikers and never do wells get plenty of girlfriends. I live in a mixed income and race area of Baltimore city and I've been here 20 years, and the amount of women that some of the repeatedly jailed members of this community get is beyond belief. It might have to do with them being tough (you know the old "protector" rule)due to a life of constant violence and since these men get women early and quite often they tend to have tremendous sexual confidence that someone like me (who didn't go "all the way" till 26) couldn't naturally match. Also, often to lose your girl around here, you have just to lose your status, which is often done by losing a fight. So there's that female "hypergamy" in action - They are attracted to the excitement, the drugs, the violence, and the status games. So yeah, sometimes the asshole does get the girl, and that's partly on a natural instinct for most young ladies (loving protection, confidence, and style) and the lack of a good culture with which to show them what types of manifestations of those things are actually good for them.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @ Ozzy: I don't think links work at all in the comments here. But I did copy/paste, and your graphics amuse me.

    @ Clarence: It's as unfair to say that because some women in Baltimore go for bikers and violent gang members, this must be what all women want as it is to say that because some men are violent gang members, all men must have an atavistic desire to thug other men. I have never dated a gang member or a man who spent even a day in jail, and neither have any of my straight female friends. Any guy who treated me the way Roissy says he ought to treat me would not only *not* get laid by me, I wouldn't even want to be friends with the douchebag.

    Women also tend to date men who remind them of their fathers, so if a woman's father was absent, unavailable or violent, that's the sort of man she will pursue as an adult.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Lady Von Syrus:

    I am not intending to say who "all" women are attracted to. Merely to point out to you that it's not always "in their heads" or a misunderstanding when guys say women go for jerks. Quite a few do, and the amount seems to vary by locale and local culture. That's all. And my final point would be that the dating advice I was given when I was younger was totally useless and either required me to disbelieve my own eyes, or gave me the wrong impressions on why the women were acting the way they were. You know the "oh, they must be victims/brainwashed/coerced/" , that sort of thing.

    A lot of "game" is merely knowing what social tools you need depending on what sexual environment you are in.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Okay, too many people took issue with my last post to respond individually, but I do notice that no one really had a response for what I wrote here:

    "Riddle me this: if I was such a phony nice guy before and women could see through my exterior to my dark and twisted soul, then why did they all think I was sweet and funny? Why did they all want to be my friend?"

    Most of you, knowing me for all of two internet posts, just assumed I was always an asshole. All I can say is that this is simply not true, and people who have known me all my life would literally burst out laughing at the thought of me being a life-long jerk. I'll repeat my theory that you all are projecting some sort of "he was always an asshole just pretending to be a nice guy" vibe onto me so you won't have to confront some facts that conflict with your PC worldview.

    In fact, when I do get rejected nowadays, it's often because my sensitive "nice guy" seeps out of the "cocky jerk" persona I'm working hard to project. Bottom line: I'm a nice guy pretending to be an asshole, not the other way around.

    And I don't just sleep with vapid women who have low self-esteem. To be sure, I've slept with plenty of girls like that (although never anyone with an orange tan).

    But I've also slept with (and even had a few relationships with) plenty of intelligent, independent, and even self-proclaimed feminist women (ironically, they tend to be the most submissive in bed). And most of these women probably would have been unattainable to me before I started taking the Roissy-style advice.

    So again...if these things never work, how come they work for me?

    ReplyDelete
  72. As an addendum: I've never tortured a cat. In fact, I own two of them myself.

    And as for Michael Cera being some sort of sex symbol...well he's funny, famous, and somewhat good-looking (I guess), so he could probably do okay for himself. But take a look at his girlfriend

    http://cdn.okmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/paperheart.jpg

    I'm sure she's very nice and talented. But hot she ain't.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Clarence wrote:
    You reap what you sow, and this is only the first part of payback.

    A veritable biblical plague of PUAs? I don't know whether to be frightened or amused.

    Still, I suppose that not giving socially awkward guys an easy way to score is a fatal flaw for any social-political philosophy. Why even Karl Marx famously said: "Dweebs of all nations unite! You have nothing to lose but your virginity." Or something like that. It's been a while since I've read it.

    I mean, consider the possibilities. What if the Seneca Fall Convention of 1848, instead of devoting itself to petty matters like women's suffrage, had focused on a developing a resolution "concerning the rights of men of poor social grace to unlimited nookie of their own choosing." History would never have been the same. Or imagine if Mary Wollstonecraft, instead of wasting her time writing A Vindication of the Rights of Women instead wrote Rules for Plaeyers who Desirre to score with Ye Bitches and insodoing in Perpetuity keepe their Dickes Wette . (Or maybe that was Chaucer. No matter.) Future historians may well mark these missed opportunities as the point where feminism first went awry. Ah, the benefits of hindsight!

    ReplyDelete
  74. I suddenly like Mr. Cera way more then I did before.

    Clarification the "cocky jerk" persona Mr. Candle-are you torturing cats or are you just not letting someone walk all over you any more? Because there is quite a difference between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  75. "Ozymandias said...

    At risk of pimping my blog, I would like to point out a post I did relevant to the issue of "whether women like nice guys": http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com/2011/02/its-always-more-complicated-and-playing.html
    February 3, 2011 2:03 PM
    Ozymandias said...

    Dammit, why didn't the link work?
    February 3, 2011 2:04 PM "

    You weren't acting cocky enough.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Captain Bathrobe:

    I'll speak slowly so even you can understand it.

    A. Guys not getting their advice on relationship from feminism -the one modern political movement that claims to be the end-all and be-all for all your "gender" needs.
    B. I've done my part (as has Roissy) to add practical real world legal considerations to the PUA's. That is "marriage 2.0", insanely overbroad definitions of rape and domestic violence. This creates a lot of anger in guys when they learn this stuff.
    C. Men who learn this stuff no longer pedestalize women. Thus women get more pushback both politically and personally in their relationships.

    Now I hope THAT explained things.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "Riddle me this: if I was such a phony nice guy before and women could see through my exterior to my dark and twisted soul, then why did they all think I was sweet and funny? Why did they all want to be my friend?"

    Women are taught to be nice under all circumstances. Therefore, they are likely to tell you you are sweet and funny and they want to be your friend when they tell you they do not want to be in a relationship with you.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Oz, to get clickable links, Blogger stupidly requires you to type in the actual html code for a link, as I have done here:

    Funny dating charts post

    ReplyDelete
  79. Roman Candle, most Nice Guys(TM) are not sadists that torture small animals, they are boring guys that spend their days playing video games and that's why they are unpopular with women. And ever heard of LBJF (let's be just friend) ? If a woman think that you are a boring guy, she will not throw eggs at you, she will say that she accept only to be your friend, but for her it means "get lost loser". And since the nice guy(TM) doesn't understand it, he still expect that she will eventually fall in love with him. That's why Nice Guys (TM) end up very frustrated.

    ReplyDelete
  80. ""Riddle me this: if I was such a phony nice guy before and women could see through my exterior to my dark and twisted soul, then why did they all think I was sweet and funny? Why did they all want to be my friend?"

    Women are taught to be nice under all circumstances. Therefore, they are likely to tell you you are sweet and funny and they want to be your friend when they tell you they do not want to be in a relationship with you. "

    And this doesn't mean, RomanCandle, that you are a mean nasty guy. Just that they don't want to date you. Maybe you're unpleasantly clingy -- a lot of NiceGuy (TM) types are.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Elizabeth:

    For the second time, no, I'm not torturing cats. I find it kinda weird that I have to deny this twice.

    If you had bothered to read my posts, you'd realize that I actually own two cats. One of them, no lie, is purring in my lap as I type this! And I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."

    When feminists use hyperbole it's taken dead serious. How interesting when the tables are turned.

    ReplyDelete
  83. AVpd:

    I agree with most of what you just wrote, and you kind of prove my point for me. I think maybe you didn't catch my earlier posts? If you only saw part of what I quoted from earlier, I can see how'd you'd make that mistake.

    The whole point I've been trying to make is that I'm no longer a Nice Guy (TM) because I was tired of getting the LJBF. And that's what I'm now getting criticized and called a misogynist for...no longer being a nice guy. And you know what? That's fine. I'm a big boy, and I can deal with feminists being snarky at me.

    But what I'm also trying to convince you all of is that there's a method to my madness. I behave this way not because I hate women or because I was born evil. I behave this way because women reward it. Because it works.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ozymandias:

    You make an interesting point with your chart there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is essentially this: women want to date guys who are nice, but also interesting. And if a nice guy gets rejected, it's not because he's nice, but because he is uninteresting.

    It's not a bad point, but it has a fatal flaw:

    There's a huge overlap between "nice" and "boring", and between "interesting" and "douchebag". It's very difficult for a guy to be interesting and nice at the same time, at least when he's trying to make a first impression.

    Conversely, "interesting" and "douchebag" usually go hand-in-hand. It's been my experience that the more confident you are, the better. And what is arrogance and douchebaggery but extreme confidence?

    Most women won't sleep with a nice guy if he's boring, which is fair enough. But you might be surprised how many women will sleep with a jerk if he turns them on.

    Bottom line: being exciting is more important to women than being nice, generally speaking.

    Indulge me a bit, and let me paraphrase Machiavelli:

    "Is it better to be admired or desired? We should wish to be both. But since it is difficult to join them together, it is better to be desired than admired".

    ReplyDelete
  85. When feminists use hyperbole it's taken dead serious.
    NO KIDDING!!! I'm sure that Elizabeth was using the "torturing cats" reference in like manner, but the possibility of that doesn't seem to occur to some. Maybe because it's believed that women lack a sense of humour?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Captain Bathrobe:

    I'll speak slowly so even you can understand it.


    I doubt that will help, but go ahead and knock yourself out.

    A. Guys not getting their advice on relationship from feminism -the one modern political movement that claims to be the end-all and be-all for all your "gender" needs.

    Now, see, you've changed topics. Now you're talking about relationships; whereas before you were talking about getting laid. My point is that feminism was never about helping guys to get laid. Feminism, however, has transformed modern relationships--something that PUAs seem to have no interest in. Your contention in your previous post appeared to be that feminists were about to get their comeuppance for years of shamefully neglecting men's need for pussy. My point is that it was never feminists's responsibility to begin with.

    Besides, socially awkward guys have always had trouble getting laid. Feminism didn't cause that. If anything, feminism's questioning of gender roles created space for men to deviate from the masculine ideal. I know you won't believe that, and I don't have time to school you on it, but it's true.

    B. I've done my part (as has Roissy) to add practical real world legal considerations to the PUA's. That is "marriage 2.0", insanely overbroad definitions of rape and domestic violence. This creates a lot of anger in guys when they learn this stuff.

