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.
Nothing turns me on like cat..torturing. (???)
ReplyDeleteIf you wrote a dating advice book I would totally buy it.
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".
ReplyDeleteTears of laughter, Dave! Tears! I salute you, sir.
ReplyDeleteYou need to teach a class. Seriously. So much money.
ReplyDeleteJust 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."
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.
ReplyDeleteIf 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.
ReplyDeleteMight 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.
Anyone who harms my pets gets a visit from the sheriff's office.
ReplyDeleteThe other stuff is why I do not date. Ugh.
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.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteAnd like others, the part about [even mildly] "torturing" my cat = get the FUCK out; I don't want to hear from you ever again.
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.
ReplyDeleteNever laugh at her jokes. Instead, fall to the floor and begin singing "Rock Me Amadeus."
ReplyDeleteOkay, I really did lol.
Johnny-combine it with bedwetting and you got yourself two strong indicators of serial killing.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
ReplyDeleteIt's such a spectacularly wicked idea. I am in awe of the brazen display of asshattery.
bedwetting is a total pussy magnet.
ReplyDeleteWhich 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?
ReplyDeleteMy 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.
ReplyDeleteHe 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.
ReplyDeleteThey'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.
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.
ReplyDeleteWomen 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteBut 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.
It's one thing to be aloof and arrogant.
ReplyDeleteIt'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.
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
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
ReplyDeleteThis list totally reminds me of this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cAfoZWzl8M
"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."
ReplyDeleteYeah, 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?
This is absolutely the saddest item on the list:
ReplyDelete"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.)
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.
ReplyDeleteListen, 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.
What the hell.
ReplyDeleteHis 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteRomanCandle-- 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.
"I wonder how successful the adherents of Roissy's system actually are . . ."---LVvS
ReplyDeleteNo question, Roissy is infinitely more successful than David will ever be despite all of his feminist kow towing. Full stop.
"Better to be a bastard who's happy than a good man who's miserable."RomanCandle
ReplyDeleteQFT
To shaennon:
ReplyDeleteInsulting 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.
"No question, Roissy is infinitely more successful than David will ever be despite all of his feminist kow towing. Full stop."
ReplyDeleteI 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.
@Kollege
ReplyDeleteRiddle 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteRomanCandle-- 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.
ReplyDeleteOn 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteYour 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.
Cera is pretty hawt.
ReplyDeleteI 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?
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteThe 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!!!
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.
ReplyDeleteClarenceComments, 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.
@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.
ReplyDeleteSo 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
"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?"
ReplyDeleteThey 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteBecause 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.
Honesty does not mean keeping people apprised of your bodily functions at all times.
ReplyDeleteIt'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.
I've never watched "Sex and the City," but the other two examples don't support the "women love assholes" theory.
ReplyDeleteRhett 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?
RomanCandle:
ReplyDeleteRegarding 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.‘
"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.
ReplyDeleteGetting 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).
Clarence:
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteBut 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.
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
ReplyDeleteDammit, why didn't the link work?
ReplyDelete@ Ozzy: I don't think links work at all in the comments here. But I did copy/paste, and your graphics amuse me.
ReplyDelete@ 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.
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:
ReplyDelete"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?
As an addendum: I've never tortured a cat. In fact, I own two of them myself.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
Clarence wrote:
ReplyDeleteYou 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!
I suddenly like Mr. Cera way more then I did before.
ReplyDeleteClarification 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.
"Ozymandias said...
ReplyDeleteAt 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.
"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?"
ReplyDeleteWomen 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.
Oz, to get clickable links, Blogger stupidly requires you to type in the actual html code for a link, as I have done here:
ReplyDeleteFunny dating charts post
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""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?"
ReplyDeleteWomen 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.
Elizabeth:
ReplyDeleteFor 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.
"I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."
ReplyDeleteWhen feminists use hyperbole it's taken dead serious. How interesting when the tables are turned.
AVpd:
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Ozymandias:
ReplyDeleteYou 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".
When feminists use hyperbole it's taken dead serious.
ReplyDeleteNO 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?
Captain Bathrobe:
ReplyDeleteI'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.
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...
ReplyDeleteSecondly, 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.
"I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."