    Ah. So it's the usual MRA twaddle about how feminism is responsible for everything bad ever. Why didn't you say so to begin with? You could have saved us both a lot of time.

    "Men who learn this stuff no longer pedestalize women."

    I rather thought that's what feminism was all about.

    ReplyDelete
  87. RomanCandle-- First of all, the charts are for me dating people, not other people dating people. The same principle works for hot/nice, rich/nice, smart/nice, religious/nice, committed/nice, interested in the same things as me/nice, likes cats/nice...

    Secondly, for me, "interesting" means two things:

    a) Code for a certain cluster of nerdy interests (science, SFF, tabletop RPGs, even Cracked.com and shit like that) that I have historically found most attractive and had the best relationships with
    b) Able to maintain a conversation about his subject of interest for long periods at a time, which satisfies my desire for useless information.

    I see no reason why those are necessarily correlated with being a douchebag.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."

    See the problem with that is that Roissy and his band of not so merry men also post a whole lot of crap on how date rape shouldn't really exist etc and how if a woman goes back to a man's apartment she should know what she is there for (ie sex not a cup of hot milk) and many of the folk over there and at places like the spearhead will advocate that any claims of rape in this case are just slut regret and not rape at all. They will pretty much put the blame on the woman for being stupid (while simultaneously giving bonus rating points to very young and presumably very naive women).

    While complaining about the 'all men are potential rapist stereotypes', there is also the 'the womyn are gonna get whats cumming to them when we get more men on board' and complaints about whores who go after assholes getting what they deserve'.

    Its just not that much of a stretch to see if Roissy was arrested for eg murdering one of his 'dates' (not that I am suggesting he would) certain sections of that community saying well 'the whore deserved it - she knew he was an asshole - he even talked about torturing cats - she should have known better' Sure he probably doesn't mean it but some of the elements that post on his website project that sort of thinking online on a regular basis.

    It becomes a Catch 22. If violent threats/talk is talked its 'legitimate mens anger' or 'hyperbole' but if a womyn fails to heed the warning signs its her fault as she should have seen it coming. Someone who allows that kind of talk on his site shouldn't expect people to accpt that as hyperbole I would think.

    And I have no problem with the dress nicely and brush your teeth etc side of PUA however a 'neg' will have me smiling sweetly and remembering a previous engagement while backing away. Some of the stuff they suggest there would have me calling security or the cops

    ReplyDelete
  89. Oh, oh!
    Captain Bathrobe is a troll.

    See how he puts words in my mouth that I did not say, and shows an ignorance of history besides? I bet he's too stupid to realize just what in history disproves his assertion about how I'm blaming "feminism for everything bad ever.." but I'd like to see if he has the intelligence of a garden house and can point it out.

    I don't appreciate people claiming I say things I do not say, so we'll see if he can solve my riddle. If not, into the ignore bin he'll go.

    And he didn't even notice that I mentioned that I'd run into the "feminism isn't a dating service" argument before. Fine, then stay out of the dating game, and don't regulate or pontificate on it is what *I* say.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Also I have been known to say after a few drinks 'oh you must be one of those PUA robots - Not interested thank you' in a fairly loud voice (Yes A SHAMING tactic - only I see it more as a public service to both the other women in the room and hopefully the man himself when he sees the interest in the room evaporate)

    ReplyDelete
  91. RomanCandle said:
    "I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."

    I can assure you there are naive guys that believe everything that Roissy says. Just check the number of commentators on his blog that agree with him.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Insults and a smokescreen of righteous indignation. Yeah, I've heard better.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Also, "ignorance of history?" You wound me, sir!

    ReplyDelete
  94. RomanCandle said:
    "Most women won't sleep with a nice guy if he's boring, which is fair enough. But you might be surprised how many women will sleep with a jerk if he turns them on. "

    Do you understand that the reasons that a woman sleep with a guy are not the same that the reason she will fall in love with a guy ? A woman can have sex with a jerk because her 'gina tingle but she will not want to fall in love with him because she doesn't want to be abused.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "I can assure you there are naive guys that believe everything that Roissy says. Just check the number of commentators on his blog that agree with him."

    Sure there are. So what?

    Are you saying that everyone expressing a controversial opinion should be held liable for the potential violent actions of their deranged followers?

    Should I point to Andrea Dworkin and The SCUM Manifesto and blame all of feminism the next time a woman commits an act of violence against a man?

    Seriously, you people are great at debating the low-hanging fruits of the MRA movement. And you're fantastic at being snarky. I have alot to learn there.

    But as for convincing me to abandon my caddish ways of projecting a veneer of charming arrogance when I attempt to seduce women? Yeah, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Do you understand that the reasons that a woman sleep with a guy are not the same that the reason she will fall in love with a guy?"

    Oh most definitely. Alot of times, in fact, they're almost mutually exclusive.

    Who ever said I was looking to fall in love? You think I want to get married with the divorce and family law courts the way they are? To hell with that scam, no way.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Seriously, you people are great at debating the low-hanging fruits of the MRA movement. And you're fantastic at being snarky. I have alot to learn there.

    But as for convincing me to abandon my caddish ways of projecting a veneer of charming arrogance when I attempt to seduce women? Yeah, not so much.


    Actually, that's a fair point.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "Women want men who are confident, and that's what a lot of timid Nice Guys don't seem to get."---LVvS

    Is this because you lack the confidence in yourself so you want someone to over-compensate for that?

    ReplyDelete
  99. "Is this because you lack the confidence in yourself so you want someone to over-compensate for that?"

    No, if you lack confidence you cannot sponge it from someone else. It is because you want a partner who is going to be strong and confident in his abilities, a match to you, not leaning on you for support of his ego.

    ReplyDelete
  100. "No, if you lack confidence you cannot sponge it from someone else. It is because you want a partner who is going to be strong and confident in his abilities, a match to you, not leaning on you for support of his ego."---Sandy

    Many women out there are just like the "nice guys" the claim to complain about. There are people who do just that---"sponge" it from another person.

    In the 90s, one term that was employed was co-dependency. There were entire books written on the subject alone. It's not too far off the mark from this subject.

    It gets pretty tedious and sad when all the "nice guy" talk is often a projection of those who can't measure up with the mates they desire, yet expect a laundry list of attributes to be set in place, regardless.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Well, I see the good Bathrobe Rube couldn't answer my riddle.

    So I'll have to drop some knowledge. Ready boys and girls?

    Feminism can not be responsible for every bad thing that happened EVER, because feminism AS A POLITICAL movement is somewhere around 150 years old, depending on how you define it. A lot of people start the "first wave" at the Seneca Falls convention, although there is not universal agreement about that.

    And that was Daily Troll History Lesson by Clarence.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Mr. Candle-the use of "torturing cats" is the two extremes. My apologies if it seemed I was accusing you of doing so.

    Roissy has as part of his list an extreme bad behavior-torturing cats. But on the other side, one could (possibly I guess) read some of the advice telling someone to be confident in one's self and do not let another person walk all over one's self.

    In other words-you can be using some of his advice to be an actual jerk or you could be using some of his advice to be a more confident individual who does not let a person push you around. That is not being cocky or a jerk.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "In other words-you can be using some of his advice to be an actual jerk or you could be using some of his advice to be a more confident individual who does not let a person push you around. That is not being cocky or a jerk."

    You have pretty low standards for advice-givers if only half of the advice has to be right. I wouldn't buy a map on that basis.

    ReplyDelete
  104. @Clarence, there is a huge difference between dating someone who is a douchebag or abusive to you and dating someone who is otherwise socially deviant. My first boyfriend was the middle school pot dealer. But, he was never disrespectful or abusive to me. We remained close friends for years after we broke up. So, was he a 'nice guy' or a 'bad boy'? Because the same boy who made me mixed cds of love songs was the boy who bashed some kid's face off a locker for not paying up his weed debts. I have also had encounters with clean cut upperclass people who were extremely controlling and disrespectful in a relationship, but were respected university students.

    "Being a jerk" is not such a clear issue. You talk about bikers, but as someone who has lived and worked in poor neighborhoods, I can say that when I was doing minimum wage restaurant work, the bikers were in general far more respectful of the waitresses and tipped better than the after church crowd. You can't look at someone and assume because of the way they dress or because of past criminal convictions (not related to partner or ex-partner abuse) that they are disrespectful or abusive of their romantic partners. There are soft spoken accountants who go home every day and beat their wives, and gangsters who never say a harsh word and buy flowers.

    ReplyDelete
  105. DarkSideCat:

    Will you stop assuming I live in some castle with a moat? I know who the bad elements are, and I never said all bikers everywhere, anymore than I mentioned that there's a small crips gang nearby in my neighborhood. And guess what? I don't particularly CARE how Adolf Hitler treated Eva Braun, it has nothing to do with the fact that he was a jerk.

    Are you supposed to tell some awkward nerd type, bullied and tormented, that he should have respect for his abuser because Sally decides that Mr. Bully makes her vag tingle, and Mr. Bully (or Mr. Jailbird, or Mr. Murderer) is really nice to her after he gets done beating Nerdrick to a pulp?How does this disprove women liking jerks? A girl who would date a downright bully doesn't show that she cares much for character.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "Feminism can not be responsible for every bad thing that happened EVER, because feminism AS A POLITICAL movement is somewhere around 150 years old, depending on how you define it. A lot of people start the "first wave" at the Seneca Falls convention, although there is not universal agreement about that."

    Wow...I guess I've been schooled. Next up, Clarence and I debate mathematics:

    Clarence: (silly, illogical remark)

    Me: (sarcastically) Oh yeah? I suppose if that's true then 2+2=5.

    Clarence: NUH UH! It just so happens, Mr. Smartypants, that 2+2=4. Hah! BURN! You thought 2+2=5, but it totally doesn't! I am so smart! S-M-R-T!

    Seriously, I'm starting to feel sorry for you now. Unless, of course, you're being sarcastic, in which case it was an adequate effort.

    ReplyDelete
  107. @ Wytch

    'Is this because you lack the confidence in yourself so you want someone to over-compensate for that?'

    Nice try. It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist. It was the insecure boyfriend who would continually try and cut me down and make me feel terrible over what I wanted; while simultaneously trying to convince me that I was the love of his life. Ever since dumping him, I've been more aware of that type of man - I know how to spot it and that I should avoid it. And what he did, knowingly or not, is a lot of what PUAs encourage each other to do to women.

    So yeah. It will get you laid. It might even get you a girlfriend for a short while. But eventually, she'll wise up to the fact that she's worth better than she's been getting, and will leave.

    @ Ozymandias:

    I totally agree with your coding for geekhood! I met my current boyfriend over D&D.

    ReplyDelete
  108. It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist. It was the insecure boyfriend who would continually try and cut me down and make me feel terrible over what I wanted; while simultaneously trying to convince me that I was the love of his life. Ever since dumping him, I've been more aware of that type of man - I know how to spot it and that I should avoid it. And what he did, knowingly or not, is a lot of what PUAs encourage each other to do to women.

    I can confirm this from the other side, since I was that kind of boyfriend when I was younger. I'm not going to make any excuses for myself; I was unforgivably shitheaded. I like to think I've grown out of it.

    But it does beg the question: why do men who are supposedly so "high value" need to constantly tear down the woman they're with? And if he's so confident in his high value, why does he need to try so hard to assert it?

    Seems like a man who's confident in his value (whatever that may be) will be confident enough to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with his partner and celebrate, rather than envy or begrudge, any areas in which she surpasses him.

    ReplyDelete
  109. To wit:
    Do these to a girlfriend and you will be a god to her.

    I'll just say it instead of posing another rhetorical question: Any person who needs another human being to bow down and look up at him/her as a god is a very small, insecure person. If you think you're that awesome, you should be able to feel good about yourself without someone else's validation.

    ReplyDelete
  110. "Nice try. It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist."---LVvS

    And you don't acknowledge your own culpability there. Nice deflection.

    ReplyDelete
  111. "Nice try. It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist."---LVvS

    And you don't acknowledge your own culpability there. Nice deflection.


    It sounds like she took responsibility for herself and got out of a bad relationship.

    Learning from experience--it's what grown-ups do.

    ReplyDelete
  112. '"Nice try. It's because I've dated insecure men and been miserable in the relationship. I am a partner, not a cheering squad and therapist."---LVvS

    And you don't acknowledge your own culpability there. Nice deflection. '

    That's actually another tactic my ex would use - insist that we bore equal responsibility for every problem we had. Even things like me being mad that he was secretly recording my instant messenger conversations. That would then subvert the discussion to "I am angry you did this" to "I don't really think I bear half the responsibility here," and we'd never resolve the first issue.

    And yes, eventually I realized that this relationship was unhealthy, we broke up, and I took some time to figure out what it was that I had been looking for that made me end up with this guy. We all make mistakes; adults learn from them. I must have learned at least a few things, the relationship I have now is quite happy.

    ReplyDelete
  113. @ Clarence, "I don't particularly CARE how Adolf Hitler treated Eva Braun, it has nothing to do with the fact that he was a jerk." Presumably though it has a great deal to do with her reasons for dating him (I also suspect that she was in political agreement and did not see him as evil, even though he objectively was). If the people you see as 'bad boys' do not actually treat their wives or girlfriends worse than those you see as 'nice guys', it makes perfect sense why women who do not have trouble with outside 'badness' (for example, a drug conviction) would be willing to date them. It would also mean that these women are not seeking to date people who are abusive and disrespectful to them simply because they date those you see as 'bad'. Just because someone is a 'jerk' to you does not mean they are acting like a jerk towards their girlfriend, or their mom, or their dog. If you can understand why the person who is an asshole to you can have friends who he is not such an asshole towards (said friends may also be assholes to you), why can't you understand the same phenomenon applies to dating? 'Why are people friends with assholes' has the same answer as 'why do people date assholes'. They do not see the person as an asshole or the person treats them better than they treat certain others. Since you have already gone all Godwin, I will use the Nazis as an example. Sure, they are assholes, but somehow even the arch assholes managed to functionally work in a group with their chosen buddies. I am sure that there were nazis that did favours for and went drinking with their nazi buddies, considering each other dear friends and nazis who lovingly showered their children with presents. In reality, the monsters, no matter how evil, are human ones.

    On another note, yes, who is seen as 'bad' and who is seen as 'nice' is highly related to culture factors over actual actions in many cases. I have seen pacifists referred to as 'bad boys' and guys known for throwing things at people out car windows while making homophobic slurs referred to as 'nice guys' (by other heteros). I had a classmate who thought that a guy who had punched a girl in the face was a 'nice guy' but saw me with a young black man and a guy with dyed hair, piercings, and tattoos and referred to them as 'scary guys'.

    ReplyDelete
  114. DarkSideCat:

    I suppose I should plop this link at you then:
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/lies-about-women-who-love-abusers/

    I mean, supposedly the excuse you would give a girl who dated some hypothetical dude who was known for murdering old ladies is that well, he may be a murderer, but she just doesn't want to be abused!! Well, that's b.s as applies to at least some women.

    And even if I brought your argument, what's that got to do with the fact that some gals will pick a jerk over a nerd. I must have missed the epidemic of domestic abuse perpetrated by nerds, esp. since many of them tend to be among the most pro-feminist people in high schools and on college campuses.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Clarence

    I'm going to give my youngest son as an example of what you see as a jerk.

    He played football in school, and has been involved in mixed martial arts since he was a young teen. He's the guy who nerds point to as being a jerk.

    However nerds (for lack of a better word) do not hang around him and his friends, they might have seen him teasing a girl at school but what they don’t know is, it is mutual teasing. My son has always had a large amount of female friends. He’s confident around women and enjoys the company of women who are confident around him.

    When he was fifteen I had to convince him that it was not a good idea for his best gal pal to sleep over (alone) after I walked into his room at five in the morning to find her sleeping on his sofa. It’s not that my son wasn’t sexually active, it’s that he’s never seen girls as just for sex.

    That is the problem with PUA. I don’t have a problem with them finding a way to get human companionship or to have sex, it’s that they don’t see women or perhaps even people as individuals. Actually I don’t have a problem with them at all, I just see them as individuals who seem to have a problem with themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  116. To Romancandle:
    No one is saying that Andrea Dworkin was a great woman and that people should forget about the insane things she said. You're saying exactly that about Roissy.

    You can fall in love with a woman without marrying her. Most people don't get married these day. So you intent to spend the rest of your life having one-night-stand with women and ridicule guys that have a girlfriend like Roissy does ?

    To Clarencecomments:
    There is a fucking difference for a woman between a guy that abuse other guys and a guy that abuse her.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Kave:

    At least you didn't fall into the trap of "one rule for me, another for thee".

    Being cocky funny can be seen by some as being jerk behavior, but by others as being confident around women.

    And I dare say, that even a nerd can tell when a girl is laughing back at some jokes or teasing back, as opposed to finding out the same guy has 3 girls and is cheating on all of them, or having to suffer (like my brother) being everyone's platonic friend and having to hear the same problems from the same girl about the same guy over and over and over. Or of course watching the same girl fall into the same type of relationship again and again and again, all the while knowing he would never treat them that way. He did say he got two useful things out of that time of his life:

    A. He found that a lot of teenage girls are very superficial in what they like and that there are tons of fucked up guys and gals out there
    B. He never got beaten up as the girlfriends protected him. He was their sweetie, the guy they could go to and blab.

    And yeah, while he later had a very flaming relationship with a hot redhead for about 2 years, he's also the guy we caught with a long time galpal (who is married , but he used to have a crush on) in bed, totally dressed both of them and sleeping like logs. Talk about being able to turn it on and off..I could have a girl sleep in my bed or on my couch and she'd be safe, but there's NO WAY I'm sleeping with a girl I'm interested in and not getting any. I gotta envy him that ability, even as I find the situation rather pathetic.

    In any case, I can assure you that no, guys that tease girls who tease them back aren't generally regarded as "jerks" at least by anyone I've ever known. It's the guys that the girls are always crying over and then you have to wonder why these girls go back to these guys again and again and again...well, I'll tell you why: mistaken calibration and the girls ignorance of their attraction triggers.

    ReplyDelete
  118. avpd:

    And when the world was New and Different and women weren't empowered and they needed help fendng off the saber tooth tigers, then yes, choosing a man for his ability to commit violence and protect made perfect sense.
    When women (varies over time and place of course) couldn't choose their husbands but had them chosen for them, ending up with a murderous pyschopath who treated you well, was, well ok I guess.

    But when you have a choice and decide that you like a guy because his multiple jail stays are evidence of an exciting life and the pound down he gave that annoying geek turned you on, then excuse me for saying that you don't get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to your character. Generally women who let their attraction to low-character men lead them are of low character themselves.

    And yeah, it's partly about drama, but a certain percentage of girls do seek out abusive relationships (not talking bdsm ssc here but actual non-con abuse). Don't take my word for it. Take the word of Erin Prizzy the woman who founded the UK's first women's shelter.

    ReplyDelete
  119. @Clarence, 'nerd' and 'jerk' are in no way shape or form mutually exclusive and someone being a 'nerd' does not mean they are less sexist or less prone to be an abuser. "esp. since many of them tend to be among the most pro-feminist people in high schools and on college campuses." This is not true at all. Homophobia and sexism is often rampant in geek culture and amoung 'nerds'. And I say this as someone who is a gamer, who is a huge sci-fi nerd, who has a collection of manga that takes up a bookshelf, who actually learned basic Japanese for better anime viewing, who read the Lord of the Rings at least a dozen times between ages eight and thirteen, who was considered the nerdiest member of a philosophy club that met on Friday evenings, and that is just the tip of the iceberg. I wish it were true that geeks and nerds did not have our fair share of jerks, sexists, and abusers, but it isn't. The world isn't divided into a 'nice nerd'/'mean jock' dicotomy like some cheesy 90s teen movie.

    People who aren't interested in dating nerds are generally just not interested in nerds, it does not mean that they seek out non-nerdy jerks rather than non-nerdy non-jerks. And, again, 'jerk' is rather subjective and individualistic. For example, a libertarian dating another libertarian probably does not think that libertarians are jerks. However, a socialist might think that libertarianism is jerk-ish and avoid dating them. Can the socialist then say that both of the libertarians intentionally try to date jerks? And, as I pointed out before, people behave inconsistently on a group and individual basis. A racist, for example, might be intensely nice to white people and intensely mean to black ones. Some of the white people may get the impression that this person is nice, whereas the black people will get the impression that this person is mean. The bully that beats you up may be very nice to his girlfriend. If she knows that he is a bully to others and does not care or thinks you need a good beating, then we are back to the 'libertarians don't tend to think other libertarians are jerks' category.

    ReplyDelete
  120. DarkSideCat:

    So it's all moral relativism to you, then.
    But then you can't prove that the saying "chicks dig jerks" isn't true 100 percent of the time, because you have no criteria to distinguish between right and wrong or indeed jerk and non-jerk behavior. Of course I don't believe the phrase to be true all the time, just as I believe there are some "nice guys" and some real nice guys. But then I have ethical criteria.