ReplyDeleteSee 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
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)
ReplyDeleteRomanCandle said:
ReplyDelete"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.
Insults and a smokescreen of righteous indignation. Yeah, I've heard better.
ReplyDeleteAlso, "ignorance of history?" You wound me, sir!
ReplyDeleteRomanCandle said:
ReplyDelete"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.
"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."
ReplyDeleteSure 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.
"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?"
ReplyDeleteOh 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteBut 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.
"Women want men who are confident, and that's what a lot of timid Nice Guys don't seem to get."---LVvS
ReplyDeleteIs this because you lack the confidence in yourself so you want someone to over-compensate for that?
"Is this because you lack the confidence in yourself so you want someone to over-compensate for that?"
ReplyDeleteNo, 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.
"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
ReplyDeleteMany 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.
Mr. Candle-the use of "torturing cats" is the two extremes. My apologies if it seemed I was accusing you of doing so.
ReplyDeleteRoissy 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.
"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."
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
@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.
ReplyDelete"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.
"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."
ReplyDeleteWow...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.
@ Wytch
ReplyDelete'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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
To wit:
ReplyDeleteDo 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.
"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
ReplyDeleteAnd you don't acknowledge your own culpability there. Nice deflection.
"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
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
'"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
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
@ 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.
ReplyDeleteOn 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'.
Clarence
ReplyDeleteI'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.
To Romancandle:
ReplyDeleteNo 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.
@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.
ReplyDeletePeople 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteAlso, 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.
If your brother is an adult and not around 20, why the heck is he around teenage girls?
ReplyDeleteAlso, yes teenage girls are superficial. So are guys at that age. It is part of growing up.
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.
ReplyDeleteA 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.
"That's actually another tactic my ex would use - insist that we bore equal responsibility for every problem we had."---LVvS
ReplyDeleteI'm not your ex.
Perhaps there was more than a grain of truth to his insistence?
"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."
ReplyDeleteWell, there it is.
To ClarenceComments:
ReplyDeleteThese 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.
"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."
ReplyDeleteNo 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.
"And yeah, while he later had a very flaming relationship with a hot redhead for about 2 years,"
ReplyDeleteHere'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.
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.
ReplyDeleteIn 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.
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?
ReplyDeleteOr 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.
ReplyDeleteAlso, most women do not "compare" like you do a person's sexual behavior with other partners.
Clarence=immaturity.
ReplyDeleteYour 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.
I will let you bend over first Clarence and I promise to use lube.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
Clarence, I'm not going to argue with your ridiculous hypothetical examples.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
Clarence and Elizabeth, let's just move past the whole "sticking things where the sun don't shine" stuff.
ReplyDeleteAnd 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.
ReplyDeleteAnd if she doesn't stay in shape, what then?
Clarence, sorry, cupcake, but since you're a slut I don't have to take anything you say seriously.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteNow 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.
Also, this bit:
ReplyDeleteSince 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.
Now, imagine at that point some lady ... decided I'd make good "provider" material.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I'm trying, but I just can't imagine that. It's far too implausible.
"Here's another ugly truth for you.
ReplyDeleteWomen 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).
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.
ReplyDeleteBut then it is not about her anyway-just you and your needs.
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?
ReplyDeleteI divorce her. Really simple, right?
ReplyDeleteUnless 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.
So your evidence is...not contradicting my point.
ReplyDeletedating =/= marrying
ReplyDeleteI'm just sayin.
How do you "refute" something like "Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny."
ReplyDeleteI 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.
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?
ReplyDeleteClarence,
ReplyDeleteSo, if she gains, say, 20 lbs., then it's off to divorce court? Where do you draw the line?
Fair enough. Two things to consider, then:
ReplyDeleteA: 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteAs 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.
Did you miss the part where I said that Roissy is not the be-all and end-all of PUA?
ReplyDeleteNope. 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.
Clarence:
ReplyDeleteOK, 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?
DarkCat
ReplyDelete“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.
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:
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteHeck, 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.
It's quite amusing. Every now and again the genteel facade slips, and we're treated to a glimpse of the seething rage within.
ReplyDeleteLilly Ledbetter?
ReplyDeleteClarence, 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:
ReplyDeleteExtant 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."