    I won't be arguing this again with you, as it would be pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Hell, I'm fucking a guy who's an asshole (of the "I don't care about people" kind, rather than the "actively cruel" kind). But he's really, really nice to me-- constant flattery, cares primarily about me in bed, lots of cuddles. So I could care less how he acts to other people.

    Also, he is a giant nerd, so I'm not sure if he gets to be a Nice Guy just because of that.

    Datum: the nicest people I've ever met have also had the most distressing piercings, tattoos and fashion sense.

    ReplyDelete
  122. If your brother is an adult and not around 20, why the heck is he around teenage girls?

    Also, yes teenage girls are superficial. So are guys at that age. It is part of growing up.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Elizabeth:

    Reading is fundamental.

    This was back in his high school days. You know, note the use of "past tense" in how I wrote it.

    Not that I'd care if he was hanging around teenage girls. Contrary to feminist propaganda, most guys aren't rapists. You want to complain about that, complain about me. My previous girlfriend was 21, and I'm in my late thirties. Not that I give a crap what you think about appropriate dating ranges is anyway. To me, anyone 18 or over is fair game.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Clarence-you used a bad example by using teenage girls as evidence that women are superficial and that your brother was/is in perpetual "LJBF" mode because of it.

    A person who is 16 is going to be very different then a 30 year old. The qualities that make a male a LJBF guy when he is 16 might be the qualities that she desires at 30.

    ReplyDelete
  125. "That's actually another tactic my ex would use - insist that we bore equal responsibility for every problem we had."---LVvS

    I'm not your ex.

    Perhaps there was more than a grain of truth to his insistence?

    ReplyDelete
  126. "And yes, eventually I realized that this relationship was unhealthy, we broke up, and I took some time to figure out what it was that I had been looking for that made me end up with this guy. We all make mistakes; adults learn from them."

    Well, there it is.

    ReplyDelete
  127. To ClarenceComments:

    These women that seek out abusers have issues and are emotionally dependent on men. And they can depend on any type of men, I've known a woman in a shyness forum that was like that, her first husband was beating her (I don't know if he was popular with women) and her second husband was asexual - he was a 30 years old virgin before meeting her and was never able to have normal sex with her.

    ReplyDelete
  128. "having to suffer (like my brother) being everyone's platonic friend and having to hear the same problems from the same girl about the same guy over and over and over."

    No one is required to do this. If he's doing it in hopes of getting some pussy, he's an asshole and an idiot. Pretending to care makes him the asshole; thinking it will work makes him the idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  129. "And yeah, while he later had a very flaming relationship with a hot redhead for about 2 years,"

    Here's an example of assholery on your own.

    Me and my friends didn't and don't refer to my previous boyfriends and male friends as, for example, the longhaired hottie with the big cock, the dark Greek with the gorgeous green eyes, the model and ex-escort, the tight-bodied gymnast, or the brilliant and sultry belly dancer.

    Judging his worth by the way his girlfriend looks is pretty sad.

    ReplyDelete
  130. jupiter, ya little dip:

    Here's why I did that. Because he spent all his high school days being the "I just don't like you that way" best friend for lots of girls. I could easily see someone in and claiming well, if he's not good enough to date there must be something wrong with him.

    So I decided to mention he did eventually get a girlfriend and have a ltr. I like to add colorful adjectives when I can, if you don't like it, tough nuts. I'm not about to "mea culpa" for thinking my brother had a "hot" girlfriend.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Elizabeth:

    So I guess the shy, awkward, or geeky guy is best advised by you to wait until he is thirty and then some gal who's had lots of "experience" if you know what I mean, might decide to "settle" for him. Of course, if he hasn't gotten any help, his social deficits are likely to kill any "real" attraction she might have had for him, but that's ok, she can still "give it up" enough to get him, maybe "think of England" while she's at it. Of course this won't end well, as he senses she doesn't really love him or she considers him second best to all those exciting , experienced lovers she had. Plus, she'll almost certainly end up leaving him, taking any kids with her and some of his money to boot.

    Line up guys! Sounds like a real deal to me.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Clarence-my best friend is male, a virgin and turns 31 this year. He is shy, awkward and geeky...except when working where he is a brilliant attorney who does an awesome job of representing his clients. He is also someone who purposely chose to become a public defender despite his being worth much more as an attorney. He is a great saver and has nearly saved enough to buy a house by paying it in full.

    In other words-he is a caring, reliable, responsible, economical guy who is also socially awkward and not very good with the ladies. It took until he was in his late twenties to have a serious long term relationship because it took him a very long time to figure out how to highlight the positive traits he has and it took that long to start finding women who appreciate those qualities.

    So when your brother was the LJBF guy, he may have been mature, responsible, reliable, etc...and many a young woman in her teens or early twenties is not going to see those as positive traits because of their lacking understanding why they are important due to simply immaturity.


    And since I know you would lob this at me-I asked him out, we dated briefly but he never was as interested in me as I was in him. So we became friends instead.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Clarence: I like how you high-five guys who are "scoring" a lot of women, but look down on women with a lot of what you call "experience" because, apparently, she'll actually expect to enjoy sex? Oh, and then you assume she'll leave a guy and take his kids because, I guess, that's how all women or at least all "experienced" women are?

    ReplyDelete
  134. David! Good to see you poke your head into the fray:

    Here's some numbers for you to crunch.

    A linky

    My issue with Elizabeth's post wasn't just that , however. What my hypothetical guy is , is a 30 year old virgin or near virgin -like I was. I had all of 2 sexual partners by the time I was 30.

    Now, imagine at that point some lady had heard her biological clock tick and decided I'd make good "provider" material. She'd come in to the relationship with tons sexual experience compared to me, and how could she NOT help but compare? Besides, most women like guys that have been pre-selected by other women. Needless to say, I'm reasonably sure this lady would consider herself "settling" as it was unlikely I'd be rocking her world. So, at the time never even having had a long term relationship, operating on the mostly crappy "mainstream" advice, I'd almost certainly kill her attraction to me. So she's bored, putting up with maybe a kid, and I'm bored never having sex with my wife and there's tensions, and no reason in the world for her to stay in an "unhappy" marriage even if for the sprat's sake. Not to mention if I ever got a clue that she was just "settling" for me I'd have resentment and mistrust (because even when I was 30 thanks to the internet I knew about the marital laws)...

    And you really don't think that would end badly?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Or you could stop assuming that a woman who has lots of experience is just "settling" and has grown up enough to appreciate someone being responsible, reliable, economical and other positive traits.

    Also, most women do not "compare" like you do a person's sexual behavior with other partners.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Elizabeth:

    You do know that teens and early 20's are extremely "horny" times for both sexes but even more so for young men, don't you? If you think the LJBF's shit didn't HURT my brother, you have another think coming. And while us males do have an advantage in the fertility area, it's still true that we are better off in our teens/20's then in our 30's, 40's, or 50's when it comes to making healthy or viable babies.

    In any case, teaching young women to date more responsibly might be a good thing, but I forgot that many people on the "left" don't really give a crap about marriage or family formation anyway, so that will never happen. There's a lot of truth in that what many girls from 15 to 25 need is a good father or grandmother presence in their lives. Someone to say no, or at least tell them the often ugly truth of what following their immediate desires can bring them. No, chances are that arrogant jock you want so badly isn't going to settle down for you or settle down at all for years and years, and no, you probably can't change that violent, multiply paroled boyfriend of yours.

    Never will happen, though, as our families continue to split up, or never be formed in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Elizabeth:
    Here's another ugly truth for you.
    Women generally get hit harder by aging then men.
    A 30 year old just usually doesn't have "it" when compared to my 21 year old. So after this guy waits all those years he can get a gal who appreciates him but is showing signs of aging rapidly. And heaven forbid if he marry her that he insists that she stay in some kind of shape. That would be oppression and probably "psychological abuse" as well. In short "If the kitten don't want me, why should I want the cat"?

    ReplyDelete
  138. Clarence=immaturity.

    Your 21 year old is about your level of maturity and too timid to stand up to you the way a woman closer to your age would so naturally you justify it with "well she has a hot body and an older woman would not" when all it is that you are too scared to deal with a woman of your own age. It is also extremely telling that you mention that a need to "teach her" whereas a woman who is closer to your age would be not need such. That says to me that you are too insecure around a woman in your age bracket since she no longer needs your guidance like a young woman does. And that without that guidance, you feel you have nothing to offer a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Elizabeth :

    "Shaming language" is never a good idea when in an argument, but you'll quickly find them more than ready to fight fire with fire.

    But the real reason you got upset is you know I'm right. While I'm willing to date older women and even marry those in their early 30's I have a range and it has a sharp cut off point. 18 to 32 or possibly 35 if she kept herself in shape, and gets a fertility test. Sorry, but the vast majority of women over 32 (even those who are still "hot" and they do exist -laser and plastic surgeries and staying in shape can do wonders) they go into my "one night stand" bin.

    And yeah, if I ever did marry an "older" (30 or up )woman, I would insist she stay in shape, and try my best to stay in shape for her. Unlike you, I'm not in denial about how important sexual attraction is in a marriage, esp. when one is being asked to be faithful.

    You see, I want a kid.
    Now take your "empowerment" and your insults and stick them where the sun never shines.

    ReplyDelete
  140. I will let you bend over first Clarence and I promise to use lube.

    The fact is-you are a man in your late thirties who is scared of women your own age. First hint of maturity and you run screaming for the hills.

    Sexual attraction is important-but who says a human has to be "in shape" to be attractive? Other than a shallow, immature male such as yourself of course.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Clarence, I'm not going to argue with your ridiculous hypothetical examples.

    I will note, however, that the study you cited put everyone who'd had more than one sexual partner -- that is, the vast majority of people, and virtually every adult woman I've ever dated -- in the same category.

    So, by the standards of the study you cite, you at 30 were hardly in the "virgin" category. Having had 2 sexual partners, you were clearly a dirty "experienced" whore.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Clarence and Elizabeth, let's just move past the whole "sticking things where the sun don't shine" stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  143. And yeah, if I ever did marry an "older" (30 or up )woman, I would insist she stay in shape, and try my best to stay in shape for her.

    And if she doesn't stay in shape, what then?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Captain Bathrobe:

    I divorce her. Really simple, right?

    ReplyDelete
  145. David:
    Actually what the post linked to says is that women who are experienced are far more likely to divorce than men who are experienced.

    I mean , I know you didn't take the time to actually read it, now, did you? Prior to that post, he had 3 posts on "Defining slut" which seemed to show the same thing, that study merely backed up the original paper which used the US governments National Survey of Family Growth.

    Women who bone might have more trouble at "bonding" then men ON AVERAGE.

    GASP. Could it be a real, genuine, SEX difference that has something to do with the so-called "double standard"?

    Naw, I'm sure it's not. Because all "enlightened people" know that gender roles are NEVER influenced by genes but ONLY by culture. Right? Right?

    Basically, I didn't buy into it all at once. I spent a few months passing those posts around to various feminist and masculinist places, and guess what? So far, they've held up. I've even looked at NSFG data myself to make sure they haven't been misused.

    For a man looking into marriage, it is safest, esp in these days of no-fault divorce, to pick a partner who doesn't have tons of sexual experience. If she does it's my OPINION (no studies go into WHY some girls can be faithful at 50 plus partners, while most can't) that it's probably something to do with girls who prefer drunken hook ups. So I avoid those as marriage material - if she makes a habit of it. Since I've never gotten a girl drunk to get her in my bed, I'm not missing anything, nor being hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Elizabeth:

    I'm a man in my late thirties who is perfectly normal and is not:
    A. attracted to MOST aging women, esp those who haven't kept themselves in shape.
    B. attracted to women whose fertility is on a steep decline
    C. Wanting to forever be compared to the Captain of the High School football team which I very much was not.

    I am attracted to youth and fertility. That's perfectly natural for a guy and makes sense evolutionary. That it somehow offends or frightens you is just tough cookies. I don't want a used up, entitled, bitter (because she's had tons of experience , most of it bad) competitive harpy who can't provide with me a kid with or without help from modern medical science.

    Sorry, but game over for ladies who think they can coast until they are thirties and then men they neglected/insulted/or overlooked will just fall into their arms.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Clarence, sorry, cupcake, but since you're a slut I don't have to take anything you say seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  148. David:

    That's alright dear man. Just like the CONSAD report that pretty much put the nail in the coffin of "pay discrimination" which you never noted in your thread on that subject, I'm half surprised you haven't just banned me and removed the links. After all, it's quite obvious you can't actually deal with them in terms of logical argumentation.I was mostly having fun interacting with your commenters anyway, I know this blog exists only to make fun , very one-sidedly - of the targets of your political blindness, and I'm aware that most of your posts could be written by a robot since they contain the following simple algorithm:

    Anything feminism/progressivism says is right and proper.
    Anything some group or person says that critiques said political philosophies is dumb/evil/ or wrong
    Since no one with any brains (according to your lights) could possibly believe that anything about your favorite political groups or stances is fucked up or incorrect, you don't have to actually, you know, deal with any arguments

    Rinse/repeat.

    You don't even show the intellectual honesty or bravery of most of your commenters. Pretty sad, really.

    ReplyDelete
  149. I can't believe I forgot to mention the good old CONSAD report. Barry did a good post on that; I have now linked to it in my wage-gap post.

    Now that I've dealt with CONSAD, how about you refute all the other stuff I cited there?

    As for your study, I'm dubious about it, but I'm not going to dismiss it without actually reading it, and I don't have time at the moment. Maybe I'll get to it later.

    But in any case, "women who are virgins when they are married" are a fairly small demographic slice. Probably conservative, probably religious, probably quite young, and probably the sort of women I would have absolutely no interest in. I actually prefer women who are -- gasp! -- "experienced," and who have had, you know, a reasonably normal amount of sex in their lives. I will take my chances with them.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Also, this bit:

    Since no one with any brains (according to your lights) could possibly believe that anything about your favorite political groups or stances is fucked up or incorrect, you don't have to actually, you know, deal with any arguments

    Actually, very few of the things I write about have arguments, per se. How do you "refute" something like "Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny."

    And many of the rest are not arguments, in the sense that they are logical and supported by actual evidence. Most are collections of dubious assertions based on some really bizarre assumptions about both women and men. Like, for example, the majority of your comments in this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Now, imagine at that point some lady ... decided I'd make good "provider" material.

    I'm sorry, I'm trying, but I just can't imagine that. It's far too implausible.

    ReplyDelete
  152. "Here's another ugly truth for you.
    Women generally get hit harder by aging then men." I absolutely disagree and I date people of all genders. There are far more forty year old women that I find attractive than forty year old men that I find attractive. Oh, and, btw, both my mother and grandmother had children over forty without any artificial medical procedures. You do know that menopause most commonly occurs at age 51, right? Most women are still fertile in their thirties and many women are still fertile in their early forties. Here's some fun stats

    "At age 30, 75% will get pregnant within one year.
    At age 35, 66% will get pregnant.
    At age 40, 44% will get pregnant.
    Within four years after trying to conceive naturally:
    91% of 30-year-olds will be successful.
    84% of 35-year-olds will.
    64% of 40-year-olds will."

    (from a study by French Institute of Health and Medical Research).

    On another fun note, average age of first marriage in the US for fathers was 25 (as of 1996, the last major study, which found that average age of first marriage for mothers was 23). Maybe if you hadn't been such a career bitch and married and started baby making in your mid twenties, you would not have to worry about ending up childless because women your age were less fertile (despite the fact that the majority of women are pretty much fully fertile at 30).

    ReplyDelete
  153. The younger the woman is the more health problems she faces. Physically the best age for her to have a kid is 34 while for the baby, the best age is 32. Your 21 year old is not good for your long term prospects of having a healthy child and spouse.

    But then it is not about her anyway-just you and your needs.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Wow:

    A bunch of deniers here. I guess I'll have to link to some, you know, actual science.

    Linky1

    mygoodnesslink2

    And a quote from link below:
    "Middle reproductive stage
    Approximate age: 20 to 38

    Hormone levels: Your FSH and estrogen are within normal range (you might want to get a baseline test at around age 35).

    Characteristics: Your menstrual cycles should be regular throughout this stage. One percent of the female population, however, experiences menopause before the age of 40, where FSH levels prematurely increase and menstrual cycles stop.

    Fertility issues: This is the longest of all the stages. It's actually broken into three segments. The first seven years are your peak fertility time; the next third marks your first slight fertility decline, followed by the beginning of your second fertility decline, around age 35. (The sharpest statistical drop in fertility, however, occurs at the age of 45, according to the US Census Bureau.) "

    Linky3

    Tsk, facts are so easy to put in the way of a good narrative, aren't they? Peak reproductive age for females is 20 to 27, or I've seen a few sources say 16 to 26. Pregnancy complications due to being "too young" tend to hit teen girls under ages 15 or 16. And I don't know what Elizabeth is smoking to think that 34 is physically the "best age" for her to have a kid. Want to back that up with a link, Elizabeth? Do you really think I didn't research this stuff?

    I'm under no obligation to make "older gals" feel better by being attracted to them, pretending their fertility is equal to younger ones, or any of that crap. Treat me as basically a sexual non-entity for years when I was younger and see how I turn it back on you when I'm the one being pursued, and your looks are fading. Besides, simply because I'm man doesn't mean I think aging is no problem with for me. My best chance for a kid is with a younger woman.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Dude, if the 21-year-old girls of yesteryear wanted nothing to do with you when you were younger, what makes you thing the 21-year-old girls of today are going to want you now that you're old?

    ReplyDelete
  156. David, David, David:

    It's obvious you didn't read Barry's post on Consad. Not only did he misrepresent it, but commenter "ballgame" from Feminist Critics totally schooled him in the comments thread. Barry DID promise to get back to it, but he never did, and it's been something like 3 or 4 months now.

    When I want a site which deconstructs bad statistics on both "feminist" and MRA sites I go to Feminist Critics, and some of the bad feminist statistics they deconstruct the most are those relating to the so-called "wage gap", which gets less and less the more variables you analyze. Of course this isn't surprising you really think that AAUW and most of the other feminist groups which put out these reports are disinterested scientific observers?

    ReplyDelete
  157. speeedlines you silly fool:

    Because I'm dating them at times. :)
    Besides, I specifically did not rule out women up to 32, nor did I rule out sex with women up to like 45 or so. But the fact that I have any "age related preferences" at all, just makes some feminists and regular females soooooo mad. You mean we can't ride the "cock carousel" for years when we are young and expect 30 plus guys or guys of any age who learn game to want anything to do with our old asses? Poor things. I'd almost feel sorry for them, if they showed some of that "character" they supposedly acquired over the years when following their vag tingles.

    ReplyDelete
  158. I divorce her. Really simple, right?

    Unless she wises up and divorces you first.

    But do you really want to bring kids into the mix? I mean, pregnancy tends to make women gain weight, which can be difficult to lose after the fact. Do you really want to have to explain to your kids that you kicked their mom to the curb for violating the "no fat chicks" rule? Could be awkward.

    ReplyDelete
  159. So your evidence is...not contradicting my point.

    ReplyDelete
  160. dating =/= marrying

    I'm just sayin.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Elizabeth:

    Besides calling me a bunch of names and making a claim that you failed to back up, AND I've never seen anywhere ("physically the best age for a mother's health to have a baby is 34..right), I really don't get what your point is supposed to be. Do you know what your point is?

    ReplyDelete
  162. How do you "refute" something like "Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny."

    I dunno. A good refutation would be something along the lines of, "Actually, this evidence suggests that laughing at a girl's jokes will actually help you get laid!" I'm not saying this to be snarky or anything--far be it from me to be a gratuitous guest, especially after so long--just saying there are convincing refutations you could give, but aren't. :/

    And many of the rest are not arguments, in the sense that they are logical and supported by actual evidence. Most are collections of dubious assertions based on some really bizarre assumptions about both women and men.

    Actually, they're assertions based on a sizable degree of personal experiences with women and assumptions based largely on evolutionary biology, at least in Roissy's case. You could argue that such assumptions are scientifically flawed or based on shabby evidence (which IMO is arguably true), but you haven't, as far as I know. Again, not trying to be snarky or anything, just saying there are more convincing ways to rebut these ideas instead of just pointing and laughing.