Clarence:
ReplyDeleteI 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.
"I'll fully agree to getting more women in the CEO chair, if you work at getting more women into the coal mine."
ReplyDeleteLet'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.
Thevagrantsvoice:
ReplyDeleteWhy 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteNo 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.
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?'
ReplyDeleteAgain, 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.
“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?'”
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteWhen 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteThevagrantsvoice:
ReplyDeleteTo 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.
Captain Bathrobe said...
ReplyDelete"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.
Dude, I was laughing so hard that I had tears.
ReplyDeleteHave I ever mentioned that I love this blog? Best place to satisfy my cravings for snarkiness.
Clarence: You expect your future hypothetical wife to put on between 5 and 10 lbs during pregnancy? Five pounds, are you nuts?
ReplyDeleteThe 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?
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.
ReplyDeleteNo 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteContrary 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteOr that women's aging is something that women opt to do with malice aforethought.
I've never heard an MRA or PUA acribe 'malice' or any sort of moral wrongness to aging, though they do to plenty of other things. Their argument is simply a matter of evolutionary biology, no more, no less. Women primarily derive their value from their physical appearance and fertility, which decline with age. Men, on the other hand, derive their value from a wide variety of things, of which physical appearance and fertility are a much smaller part. The simple, logical result of that is men are hit much less hard than women are by Time's merciless march. They're not "blaming" women for aging poorly, but then again, they don't "blame" snow for being cold or bees for stinging. The facts of reality are what they are, in their view, though of course you and similar commentators like Jadehawk, IIRC, may disagree, or claim it's all changeable "social reality," or whatever.
ReplyDeleteNatural selection is not only blind and cruel, but also unfathomably stupid. Blame it for making you part of a species condemned to be separated into two genders, one inferior in nearly every respect to the other.
Ugh, fuck. It cut off the second part of my comment. My apologies. The second paragraph should read like this:
ReplyDeleteAgain, the evo-bio school of thought is much more common among MRAs and PUAs, and especially among folks like Roissy. As they might say, natural selection is not only blind and cruel, but also unfathomably stupid. Blame it for making you part of a species condemned to be separated into two genders, one inferior in nearly every respect to the other. And one of the most notable respects in which women are inferior to men is in the effects aging has on them. Few PUAs or MRAs would impute moral value to this, they would simply say it's a biological fact in the same way bees stinging or fish needing water to breath is a biological fact.
You actually are saying that you think women are inferior to men?
ReplyDeleteIt cut off a portion of my second paragraph, read my second post. I'm merely restating what the MRAs and PUAs believe; I'm not one of them. Though as I've mentioned before, I'm not a feminist either.
ReplyDeleteAnd the evo-bio school of thought that they subscribe to (which leads to men's sexual prowess and/or experience being valued and young women's lack thereof being valued) also helps to uphold the "double standard" (at least in Western culture, but that's not to say that double standards don't exist in other cultures) that labels older men going after younger girls as creeps (or other labels) and that same label or similar labels not being applied to older women with younger men.
ReplyDeleteI know that many MRAs want older females who select young males to be viewed as sexual predators just as older males who select younger females are, but that probably won't happen so long as male sexual prowess and female's (especially when young and unmarried) lack thereof are valued.
I've never heard an MRA or PUA acribe 'malice' or any sort of moral wrongness to aging, though they do to plenty of other things
Perhaps we have read different "authors", but I have often come across reference to women's aging which sounds quite similar to some comments (not necessarily from MRA/MGTOW/PUA circles) surrounding a woman's pregnancy (i.e., "She went and got herself pregnant") which gives the impression of willful choice.
It cut off a portion of my second paragraph, read my second post. I'm merely restating what the MRAs and PUAs believe;
ReplyDeleteGood thing that you caught that and posted the cut off portion, otherwise it wasn't too clear that you were restating what MRAs and PUAs believe vs. giving your own opinion.
I'm not one of them. Though as I've mentioned before, I'm not a feminist either.
That's cool with me, as I don't believe that people fall under strict dichotomies.
My own opinion? I suppose I'm an agnostic on the matter. "Superior" and "inferior" are meaningless words in an entirely naturalistic context; there is only what's adaptive to an environment and what's not.