    BTW, Clarence, no offense, but frankly, if a desire to "pass on your genes" is what's animating you, why are you even bothering with "young, fertile" women? If you've got enough money you can just get a surrogate mother to accept your sperm and carry a kid to term for you. Look up "the Rotunda clinic," for instance. This is what a lot of MGTOW guys recommend, at least until their artificial wombs and/or sexbots are perfected and they can live without women forever! Now, I assume you're not a MGTOW, judging by the fact that you seem to be looking for a relationship, but I'm just sayin', and again, genuinely not trollin', it seems there are probably more efficient methods out there for a guy like you to spread his genes.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Captain Bathrobe:

    It's ok for the lady to gain 5 or 10 pounds while pregnant and EVEN PERMANENTLY keep that on. I'm not some fascistic pig about this. But you'd be surprised how many women think "I'm married now, I'm not as attracted to hubby, and I'm not on the market so I can just let myself go" more or less. Remember, I'm being asked to consider a "cat" who used to be a "kitten". I didn't get her at her peak fertility OR peak looks, and she's aging. I'd like to enjoy boning my wife for a good 15 or 20 years, so I don't think its unreasonable of me to ask that she not hit "double chin" territory especially since I'm willing to do MY part and keep myself in shape. At near 40, I want to be in some sort of shape to play ball with Junior in 10 to 15 years and if she IS younger than me, I'd like to be able to have the stamina and looks she requires.

    Am I being so unreasonable?

    ReplyDelete
  164. thevagrantsvoice:

    I've actually considered that, but in that case I'd rather not get married at all. No need to risk so much when I won't even have a bio mom for my child?

    ReplyDelete
  165. So then don't get married and Go Your Own Way like the guys at Happybachelors or wherever. In that case, you can stop bothering with Roissy and Game and whatever as well. Just go out and "spread your genes" with the Rotunda clinic. If you can do that, why do you feel the need to defend Game/your preference for "fertile" women if surrogate mother technology has essentially rendered female fertility irrelevant for your purposes?

    ReplyDelete
  166. thevagrantsvoice:

    Because I think a child is better off raised with two parents -best a man, and a woman, and because I want to marry the mother of my child. Maybe I'm romantic that way.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Clarence,

    So, if she gains, say, 20 lbs., then it's off to divorce court? Where do you draw the line?

    ReplyDelete
  168. Fair enough. Two things to consider, then:

    A: Remember, "bearing" a child is very different from "raising" one, and a 21 year old who's good at the former may not be good at the latter. An older, wiser, 30 year old, on the other hand, might be less likely to do stupid crap, like drinking while pregnant or neglecting to feed or clean the baby in lieu of watching Sex and the City reruns, that a 20 year old might do.

    And B:

    I want to marry the mother of my child. Maybe I'm romantic that way.

    I would say you are indeed romantic, and I mean that as a compliment. I have to ask, though, isn't that in contradiction with your acceptance of Pick-Up artistry? The inescapable conclusion that PUA adherents must inevitably accept (and this is what makes them similar to MRAs) is that women are biologically and immutably inferior to men in all respects, mental and physical. They're stupid, amoral children--or, as one commenter at the Chateau put it, "walking incubators." As Roissy himself implied, how could you have any respect for a gender that responds sexually to negs? So in that respect, why, exactly, would you want to marry the "mother of your child?" She--just like your mother, and like all woman--is a stupid, amoral child that shouldn't be trusted with anything, including raising an actual child.

    Heck, the fact that you want to get married *at all* seems to indicate, to me, even you don't really believe Roissy's PUA advice is all it's cracked up to be.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Captain Bathrobe:

    If she gained 20 pounds during pregnancy that's one thing. I might still accept that, luckily I've heard (omg, I don't have any research) that gaining 20 pounds during pregnancy is not the norm, though its not unheard of.

    I was talking about her getting lazy and then gaining 50 pounds and refusing to lose it because that would be effort, and she doesn't have to, not weight gain during pregnancy or her getting in an accident or cancer or something and being stuck in a hospital bed and gaining weight that way. That becomes "in sickness and in health" and that gives her an excuse.

    Presumably if she has the uber entitled married woman's disease she'll display that before I knock her up, and I could dump her with little regret. As a mom (partly out of respect, and partly due to the kid) she gets much more leeway, but we'd still have an issue if she ended up looking like Rosie O' Donnell. In that case, I'd divorce early when it would do less damage to the kid and I'd try to stay in his or her life IF she'd let me. She could go pursue other options if anyone wanted her.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Clarence, you could try actually reading some of the reports I cite in my wage gap post. For example, it doesn't matter what the ideology of the AAUW is; their report is an empirical one based on Census data. I was also unaware that the Government Accountability Office was a feminist group.

    As for CONSAD, I will have to look again at the report to see if Ballgame's critique is valid.
    Even if it is, that doesn't affect Barry's main critique, that the CONSAD report basically suggests that things like occupational segregation of women into lesser-paying jobs counts as female "choice' and thus doesn't reflect sexism. As Barry put it:

    Ballgame’s big mistake is assuming that sexism in the wage gap (if it exists at all, which he denies) is entirely a matter of women being paid less than men for identical jobs. But most economists who study the wage gap believe that it’s caused, to a significant extent, by occupational segregation, which means women and men are sorted by the market into different jobs – and the women’s jobs, on average, pay less.

    This is an issue taken up in more detail in several of the other pieces I linked to in my wage gap post.

    ReplyDelete
  171. thevagrantsvoice:

    Have you even been following this thread? Did you miss the part where I said that Roissy is not the be-all and end-all of PUA?

    No, not all women are the same. Women, like men fall on a spectrum of personality traits with some overlap. The differences between the sexes are mostly differences of means and averages. Some women (a minority) can have sex like a man and apparently still pair bond. Why? I don't know. Some women are immune to most PUA techniques (no woman is immune to them all) some women prefer geeks over jocks. Some young women are wise, or just have families with wisdom to guide them and can find a young man like my brother was. Roissy's tips and assertions are all a matter of statistical averages and particular kinds of environments, such as clubs. He is right about some really ugly things, but even then it's "on average". I disagree with him on some things and are almost 100 percent sure he's wrong on those things.

    I also love how you try to conflate all MRA's with the ones you see quoted on this site, some of which ONLY have one or two arguably bad attitudes, others of whom are downright misogynists. Yet you'll note there is little mention of Warren Farrell or Glenn Sacks on this site, yet they are most assuredly MRA's. Meanwhile, if I pointed out that many feminists say similarly ugly things, and many of these ugly assertions and types of bigotries get codified into actual LAWS (Do you want some links?)and policies and propaganda, er "education" campaigns, I'm sure you'd complain and moan as if the MRA's and PUA's all got their attitudes in a vacuum.

    No, not every PUA or every MRA believes women are vacuous children, though few believe women are shining paragons of angelic light either. So lay off it. Do you really think I'd want to date or have a relationship or consider modern "marriage" to a creature I hated and thought was guaranteed to mess me over? Heck, if I hate a lady enough for doing me a wrong (thankfully this has rarely happened in my life) I'd rather not even have sex with her no matter how attractive she is. Really unpleasant , combative women aren't even good for one night stands.

    ReplyDelete
  172. David:

    Yes, Barry claimed that ballgame and Consad claimed that but they don't. Thus Barry misrepresented things. Like I said, check out that comment thread. Most of the studies Barry and you cite were cited in the Consad report. It was what is called a "meta- analysis".

    As for occupational segregation to the extent that exists I'll fully agree to getting more women in the CEO chair, if you work at getting more women into the coal mine.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Did you miss the part where I said that Roissy is not the be-all and end-all of PUA?

    Nope. Problem is, he's close to it. Even you admit that there's not a single woman out there who's completely immune to this PUA stuff. Women may exist on a "spectrum," but if there's any truth to Pick-Up Artistry, it's a pretty wretched spectrum anyways. What's the point of even bothering with any of them, then?

    And if you're talking about "averages," well then, older women are only less fertile "on average." If you want to find a young lady who's not as amoral and stupid as PUA holds women to be "on average," you might as well try your luck finding an older lady who's more fertile than to be expected "on average" too.

    I also love how you try to conflate all MRA's with the ones you see quoted on this site, some of which ONLY have one or two arguably bad attitudes, others of whom are downright misogynists.

    Not All MRAs Are Like That. Problem is, most are. If you'd like to argue they're not--and again, genuinely not trolling--I would really, *really* like to hear more names than Sacks and Farrell. Because as far as I can tell, for every Farrell or Sacks in the MRM, you can find twenty bitter MGTOWers or wanna-be Sodinis on the comments section of any given MRM blog *alone.*

    I'm sure you'd complain and moan as if the MRA's and PUA's all got their attitudes in a vacuum.

    Nope. I hate feminism as much as I hate much of the MRA ideology, and in fact consider them mirror images of the other. I suppose you can credit our gracious host for this. I beg his forgiveness for being blunt, but when I first came here I was mildly sympathetic to the Men's Rights Movement while still having a degree of respect for feminism. Now, though, I despise both. I suppose he can take credit for dragging a potential MRA away from their side, but then again, considering he describes himself as a "feminist," perhaps creating a new enemy for his side wasn't exactly his intent. Oh well.

    Do you really think I'd want to date or have a relationship or consider modern "marriage" to a creature I hated and thought was guaranteed to mess me over?

    Nope, which is why I recommended you to Go Your Own Way like the other guys and get a surrogate mother if you really need to spread your genes that badly. The fact that you're still romantic enough to even consider marriage or any kind of relationship with a woman at all indicates, IMO, that you're probably too romantic to really have much business with PUA/the MRM in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  174. Clarence:

    OK, 50 lbs. without a good reason and Fatty-Fatty-Fat-Fats, the mother of your children, is history--maybe a little more leeway out of respect for her or concern for the kids. Got it. Would you include that stipulation in a pre-nup or let her find out the hard way?

    ReplyDelete
  175. DarkCat
    “There are far more forty year old women that I find attractive than forty year old men that I find attractive.”

    I agree with this. I’m bi-sexual and not only do I encounter more men 35-45 that haven’t aged well and don’t put in any effort toward their appearance/otherwise than women, but they tend to be shallow and have the same bitterly condescending, immature attitude as Clarence. I’m not here to validate you or enable the weakness you’ve refused to overcome and now use half-ass evo-psych explanations to rationalize. Heck, even guys my age and younger hook up with and date older women.

    If I wanted a baby (which I don’t) I wouldn’t go for a guy that age, either. Younger sperm is better for a healthier baby and a younger man has the strength and energy to be a more significant part of the child’s life.

    Clarence -
    “Not only did he misrepresent it, but commenter "ballgame" from Feminist Critics totally schooled him in the comments thread. Barry DID promise to get back to it, but he never did, and it's been something like 3 or 4 months now.”

    Schooled? I wouldn’t say that, though maybe it’s because I think it’s cute that FC tries so hard to manipulate people into thinking that, assuming the CONSAD report is accurate, the 5% difference is inconsequential. Not to mention occupational gender segregation, but a favorite tactic of the FC types is to focus on numerous meaningless details to distract from the overall picture (“nothing to see here!”). That and whereas it doesn’t occur much now, FC regulars and bloggers were routinely destroyed on Alas. That was usually followed by running back to FC and complaining about the meanie feminists.

    “When I want a site which deconstructs bad statistics on both "feminist" and MRA sites I go to Feminist Critics”
    That explains a lot.

    I stopped reading Feminist Critics after it became apparent they have nothing to offer except an inability to see the forest for the trees, a tendency to misrepresent everything you say, and then a platform for the so-called unlucky in love guys to whine about how oppressed they are because women aren’t obligated to participate in pick-up culture. And any forum that doesn’t school some poor soul on the silly notion that wearing eye-liner is the same as telling calculated lies is a hack forum.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Clarence, the argument ballgame had with Barry had to do with part-time vs full time workers. Not what I was talking about. The whole point of the CONSAD report -- which has a clearly ideological tone, and was commissioned by the Bush administration -- is to dismiss much of the wage gap as the result of "choics." Indeed, the intro to the report claims this:

    The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers.

    But the report doesn't actually show this.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Not to spoil anyone's party, but I don't really see why a bisexual woman's opinions on female attractiveness would mean much--if anything--to a straight man. The fact that you seem to have different tastes or standards of attractiveness doesn't really tell us what we don't already know. By that token, the fact that you apparently like older women is utterly meaningless to us. I don't know what you girls look for in women, but since guys like smooth skin, pert breasts, etc. perhaps it's understandable why some, like Clarence, may not be as enthusiastic for the older ladies, at least not in general.

    Heck, even guys my age and younger hook up with and date older women.

    No offense, but one might argue that most of the young guys you know are simply desperate. No more, no less.

    I do agree with you when it comes to older fathers, though. They say women age like milk while men age like wine, but there aren't many 60 year old men who'll say they're as attentive, energetic, and strong as they were back when they were 20. In that respect, maybe men don't have it that great after all...though perhaps they still have it better than women.

    ReplyDelete
  178. CinamonCW:

    Basic logic escapes you.
    For one, the CONSAD report put it at a 5 percent difference, but it might be less than that, it might even disappear entirely if one was to take all variables into account, which even CONSAD never claimed to do.

    Forest for the trees? When you can't even handle basic statistics or logic? This tells me you are either uneducated in mathematics and statistical modeling/interpretation or you are being a deliberate liar. Neither of which looks good for you. Besides, you know as well as I do that even if CONSAD was 100 percent accurate (which it isn't as explained above) feminists (including Barry!) are still claiming it's over 10 percent, with most still using a "women only earn 75 cents per dollar compared to man". You can find that one all over the web and in reports released to this day.

    Call me a liar. I dare you.

    Now, I suggest you learn something about basic statistics or learn how to argue without lying.

    ReplyDelete
  179. It's quite amusing. Every now and again the genteel facade slips, and we're treated to a glimpse of the seething rage within.

    ReplyDelete
  180. David:

    Unless you can show CONSAD misusing the reports it analyzed (which so far no one has apparently done, though you'd think they would have tried), CONSAD, as a meta-analysis , should be more definitive than any of the studies that make it up.

    By the way, do you really want to quote ballgame's post, as I feel you've made a total mess of what his disagreement with Amp was, or will you perhaps go back and actually READ ballgames comment (it's just a little bit after comment #30 in that thread) and give me a more accurate and perhaps less sleepy argument against it? (I'm being fair here, and assuming you were just tired and didn't actually read through the thread but merely Amp's opening remarks) I mean, assuming you can. I do note that as I said, to this day Amp hasn't responded to it, either to refute or deny it.

    ReplyDelete
  181. I should also point out that complaining about the Bush administrations ideological bias is rich when most of one's own "research" is by advocacy organizations that long ago shot the arrows of their credibility. It's not like CONSAD is the only report to ever come out that disputes a "wage" gap at more than "white noise" levels when all relevant factors are taken into account. Indeed, the more one tries to factor things in on one's own, the smaller the so-called "gap" becomes. Honestly, after 14 plus years of checking into this stuff and debating it on the web, I don't even believe a wage gap exists. Certainly no one has ever found a "smoking gun", nor do feminists ever point to companies that somehow end up paying male and female workers differing amounts of money for the same job.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Clarence, I'm not arguing with the data in the CONSAD report; I'm arguing with their interpretation of this dats. Here's what the report says:

    Extant economic research has identified numerous factors that contribute to the gender wage gap. Many of the factors relate to differences in the choices and behavior of women and men in balancing their work, personal, and family lives. These factors include, most notably, the occupations and industries in which they work, and their human capital development, work experience, career interruptions, and motherhood. Other factors are sources of wage adjustments that compensate specific groups of workers for benefits or duties that disproportionately impact them. Such factors for which empirical evidence has been developed include health insurance, other fringe benefits, and overtime work. It is not possible to produce a reliable quantitative estimate of the aggregate portion of the raw gender wage gap for which the explanatory factors that have been identified account. Nevertheless, it can confidently be concluded that, collectively, those factors account for a major portion and, possibly, almost all of the raw gender wage gap.

    They are claiming that things like gender differences in occupation are the result of individual choices, so therefore they assume that differences based on this (which contribute to the "raw gender wage gap" aren't the result of sexism. In fact, differences in occupation may be the result of occupational segregation -- that is to say, rooted in sexism. They've simply dismissed this issue by waving their hands and saying "choice."

    This is one of Barry's key points in his post, and, as I said before, is discussed in a number of the articles I cite in my post.

    Again, I suggest you read some of them. The studies I cite that provide data all derive from govt sources (the GAO, the Census). The feminist articles I cite in the post offer INTERPRETATIONS of that data.

    I don't actually claim anywhere in my post that the "raw" gender gap is an accurate measure of discrimination. But I think the CONSAD report exaggerates the amount of the gap that is the result of simple "choices."

    ReplyDelete
  183. David:

    It's rather late, but I will say one thing you seem to have forgotten and then depart for most likely 12 hours or so:

    There may be no "gap" to be explained. And that's the whole point. Like I said, the more this is analyzed the smaller the "gap" becomes. And thus, it doesn't really matter why men and women segregate into different careers, or at least it doesn't matter to women anymore than to men. After all, men do the vast majority of dangerous and uncomfortable work in most sectors of the economy and as I said: you want more women in the boardroom ( a place very few males get to) then I want more females in the coal mines.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Clarence:

    I was beginning to warm to you several hundred posts ago. I was also beginning to wonder if I had been wrong about the amusingly-named Dark Lord and his teachings.

    However, I am now beginning to remember why I took such a violent dislike to the keyboard jockey extraordinaire and his bootlicking minions to begin with.

    For one thing, your obsession with women's ages is ridiculous. There are women of my acquaintance who are startlingly beautiful in their early forties. There are women of my acquaintance who are plain and overweight at twenty-one. I do not think I am being controversial to claim that Nigella Lawson is significantly more attractive than Kelly Osborne. Or that driving a vintage Jaguar will gain you considerably more kudos than driving a showroom-new Ford Focus.

    This is not to say that there are not also strikingly beautiful twenty-one year old women and plain, overweight forty year olds. It is simply to say that your sweeping generalisations are annoying and banal.

    As is your odd perception that men age like fine wines, accruing the sly weapons of devastating sexual attraction as the ageing process accelerates. Some of us simply acquire large sums of money. Others acquire the ability to emotionally manipulate naive teenagers who have yet to learn how to identify a wrong 'un. Neither of these things should be mistaken for 'sex appeal.'

    Incidentally, a woman who is 'in shape' in her early twenties may well let herself go in grand and spectacular style. A woman who is 'in shape' in her mid-thirties is very, very unlikely to.

    Finally, an observation from my own life and experience. The happiest men I know are those who have sought out partners at their own age and attractiveness level. The unhappiest men I know are those who have not. Make of this what you will.

    ReplyDelete
  185. "I'll fully agree to getting more women in the CEO chair, if you work at getting more women into the coal mine."

    Let's get more men walking the streets as prostitutes, if you want to talk about jobs that are brutally ill-paid and subject to violence.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Thevagrantsvoice:
    Why does it have to mean anything to straight men? We’re talking about aging.

    “By that token, the fact that you apparently like older women is utterly meaningless to us. I don't know what you girls look for in women, but since guys like smooth skin, pert breasts, etc. perhaps it's understandable why some, like Clarence, may not be as enthusiastic for the older ladies, at least not in general.”

    As opposed to queer and straight women, that prefers blemished skin and saggy parts? But since you mentioned it, a lot of men like big breasts. Depending on what you consider “pert,” D’s or DD’s may not fall into that category even if they don’t actually sag.

    At any rate, I didn’t even say I preferred older women perse. I just said that when choosing between older women and older men, older women generally win based on aging better and having a better attitude.

    “No offense, but one might argue that most of the young guys you know are simply desperate. No more, no less”

    Yes, that’s what I’d argue to make myself feel better if that wasn’t something I wanted to hear, too.

    But I’m glad you brought that up, actually. One of the young men is actually a 6’2, muscular guy that fronts a band. He has a huge personality and many tattoos; he knows people everywhere he goes and has connections. There is always a couple women completely taken by him; I wouldn’t exactly call him desperate for attention or sex. What else may he be desperate for? It sounded to me like guys such as Clarence are desperate for something.

    Another one is a “work hard, party hard” type that has had a couple long-term relationships. He’s had his own place since he was out of high school (works with computers) where he’s semi-regularly held parties. Again, I can’t think of any area where he’d be desperate; he’s actually been called a player.

    Both of these guys are well-hung, btw.

    “They say women age like milk while men age like wine,”

    Of course they say that! But I like cheesecake more than vinegar, honey. Clarence is vinegar. The dark-haired beauty with the big smile and leather jacket is cheesecake.

    “Basic logic escapes you.”

    This better be good …

    “For one, the CONSAD report put it at a 5 percent difference, but it might be less than that, it might even disappear entirely if one was to take all variables into account, which even CONSAD never claimed to do.”

    My god you have a knack for saying a whole lot of nothing, don’t you?

    I know CONSAD put the difference at 5%; that’s the report FC used when they dismissed any meaning to a 5% difference. I’m going to go ahead and skip over the rest because it’s just speculative and misses the issue that goes to my larger critique of FC anyway.

    “Forest for the trees? When you can't even handle basic statistics or logic? This tells me you are either uneducated in mathematics and statistical modeling/interpretation or you are being a deliberate liar. Neither of which looks good for you.”

    Calm down, sweetie. I know it makes you feel better about yourself to draw bizarre conclusions from words people say that do not support them, but you’re going to give yourself a heart attack. That’s a big risk for guys your age.