ReplyDeleteOutside of a purely scientific context, though...well, even if I did believe women were inferior to men overall, I doubt you, our gracious host, or any of the other feminists here would bother refuting it, though perhaps you'd offer some 'snark' to amuse yourselves. Nothing wrong with that, as we've all got our own things to be concerned about. In any case, my apologies for taking your time.
@RomanCandle:
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you wouldn't abuse YOUR cats is neither here nor there. The point of Roissy's "advice" isn't to torture animals, per se -- the point is subjecting a woman to extreme psychological pain by defiling her home, destroying her property and inflicting physical suffering on a living creature that she loves and that acts as her companion. The point is to torture her and to isolate her. It doesn't have to be a cat; it can be any small and defenseless creature, up to and including a child.
Does it "work"? I am not into wishful thinking, so I will admit that this approach is effective to the same extent that any other type of torture is effective for certain purposes. I won't deny that destroying and profaning everything a person holds dear has been known to work in getting that person to degrade him or herself. If enough men keep treating things and creatures that are important to a woman as worthless pieces of shit, she'll eventually come to value nothing in her life except male attention, even if it manifests itself in disrespectful and destructive ways. But the mere fact that a "technique" works, doesn't justify using it, in the same way that the fact that torture gets the torturer what he wants doesn't justify torture. Acting this way towards people is utterly disgusting, and I don't see how anyone who claims to have been nice (as opposed to merely timid) can defend it.
And no, I don't find plausible the calim that feminists are somehow most susceptible to these practices. On the contrary, for all that PUA's blame feminism for their own porcine behavior, it is in fact women who are brought up with a traditional outlook on gender roles -- the desire to please and appease at all costs, the belief that antagonizing suitors is "bitchy" and unladylike, the conviction that mistreatment by men, no matter the context, is always -- ALWAYS -- just deserts for something the victims did or didn't do, and a sense of self-worth that's entirely contingent on male validation -- those women are most vulnerable to this kind of abuse. Plus, I suppose, women who are too young to have learned that there is a whole subculture of men who treat dating and relationships like warfare, in which girlfriends are "the enemy" who must be destroyed. Women who believe their value as individuals doesn't hinge on male approval, and who are trained to spot phony or creepy behavior are a lot less likely to end up sleeping with men who openly despise them.
Women who believe their value as individuals doesn't hinge on male approval, and who are trained to spot phony or creepy behavior are a lot less likely to end up sleeping with men who openly despise them.
ReplyDeleteConsidering how much success guys like Roissy and Tucker Max have had in bedding self-proclaimed feminists, I wonder if I could be forgiven for questioning the veracity of this claim.
I call into question their claims they get anyone into bed.
ReplyDelete> "Superior" and "inferior" are meaningless words in an entirely naturalistic context; there is only what's adaptive to an environment and what's not.
ReplyDeleteHang on, it's species that adapt, not sexes of species (not sure if that's what you were trying to say, but that's how it reads)
Sex A of a species cannot independently evolve to be better adapted than the sex B of the same species, because they have the same genome.
For example, with respect to evolutionary biology, the queen bee of a given species is neither more or less adapted than drones or workers of the same species. The species cannot function without queens, drones, and workers, and is under evolutionary pressure not to permit queens, drones, and workers to mutate into competing species.
Same thing with humans. The sexes can't compete with each other for reproductive success, since they don't have independent reproductive success.
Competition between individuals for mates is part of sexual selection, not natural selection, and the traits selected for by sexual selection are not necessarily adaptive--but they get selected for anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
Hang on, it's species that adapt, not sexes of species (not sure if that's what you were trying to say, but that's how it reads)
ReplyDeleteWell, you're right, but what I meant to say was that "superior" and "inferior" imply value judgements meaningless in a naturalistic context. There is only whether or not you pass on your genes, perhaps would be a better way to put it.
Now, of course, we needn't go by *only* scientific definitions, of course. The MRAs might argue that women are "inferior" to men in all the ways that matter to human beings, even if they still manage to reproduce. Still, as I said, I suppose I'm looking in the wrong place if I wanted to hear a refutation of that. Again, pardon me for wasting your time.