    ReplyDelete
  187. I notice that Clarence complains that young women don't give men like himself when he was young, or his cousin, the time of day. Now he thinks he should be dating them and they are more attracted to him.

    No insight into the connection!

    As a youth he's competing with the Clarence of today. And he's the one causing young men to be bitter, by fishing in their pond, and giving young women reason to become cynical about men.

    Nothing new here, of course. It's not like older creeps picking up young girls just started with the PUA movement.

    Guys like Clarence and his nephew (who had a two-year relationship (let me guess, it spanned 2008 and 2009) with a "redheaded hottie" but hey, that's over, isn't it? that's his entire claim to sexual fame?) say are just not attractive to women until they get older ... and that may mean, when they become craftier and learn ways to prey on younger women who don't have their defenses fully formed yet.

    Don't flatter yourself by thinking this means I'm jealous. I don't want guys like that paying attention to me. Didn't like it when I was young, even if I couldn't figure out exactly why they were bogus then; don't like it now, when I can see the strings.

    ReplyDelete
  188. You know, I have to wonder--genuinely not trolling here--but looking over this discussion, why are guys like clarence, who go for younger girls, "creepy," while the older women who manage to capture the attention of younger guys aren't? If you say folks like Clarence are "preying on girls who haven't learned to 'defend' themselves,' why aren't your older female friends 'preying on young guys who haven't learned to defend themselves?'

    Again, genuinely not trolling here, I'm curious as to why Clarence would deserve condemnation for pursuing younger girls while an older woman wouldn't for pursuing younger guys.

    Full disclosure: I actually like older women. While I won't divulge too much of my personal life here (I don't want to be uncouth or ungentlemanly) suffice it to say I've little issue with courting their affections. However, I'm not really in the market for a relationship at the moment, much less marriage. If Clarence feels differently, so what? IMO, as I said above, it's a much more telling critique to mention that if you want kids, a surrogate mother can serve just as well as most 'young girls' you can find.

    ReplyDelete
  189. “If you say folks like Clarence are "preying on girls who haven't learned to 'defend' themselves,' why aren't your older female friends 'preying on young guys who haven't learned to defend themselves?'”

    This is a bit of a strawman. He’s made his bitterness and immaturity very clear, almost unapologetically. That isn’t inherent to older men that like younger women, it is just an obvious factor with Clarence. He can’t handle a woman that knows better and that is easier to find in younger women.

    If an older woman came in with the same attitude, it’d be no different. But this isn’t the case, is it? In fact I made it clear the older women I encounter are quite self-aware and mature.

    ReplyDelete
  190. FWIW, I know several 40-something women who've tried online dating and quickly found themselves beseiged with messages from guys in their 20s and younger; they were not interested.

    Indeed, one of them (who I believe was 49 at the time) ended up writing a sort of motherly note to one 18 or 19 year old who'd written her, warning him that any fortysomething woman who was willing to get with him probably had a screw loose.

    I don't think age differences are that big a deal, but generally speaking the half-your-age-plus-seven rule is probably a good guide to the outer limit of what is healthy and what is exploitative.

    40-something men -- or women -- going after 21 year olds is a bit creepy.

    ReplyDelete
  191. When what you want is someone interesting, and you find out that the interesting person is older or younger than you, or from another country, or otherwise "different," no problem.

    When what you want is someone older or younger than you, or from another country,k or otherwise "different," so you can gain a particular advantage over them (or think this will give you an advantage)? Problem.

    ReplyDelete
  192. And when what you want is someone older or younger than you, or from another country, or otherwise "different," because you think choosing them is somehow going to punish those people of your own age and country, that's just all kinds of screwed up.

    ReplyDelete
  193. Thevagrantsvoice:

    To answer your question, I think it has to do with the approach. Are older women seeking out younger men or are younger men (as David's anecdote indicates) seeking out older women? And if it's the older person seeking out the younger, why are they doing that? This all will lead you to figure out why one is creepier than the other.

    If I had to give an answer, I'd say that generally it's because IN GENERAL the motivations of the older men are to exploit the naivete of the young woman, while the older woman is usually just seeking a good time with a younger man. She's older and probably pays for dinner, but she's not seeking the power differential that the older man is seeking.

    Now, anecdote: The men aren't always just seeking power. A girl in my class was rumored to be dating her coach (my teacher). She was 16 or 17. Some years ago, I found out they got married. Creepy? Kind of. But obviously he wasn't seeking to exploit his position of authority. Not like the band teacher, the geography teacher, the art teacher, the French teacher, the principal ... list goes on ... in my jr. and high schools, who were reprimanded or who left because they were being inappropriate with female students. One or two may have been seeking genuine romance, but the rest were just trying to feel up pre/teens and exploit the power differential.

    It's all about the motives. People who want to use + people who are less aware of being used = creepy. From my own vast experience on the internet over the last 12 or 13 years, I know that older guys will say just about ANYTHING if they think a young woman will bite. I've always been a way cynical person, so I never bit. And then the guys would get really angry and frustrated, and accuse me of being an older man PRETENDING to be a young woman, because I wasn't all naive and stupid, and I spelled too well. Then they can tug out the other mind game--the, "Well, if you aren't a man then go on cam and show me!" (Yeah, go jump off a bridge.) I'm sure that works for someone. Not me.


    So there you go. I'm sure this is a bit rambly, but I can't stop thinking about my horrible heartburn. The front of my brain is going, "AGGGHBURNING DEATH" and the rest of it is trying to type out this answer.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Captain Bathrobe said...
    "It's quite amusing. Every now and again the genteel facade slips, and we're treated to a glimpse of the seething rage within."

    With many feminists I've encountered, they practically wear it on their sleeve. And they are even proud of it.

    It's interesting---as much as David himself is pro-feminist, even he will mention something when another feminist crosses the line too much. That's actually very uncommon, because feminist anger is perceived to be righteous and justified.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Dude, I was laughing so hard that I had tears.

    Have I ever mentioned that I love this blog? Best place to satisfy my cravings for snarkiness.

    ReplyDelete
  196. Clarence: You expect your future hypothetical wife to put on between 5 and 10 lbs during pregnancy? Five pounds, are you nuts?

    The average newborn weight in the developing world is 7.5 lbs, so you are already over the 5-lb mark. Add the weight of the amniotic fluid, plus the normal weight gain caused by hormonal changes during the pregnancy. In fact, normal weight gain for a woman within normal BMI limits is between 25 and 35 lbs -- and the lower her BMI pre-pregnancy, the more weight she is expected to gain in order to be able to carry it to term without significant health problems for her and/or the baby. So keeping it in the 5-to-10 pound range, or even under 20 lbs, as you later magnanimously allowed, would require your future hypothetical wife to work against the normal physiological process of pregnancy -- no doubt by severely starving herself. The fact that it might kill her is of little concern to you, I'm sure, since being a widower is probably better in your eyes than being married to a woman who's overweight for a year or two -- but what do you think pregnancy starvation will do to the baby? Have you thought through all the implications of raising a developmentally disabled child, especially if you have to do it on your own?

    It's nice of you to plan to "try" to be in good shape for your hypothetical future wife. I note, though, how she absolutely MUST keep thin, while you will merely try. Why is that? Because it's so much harder for you? She'll have to contend with the immense hormonal changes of pregnancy and (possibly) breastfeeding, so that will explain her weight gain. But when YOU put on the pounds, what will be YOUR excuse? If she's allowed a maximum of 20-lb weight gain during pregnancy, I take it you won't think it's unfair if she slaps you with divorce papers the moment you gain even a single ounce?

    ReplyDelete
  197. If I had to give an answer, I'd say that generally it's because IN GENERAL the motivations of the older men are to exploit the naivete of the young woman, while the older woman is usually just seeking a good time with a younger man. She's older and probably pays for dinner, but she's not seeking the power differential that the older man is seeking.

    No offense, but I have to apologize--this just sounds like the rationalization hamster spinning away. "Power differentials?" "Exploiting the naivete of the younger women?" Maybe in Clarence's experience, women "his own age" tend to be either worse looking (by his standards) or bitchier/harder to deal with (what you'd call "experienced" or "less naive"). Yes, because a couple of bisexual women on some blog think older girls "age well" indicates Clarence ought to feel the same way. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks--maybe younger women are just what turn him on, much like MILFs (or black women, or asian women, or whatever) are what turn on different guys who have different sexual tastes and/or fetishes. Your condemnation of him seems much more like a selfish, self-serving post-hoc rationalization of your (or more specifically, your gender's) self-interest that is, sadly, perfectly keeping with what most PUAs, MRAs, and MGTOWs would say is the amoral, irrational, and solipsistic nature of women.

    Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Thevagrantsvoice: I don't think anyone seriously disputes that a person's sexual preferences aren't a matter of political conviction. However, Clarence does remind me of a man I talked to once, who planned to bring over a (much younger) mail-order bride and stated that if she happened to give birth via Cesarean section, he would divorce her and send her back, because he couldn't possibly be expected to have sex with a woman who has a surgical scar.

    Contrary to what traditionalists and PUA's preach, the nature of sexual attraction is complex. It's funny that Clarence mentioned "bonding". If you are truly bonded with your partner -- emotionally, romantically, intellectually and sexually -- then it will take a lot more than age or pregnancy-related physical imperfections to destroy that bonding. That's why happily married couples are known to fuck well into old age, apparently still finding each other attractive and exciting despite all the cellulite and sagging flesh, and why good relationships survive scars, injuries, loss of limbs and, yes, weight gain. If a pregnancy gain of more than 20 lbs is enough to completely dissolve Clarence's bond with his wife, it means that he never had much of a relationship with her to begin with, it was always about sex and breeding -- nothing more. Every "I love you" was a lie. It is what it is, of course, and I would never presume to "require" Clarence or other men like him to be less shallow, but if that's how he feels -- then honestly, marriage is not for him. This is merely a practical consideration: marriages, ideally, last a long time, and it's likelier than not that your partner will develop some physical imperfections along the way (and you will too); and if you can't see past that and still love this person, then marriage simply isn't the type of arrangement that would work. It's not just a matter of "different taste" -- it's a matter of one's ability to, ironically enough, bond with another human being. If you are able to stay happy with a woman only as long as she is thin and under 30, you can't very well claim that you are "bonded" with her.

    As for alleged selfishness and "rationalization" -- I, for one, feel that women shouldn't have to rationalize their aging. We ALL age. Most men DON'T age like wine, either. We all become less physically perfect with age, that's just an inescapable fact of life. I think what gets some folks' hackles up, however, is the way most PUA's, MRA's and MGTOW's try to portray women's aging as a personality flaw, or some kind of divine punishment, rather than the result of a physiological process that affects everyone.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis