Dating advice for "creeps" who don't want to be creepy any more.

You don't actually need to wear goggles.

So the other day we were talking here about how to have the hot sexes with someone who wants to have the hot sexes with you also. Lots of good advice in that thread, but none of it is very useful to guys sitting around at home with no one but Pamela Handerson willing to climb into bed with them. So how exactly does one find a special someone to have the sexes with  – especially if you’re one of those horny, socially awkward guys who tends to get labeled a “creep?

Well, wonder no more, because two of my favorite bloggers have some advice for you:

In a post on the Good Men Project Magazine, Clarisse Thorn sifts through the sexist garbage that permeates virtually all Pick-Up Artist (PUA) websites in search of some decent, ethical advice that can help socially awkward guys connect with women. As she puts it:

the current pickup artist subculture has a monopoly on effective advice for how to break down social interactions and talk to women. Not all of it works, but enough of it works that it draws guys in. As a pickup artist instructor once told me, “When I first found the community I was horrified by how sleazy and gross it is, but I had never had a girlfriend, and I told myself, ‘Dude, if you don’t learn this stuff you’re gonna die alone.’” 

I wouldn’t go so far as saying  that PUAs have a “monopoly” on good advice, but there are aspects of the basic PUA approach that do make sense, and do work. To oversimplify a bit, the PUA approach encourages men to do something that women have been doing for centuries if not millennia: playing hard to get. Yep, guys who don’t come across as desperate and clingy tend to do better with the ladies than guys who do. That one basic insight is worth a lot more than an e-book-full of idiotic “openers,” not to mention the sleazy sort of date-rapey shit that self-described PUAs like the gun-happy Gunwitchpreach. 

In any case, after offering a critique of some of the most obvious issues she has with PUAs, Clarisse links to a bunch of sites that she thinks can be genuinely helpful to awkward guys. Check it out.

Meanwhile, also on the Good Men Project, Amanda Marcotte – who is far less forgiving of PUAs than Clarisse -- offers some specific advice for "self-described “nice guys” who claim they want non-sexist dating advice that works, but are forced to look to PUAs because there is no one else speaking to them. "

Her first tip is golden: Dudes, if you want to score with a hot slut, stop thinking of women who enjoy sex as sluts. Or, as she puts it:

Be generous about women’s motivations. 

PUA communities spend a lot of time disparaging women with words like “shallow,” “gold-digger,” and “childish,” for having what they deem to be incorrect desires. But often, women’s choices make much more sense if you assume women date for fun and companionship, just as men do. If you don’t judge men for wanting sexiness, fun, and ego-boosting from women, then don’t judge women for wanting the same. 

For the rest of her advice, see here. 

On a completely unrelated topic: Are any of you having trouble posting comments here? If so, check your settings and make sure you’re allowing cookies from Blogger. If that doesn’t work, and you still have problems, send me an email. (See my profile for an email link.) Thanks!

-- 

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. 

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

A New Low in Victim-Blaming, Part 2: In Mala Fide on Lara Logan

From In Mala Fide

The reaction of the "manosphere" to Lara Logan's reported sexual assault in Cairo has been highly revealing, to put it mildly. And what it reveals about the assorted Men's Rightsers, Men Going Their Own Way, pickup artists, and others who make up the manosphere is pretty ugly.

Take, for example, Ferdinand Bardamu's posts on the subject. On Tuesday, Bardamu, whose antifeminist blog In Mala Fide is widely linked to in the manosphere, spat forth a snide, sarcastic rant that attacked Logan for having the temerity to even set foot in Egypt. He started out dismissive:

Apparently, a CBS lady reporter got raped while covering the revolution in Egypt. For some reason, we’re expected to feel sorry for her.

Then turned up the sarcasm:

Oh, what a symbol of courage Miss Logan is! What a beacon of determination and grit and…no, seriously. I can’t go on.

Fuck Lara Logan. Fuck her and the shit-for-brains idiot who thought it was a good idea to send a WOMAN to report from a war zone. ...

Of course, Bardamu ignores the simple  fact that is is dangerous to send ANY reporter, male or female, into the midst of a revolution -- indeed, the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented more than 140 attacks on journalists in the Egyptian unrest so far; one journalist was shot and killed. Despite this fact, it is an undeniably good thing that some reporters (male and female both) are willing to risk their lives to cover wars and revolutions and other dramatic, dangerous, and important events. No one has suggested that the attacks on male journalists mean that men should not be covering these events. No one is mocking the male journalists who were attacked. (Well, almost no one. Bardamu refers in passing to CNN's Anderson Cooper, also famously attacked while covering the events of Egypt, as a "twinkle-toed pansy [who] couldn’t handle the heat on the streets of Cairo.")

For Bardamu, though, Logan's story is one of a woman foolishly trying to make her way in a man's world:

You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. I don’t care how many disaster areas she’s reported from, how many awards she’s won, it was going to happen eventually. ...

Sucks that Lara got raped, but she had it coming. [Emphasis in original]

To Bardamu, this case is evidence not only that women journalists should not be sent to cover the Egyptian revolution but that they should not be allowed to leave their home country at all:

[O]f COURSE Lara shouldn’t be sent on another foreign assignment again! She, nor any other women should be allowed to be a foreign correspondent for their own safety.

And then, after arguing that Logan "had it coming,"and that any western woman who has the temerity to leave her hotel room and step out into the streets of Cairo should expect herself to get raped sooner or later, Bardamu then suggests that Logan may be making it all up:

There’s a non-zero chance that she didn’t get raped at all, and that she made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. ...

I have no evidence that she’s not telling the truth, only a tiny feeling in the pit of my stomach that’s been growing year by year, with every venal vixen who falsely accuses a man of rape because she wants fame, or she feels like a slut after sleeping with the guy, or she’s mad that he slept with her best friend the day after, or whatever else.

Naturally, in the comments, many of Bardamu's fans agreed that women women who trespass into male spaces deserve whatever happens to them. According to "John":

Women do not belong in men’s locker rooms, Mike Tysons apartment at 2:00 a.m., drunk in a bar bathroom with the Steelers quarterback, and they sure as hell don’t belong “reporting” in the middle of a revolution. Women should not go to Frat Parties dressed like sluts and get drunk with the expectation that “nothing will happen.” ...

This woman, Laura Logan, is not just an idiot – she is an adulterous whore. She shares this unfortunate circumstance with tens of millions of others of her sex, and deserves no pity whatsoever.

For some, the case was not just another excuse for "slut shaming" but evidence that the very notion of equality between the sexes is wrong. As Brett Stevens put it:

American women are rape targets worldwide. They are known to be clueless, friendly, and most of all, sexually easy. If a woman chucks her sexual favors out the door at the drop out of a hat, why not just go the extra mile and apply pressure? ... We take these girls from comfy suburbs and send them into war zones and riots and wonder why they get gang raped. Amazing cluelessness, arising from our insane idea of “equality.”

There were other comments even worse than these -- e.g., this one -- but I don't have the heart to post them here.

But Bardamu's retrograde notions were also challenged in the comments -- mostly from those who saw his noxious post linked to on feminist sites and on Twitter, but also in a few cases from actual fans of his blog.

This reaction inspired Bardamu to post a second piece on the Logan story, one even more narcissistic and self-righteous than the first. After taking on some of his critics (most notably Molly of Progressive Blogic, whom he labeled a "premenstrual whiner"), and casually referring to Logan as "an unwilling cum dumpster," Bardamu tried to pretend that it was him, and not the feminists, who had the best interests of women at heart.

Lara Logan had no business being in Cairo, or anywhere in that part of the world for that matter. All of you leftie feminist tossers screeching about “rape culture” have her blood on your hands. How many more have to suffer before your lies are discredited?

Sorry, but a guy who refers to any women, much less a woman who has been raped, as a "cum dumpster" pretty much forfeits any right to be taken seriously on the subject of what is best for women.

About a week ago, Bardamu reported that he'd taken a Psychopathy Test on OkCupid, and had scored an impressive 31 points, which put him in the ranks of the "True Psychopaths."  His posts on Logan -- full of narcissistic rage and utterly lacking in basic human empathy -- seem to bear out this diagnoses all too well.

--

If you liked 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.

Roissy Reconsidered

No date tonight!

The other day I made some critical remarks about some dating advice from pickup guru Roissy -- specifically, a list of things prospective Don Juans can do to keep the ladies "on their toes" and generate a certain level of mystery, always enticing to the fairer sex. I have reconsidered one suggestion of Roissy's, which I now realize is sort of brilliant. That is:

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

Your success in using this tactic, of course, is largely dependent on how good you are at concocting vaguely plausible but not completely convincing excuses for canceling. Here are several to get you started:

"Sorry, babe, can't make our date tonight. I've lost all my shoes."

"I'm going to have to take a raincheck on our weekend getaway in the Berkshires, snuggle-bunny. I have gotten my head stuck in a bucket."

"Oops! No go for tomorrow, sugar-tits. I just realized our salsa dancing class conflicts with my speech at the 93rd Annual Dirndl Appreciation Society meeting."

"Tuesday night is out, cupcake. I have climbed up a tree and I just can't seem to figure out how to get back down."

"I feel terrible about this, stinky, but there's no way I can make it tonight. I have completely lost my sense of direction and have been walking in circles for the past ten hours."  

You may use any of these you want. You're welcome! And suggest your own, if you wish.


--

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.

The ultimate PUA video

Now that we're talking about pickup artistry, I feel I would be doing my readers a disservice if I didn't post the SINGLE GREATEST PUA VIDEO EVER. Paul Rudd and David Wain show us how it's done in this report from the field. 



--

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.

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

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

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

A few examples:

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

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

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

Muse wistfully about past lovers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muse wistfully about butter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

How to get downvoted on The Spearhead: Internet Dating Edition

Spearhead readers: Not actually as cool as Fonzie.

When sites enable users to upvote and downvote comments and posts, the rationale is generally that it improves discussion and filters out trolls. In practice, this is almost never the case; instead, the up and down arrows offer the majority a way to reward those who simply rehash the party line and punish those who dare suggest anything even remotely challenging. This punishment is accentuated on sites on which dissenters who are downvoted beyond a certain threshold see their comments literally vanish, unless readers click a special link to make them visible again.

We've seen in the past the sorts of things that get massively upvoted on The Spearhead. A comment suggesting that "a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset" got, at last count, 58 upvotes and only 4 downvotes. Comments suggesting that women are "parasites," "dumb as bricks," incapable of logic or empathy each got dozens of upvotes and only a handful of downvotes, as did comments suggesting that women should never have been given the right to vote.  Heck, one recent comment suggesting that Daniel Hernandez was "a traitor to men" for helping to save Gabrielle Giffords' life got twice as many upvotes as downvotes. (As I pointed out in a recent post, there were actually a number of comments in that vein; they all got more upvotes than downvotes)

So if these sorts of comments get upvoted, the question arises: what sort of horrible, beyond-the-pale nuttiness actually invites downvotes on the site? Well, in a recent guest posting there, someone calling himself Big Daddy From Cincinnati offered some (not really very good) internet dating advice for the misogynist masses. Along the way he opined that "women are amoral creatures, flakes, and they will reject you for anything, everything, nothing, the phase of the moon, or who knows what. They will lead you on and waste your time ... . "

While most commenters seemed to agree with this characterization of the ladies, one anonymous gal suggested instead that:

Yep, you can practically hear the Spearhead guys furiously downvoting that bit of heresy. What an outlandish opinion, clearly the work of an evil, misandrist troll! Probably a lesbian, too. I mean, what kind of crazy man-hating monster would she have to be not to be utterly smitten by the Spearhead men?

--

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.

Gunwitch Update

From the Gunwitch,com forums

Some updates on the Gunwitch story. (Here's my original post on the subject, "Gun-loving pick-up guru allegedly shoots a woman in the face.")

The woman he (allegedly) shot is apparently doing surprisingly well. The most recent news story on the incident I've found -- posted on the 6th -- says she was about to be released from the hospital:

April Lagasse, the mother of 20-year-old Amber Tripp, who was shot in the face with a .357 caliber handgun on New Year’s Eve, says her daughter has “recovered miraculously.”

Tripp, who was initially treated at Sky Lakes Medical Center in Klamath Falls before being air lifted to Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, underwent surgery Wednesday and is scheduled to be released and return to Klamath Falls Thursday.

On what is evidently her Myspace page, the status update now reads: "Hello wonderful world i got shot and im still sexy."
 
Meanwhile, on Gunwitch's message board, someone claiming to be Amber Tripp's sister has posted her account of the incident:

Hello my name is Meagan Tripp. My sister is Amber Tripp , the young women that wS shoot in the face on News Years Eve. It is a pure mircale that she is alive. Allen Ryese shot my sister in the face after he had been grabbing and touching her inapporite and my sister pulled her knife out and told him to leave her alone. My sister then put her knife away and went into a bedroom for about fifteen minutes. When my sister came out of the room Allen walked up to her and shot her in the face with a 357 magnum . The bullet that came out of the chamber was the only 38 bullet in the gun. The other two bullets were 357 s. This man had plenty of time to decide to shot her or not. This awful evil man deserves to rot in prison

Later, in response to some of those who responded to her, she added:

My sister is alive. No I personally was not at his brothers house when it happened. I did not know Allen personally but yes I do recognize him and his name. No it was not drug related and yes he shot her in the face point blank .

One of the regulars on the board responded to her original comment with this "hilarious" remark:

Post pics of her face w/ timestamp

boobs optional

Another posted:

honestly, she was pulling a knife on him. It wasn't going to change her oppinion to show her his gun after shit like that. Not even sexual state would have helped him there.

Still another:

Self defence against meth-addict crackwhore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And one more:

I like that it was in the face. Super disrespectful.

Some discussions of the case on other message boards:

PuaHate

Personal Development for Smart People Forums

BorisPoker.com

Sample comment from the latter:

to be fair to him though, shooting a bitch in the face is a pretty solid neg

Some blogs that have posted about the shooting:

On Feminist Critics, Hugh Ristik discusses some of the reactions to the incident, and critiques feminists (including some commenters here) for generalizing about PUAs. He ends with this:

Gunwitch, if you really shot an unarmed woman, then fuck you. Fuck you for putting a bullet in a woman’s face. Fuck you for fueling many women’s fears about male sexuality. Fuck you for contributing to a stigma against harmless guys who are trying to study pickup to improve themselves.

As for the small subset of PUAs or MRAs who are making excuses for Gunwitch, and the feminists who are trying to paint Gunwitch and the people excusing him as representative of PUAs, or of men? Stop, just stop.

Max on FKIN, a PUA blog, offers a blunt assessment of Gunwitch:

He embodies all of the worst traits of the seduction community.  I sincerely hope he rots in prison for the rest of his natural life.

On Love Letters in Hell, Amanda talks about the creepy, date-rapey aspects of his technique.

On Love Bites, Clarisse Thorn expresses her ambivalence towards the PUA subculture and her disgust with Gunwitch:

The diverse pickup subculture freaks me out a lot of the time, and frankly I’ve had hours of pickup artist research where I have read what these men have to say and felt like I wanted to take a vow of chastity rather than ever risk having sex with one of them, ever. ... I think there’s good in the subculture. ... But, damn. News like this is awfully hard to stomach.

You said it.


--
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.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Gun-loving pick-up guru allegedly shoots a woman in the face

Actual logo for Gunwitch's "The Way of Gun"

A creepy, gun-loving pick-up artist (PUA) guru whose "technique" for charming the ladies is just one small step away from actual date rape has been arrested for allegedly shooting a woman in the face. 

And, no I'm not making this up. Allen Reyes, known in the "seduction community" as Gunwitch because of his love of guns, apparently got into an argument with a 20-year-old woman at a party in his hometown of Klameth Falls, Oregon. This woman is now (at least according to the latest news report I have managed to find) in critical condition at a local hospital with gunshot wounds to the face. (See here for more details, and here for Jezebel's take on the subject.)

The man known as Gunwitch, arrested Monday, is apparently quite gun-obsessed. On his website, he notes that he's "an avid hand gunner." One of his PUA audio tapes is called "The Way of Gun" and -- especially creepy in light of the charges he faces, the logo he chose for it features an actual gun and, well, see the picture at top right.

Gunwitch has never been what anyone would call a "nice guy." His slogan? "Get laid, not liked."

Unlike many seduction gurus, Gunwitch doesn't recommend a lot of gimmicks or clever opening lines or subtle techniques of manipulation. His "technique" is simplicitly itself: lurk around in  places where lone women tend to congregate, and when you see a woman who makes you horny, don't wait for your boner to go away, just get into a "dominant" frame of mind and start pestering her. Then, if she shows anything that looks like interest, ISOLATE her and work your magic. If she doesn't seem interested, don't give up, keep pestering her until she gives in or bluntly rejects you.

He goes through his technique in more detail on his web site. Let's look at some, er, highlights.

So where's a good place to meet the ladies? Aside from the old standbys -- coffee houses, the gym -- Gunwitch recommends lurking around the magazine racks:

I like the magazine racks at dept stores, where I can stand there and wait 'til some Cosmo magazine reading hottie comes into what feels to her like your space, and feels like she's approaching, then boom I'm on it "so what ya reading?"

Learn a thing or two from someone who knew how to get the ladies "isolated" quickly: Ted Bundy:

ANYWHERE you see them you must imagine having sex with her, visualize it, feel the desire and lust. ALWAYS do this as soon as you see a woman you find attractive and eventually the state you will go into when seeing a woman will be one of -sexual- state, rather than panic or fear of meeting her. This makes approaching random lone women easier. Ted Bundy, the infamous serial killer/sociopath didn't feel fear or panic when he saw a target. He felt rage, sexual perversion and desire to kill, hence NO fear to approach them, of course wanting to have sex isn't the same thing, but its still more effective than feeling fear or confusion about your desires and direction.

Don't worry about invading her personal space. In fact, make sure you do:

Since you aren't gonna be seductive or sensual standing 2 feet away from her, you need to be within 6-8 inches of her.

Even though you've just met her, don't be afraid to start groping her:

Touch her. Since touch is the first step in getting her comfortable with you as a sexual creature, you want to sneak this in slowly. A good progression is: hands, arms, lowers back, upper back, face (while whispering something to her) and hair, then thighs (hand placed but relatively stationary), and upper legs.

Don't take no for an answer unless she really really means it:

I commonly get snubbed, the cold shoulder ... or overall rejected with the women I have sex with right away, but I just persist and eventually things take a turn. 

And remember, get her alone as quickly as possible:

ISOLATE. You cannot have sex with women in public or in front of people with any consistency. If that's your bag, try it with women you are already in a relationship with. You have to get her alone with you. ANY opportunity to isolate BEFORE going into sexual state should be taken as well of course.

If she's with friends, stalk her like a panther stalks his prey until she is alone:

At a bar, when you see a group and want one of them, WAIT for her to leave the herd, wait for her to be coming out of the bathroom (not IN as she may have to piss bad), wait for her to go to the bar to get a drink, wait for her to be ALONE to approach, and then try to keep her from her friends.

And don't give up:

Of course if a girl NEVER goes into sexual state for a long period of time, you just try to isolate her anyway and "make the ho say no". NEVER eject. Always either get either a lay, or a rejection.

Did I mention that you shouldn't give up? If you're making out with her and she doesn't want sex, just keep pressuring her until she says yes:

[S]ometimes, she'll say "I don't know you enough" ect. When this happens don't get mad or upset ect. Just say, "I understand" or "ok, this is nice though huh?" then go back to necking and making out. Eventually go back in for the sex, if happens again say "I understand" and go back in for more kissing and making out, and repeat until it goes through. Hell even if she never gets ready, what have you got better to do than make out with some hot little number? You've got no real "make the ho say no" style of getting a close or getting a rejection to work with at this point, as she already has said no but MAY change her mind.

Just remember not to actually rape her:

DO NOT struggle or tug or bear weight on her at this stage, as that is considered rape. Use persistence not force, and you'll be ok.

 Somehow I don't have a lot of trouble thinking that the allegations against him might just possibly be true.

On the discussion forum for his "Witching Hour" podcast, though, while many of his fans seem genuinely shocked by what has happened, at least some of are defending him, or otherwise making light of the shooting.

One started a topic called "Shoot to Kill," and declared "Thats my man."

Another chimed in with a little ditty:

Shoot to kill, Klamath Hills
too many podcasts and too many pills yeah!
Shoot to thrill, pickup skills
Jerkin off to Barry Kirkey gonna fire at will

(Barry Kirkey is another PUA guru who has done podcasts with Gunwitch.)

Still another offered this take:

Im sure Gun has a perfectly good reason for shooting that girl in the face

This last comment struck some on the message board as utterlly hilarious.

I'll update this, or perhaps do more posts, as the story develops.

Big thanks to the Man Boobz reader who alerted me to this story.

"I have come to view women as elegant machines"

When pick-up guru Roissy isn't going on about herpes and hypergamy, and demonstrating his utter ignorance of both subjects, he's apparently helping to rid the world of misogyny. At least according to one of his readers. a guy names Marcus, who offered his take on Roissy's teachings on "Game" in a comment that Roissy highlighted as one of his favorite "comments of the month" for December. Here's Marcus:

It sounds strange, but this blog has made me less of a misogynist. I have come to view women as elegant machines — machines for using, to be sure — that mostly do a damned good job of doing what they were designed to do. As I get more comfortable and consistent at either aggressively torquing their levers or gently greasing their gears at just the right moments, my appreciation only deepens.

All this talk of talk of torque and gears and levers reminds me a little of one of my favorite songs by T. Rex, Jeepster, in which Marc Bolan offers a strangely similar, er, appreciation of women:

Just like a car you're pleasing to behold
I'll call you Jaguar if I may be so bold
'Cos you're my baby, 'cos you're my love
Oh girl I'm just a Jeepster for your love - oh

Now why is it that Marc Bolan could get away with comparing a woman to a luxury car without sounding like a complete douchenozzle? Well, for one thing, he's fucking MARC BOLAN, and his lyrics are always completely fucking insane. For another, he also compared himself to a car, specifically the Willys-Overland Jeepster. And, third, because he did it in one of the sleaziest, catchiest glam rock songs ever.

On Herpes and Hypergamy

Peggy Olson has no time for pseudoscientific PUA crap.

Note: As regular Man Boobz comment readers will notice, this post is an expanded version of some comments I made here and here.

An extraordinary number of men in the "manosphere" -- whether they're wannabe Pick-up artists or woman-avoiding Men Going Their Own Way -- have a very strange notion of what goes on (and what doesn't go on) behind the closed doors of America's bedrooms. (And sometimes in the bathrooms of dive bars.) They envision a world in which a small number of men are having all the sex they want, with any women they want, while the rest of the men out there -- at least the straight ones --  are condemned to lives of celibacy or near-celibacy.

So who gets blamed for this (imagined) state of affairs? Women. And something called "hypergamy."

The term refers to the practice of "marrying up"in social class. But the dudes of the manosphere aren't merely content to accuse women of being mere gold-diggers. They've combined the notion of hypergamy with some ill-digested evolutionary psych speculations and convinced themselves that women are in fact a giant gang of nymphomaniacal sexual status seekers, compelled by their very genes to throw themselves at the males on top of the sexual heap -- variously described as alphas, jocks, bad boys, and thugs.

And, since men are similarly programmed to spread their seed far and wide -- by which I mean fuck anything that moves -- these women are getting all the attention from the alphas that their hearts and loins desire, while themselves making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright. Or so goes the theory.

Naturally, those manosphere men who find themselves sitting on the sidelines of this  (imagined) orgy tend to build up a great deal of bitterness about this (imagined) state of affairs.

This little mythical tale of alpha males and the hypergamic nymphomaniacs who love them (long time) is repeated again and again on the blogs and message boards of the manosphere. But is there any real convincing evidence for any of this? I haven't seen any yet.

But in a post earlier this year one of the more influential bloggers in the manosphere, a pick-up guru of sorts who calls himself Roissy, claimed he had found something like the smoking gun of hypergamy:

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

As evidence for this claim, Roissy pointed to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control which found that some "21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men." (That link takes you to the Reuters article Roissy cited in his blog post; the CDC's press release on the survey can be found here.)

Case closed? Not exactly. Had Roissy actually bothered to read all of the news story he cited, or the CDC press release, or done even a minute or two of Googling,  he would have seen the real explanation for the disparity: because of biological differences between men and women -- you know, the whole penis vs vagina thing -- it's simply much easier for women to be infected with herpes. As one online FAQ notes (and I've put the key parts in bold):

Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman. In other words, if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. ...

Women may be more susceptible to genital herpes infections because:

* The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men.
*Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection.

You'd think a sex guru would know enough about herpes to know this, wouldn't you?

WTF is an MGTOW? And other weird acronyms and lingo.

Not the real MGTOW logo.

For newcomers to this blog, here's a handy guide to some of the strange acronyms and lingo you'll encounter here and in the "manosphere" in general. (For a definition of that term, see below.) I will update this entry periodically as needed.

First, the acronyms you'll see most often here:

MRA: Men's Rights Activist
MRM: Men's Rights Movement

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way MGHOW: Man Going His Own Way

Ok, so what do those terms mean?

MRM: The Men's Rights Movement: A loosely defined, but largely retrograde, collection of activists and internet talkers who fight for what they see as "men's rights." Unlike the original Men's Movement, which was inspired by and heavily influenced by feminism, the self-described Men's Rights Movement is largely a reactionary movement; with few exceptions, Men's Rights Activists (or MRAs) are pretty rabidly antifeminist, and many are frankly and sometimes proudly misogynistic. Those who oppose the MRM are generally not against men's rights per se; they are opposed to those who've turned those two words into a synonym for some pretty backwards notions.

MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way: As the name suggests, MGTOW is a lot like lesbian separatism, but for straight dudes. MGTOW often talk vaguely about seeking "independence" from western and/or consumer culture, and a few MGTOW try to live that sort of zen existence. But most of those who embrace the term have a deep hostility towards and/or profound distrust of feminists and women in general. Many MGTOW refuse to date "western women" and some try to avoid women altogether. As one MGTOW site puts it:

It is basically a statement of independence, and irrelevance - men declaring themselves free of the social expectations of women and western culture as a whole, because both have come to hate men. ... 

Men basically have most of the rights we need, as long as we treat women like they have the plague.  ... If the only way men can avoid "oppressing" all these strong-as-men-but-oh-so-fragile-when-offended princess wannabes is to steer as clear of them as possible, a lot of men are quite ready to do that.

Some other terms and acronyms you'll run across here:

Anglosphere: Countries in which English is the primary language, or, more narrowly, those countries that used to be British colonies. They are full of evil Western Women (see below).

Incel: Involuntarily Celibate. Perpetually dateless guys, though the term "involuntarily celibate" seems to place the blame for this situation on the women who aren't dating these guys rather than on the guys themselves. For those incels who are genuinely socially awkward or phobic, this can be a self-defeating stance that can lead to bitterness towards women. (There are a few female incels, in which case reverse the genders of everything I've said above.)

Mangina: Derogatory term used by MRAs, MGTOW, etc. to describe guys who disagree with them -- e.g., me. You can figure out the various connotations of this term yourself.

The Manosphere: The loose collection of blogs, message boards, and other sites run by and/or read by MRAs, MGTOW, and assorted friendly Pick-up Artists. The primary source of material for this blog.

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Dudes in the manosphere make so many ridiculous and untrue generalizations about women that they've come up with their own little acronym to describe the most common reaction to their nonsense: "not all women are like that." Remarkably, many seem to think that making a reference to NAWALT is actually some sort of clever rebuttal of their critics.

PUA: Pick-up Artist. PUAs are obsessed with mastering what they see as the ultimate set of techniques and attitudes -- known as "Game" -- that will enable them to quickly seduce almost any woman they want. There is a vast literature on "game" online, though PUA is at its essence simply a male version of the age-old female ploy of "playing hard to get."

Western Women: Also known as WW. Evil harpies, at least according to many in the manosphere. Contrasted with "foreign women," a term that (in the manosphere, at least) sometimes refers to all women outside the Anglosphere, but often refers to a subset of these women from poor and/or Eastern countries, mostly Asian, who are regarded as more pliable and thus more desirable to haters of "Ameriskanks" and other WW.

My favorite oddball critic of the Men's Rights Movement

From Not an MRA

I discovered an odd little manifesto the other day put forth by a raging antifeminist ... who also hates the Men's Rights Movement. "Not an MRA's" site looks like a blog, but it's essentially a long rambling rant cataloguing all the reasons "why I am NOT an MRA." His basic thesis: 

I hate feminism. I hate the destruction it has brought onto our society and culture. I hate male-bashing. I am sick and fed up with all of it. That said - I realize that the MRM - or MRA's are doing way more harm than good in the efforts of getting rid of these things.

As the lead-in to a manifesto, it's not quite up there with "a spectre is haunting Europe -- the spectre of communism," but it certainly grabs your attention. As do the illustrations he uses to illustrate his various points, taken from Disney's version of Alice in Wonderland. (Don't tell Disney!)

So what exactly does notanmra hate about the MRM? It's a idiosyncratic list of irritations, some perfectly understandable, some just sort of cranky. Here's a partial list:

He hates the endless blather about "manginas" and "White Knights," and the slew of of oddball acronyms that litter most MRA discussions (PUA, MGTOW, MGHOW, NAWALT, and of course MRA). He thinks MRAs cheapen the notion of "male bashing" by complaining endlessly about ads in which men get kicked in the balls are the victims of slapstick violence. He hates the undercurrents of anti-Semitism and generalilzed bigotry that infect some MRA forums. He hates conspiracy theory in general. He hates the endless denunciations of "chivalry."

Holding doors open for people is common courtesy. If you approach the door first, hold it open for the PERSON behind you. Where I work, men do this for men, men do this for women, women do this for men, and women do this for other women. It's called being a human being. A few MRA blogs/sites label this as "chivalry" - poppycock. Come on out of that rabbit hole and stop acting like a screwball. 

Holding doors open for PEOPLE is not what leads to male-hatred or male-bashing.

He hates that "some MRAs call themselves ""masculists" or "masculinists". This makes me sick. I have no desire to "follow in the footsteps" of feminism by calling myself this, or even by associating with people who call themselves this." He thinks all the talk of circumcision as "genital mutilation" is completely backwards, and that the procedure is actually beneficial. (I'm guessing of all his opinions this is the one that gets MRAs most angry at him.)

Of all his various complaints, I think my favorite is this one:

Observations have convinced me that the MRA agenda is not one of getting the laws changed or eliminating male-hatred, but rather - to argue the same points over and over.

Don't I know it!

EDIT: I corrected a testicle-related error in the text above.  

Further Reading: The Worst of the Men's Rights Movement

From Paul Elam's site.

Here are links to, and brief excerpts of, some of the worst posts by Men's Rights activists and/or antifeminists I've run across in doing this blog. These are not random comments by random MRAs; they are all by people who have a history in the MRM. In most cases, they are fairly prominent names, at least within the online MRA community. A few of these posts will be familiar to readers of this blog.

Lest anyone accuse me of taking quotes out of context, I urge you to read the originals. As you'll see, none of these quotes are any more justifiable "in context" than they are here on their own.

If anyone out there has seen worse, please post a URL below. Conversely, if any of these posts have been publicly challenged by others in the MRM, I will happily post links alongside the original.

I am also taking nominations for a follow-up post, The Best of the MRM. Post URLs below.


Let's start with Paul Elam's charming "Bash A Violent Bitch Month" Post

The money quote:

In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.

I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess.

Immediately after this quote, he claims he's not "serious" about this, though apparently only because "it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers." My post on the subject is here. Here's another piece by Elam full of fantasies of violence against women.

Another by Elam: Jury Duty at a Rape Trial? Acquit!

Key quote:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

This post from Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer and Men's Rights activist best known for suing clubs that have "ladies nights," suggests that men may have to take up arms to win their, er, struggle:

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely.  But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms. 

I wrote about Hollander's call to arms in If at first you don't succeed, shoot people.

And speaking of angry men and their guns, here's a post from Citizen Renegade, a Pick-Up Artist (PUA) site popular with MRAs: Game Can Save Lives It's about George Sodini, the misogynist killer who gunned down women at a health club a year ago. "Chateau" suggests that all would have been well if Sodini had learned how to be a Pick-Up Artist:

If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.

Actually, Sodini had taken at least one class from Don Steele, author of "How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35." The comments to Chateau's article are scarier than the article itself. For selected examples and commentary, see here.

Another from Citizen Renegade: Owning a Dog is Training for Owning a Woman

[P]roperly owning a dog is excellent training for properly owning a woman. The behavior of dogs and women is eerily similar, and their relation to man testifies to that.

Like dogs, women need to be led. They *want* to be led. In fact, though they will never admit it, women want to be owned by their men.

Other MRAs don't seem to be much interested in adult women at all. MRA Jay Hammers, a regular contributor to The Spearhead, has taken down his blog, but its worst moments live on in Google's cache. Perhaps the worst of the worst: Age of Consent is Misandry. Key quotes:

Age of consent laws are designed to punish beta males. A beta male in his 20s, unsuccessful with women his own age who are infused with a sense of feminist entitlement and deride all but the top alpha males who take interest in them, who seeks companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality.

Females generally do not significantly mature mentally past puberty so it should always be illegal for any woman to have sex or it should never be illegal for any woman to have sex. There is no arbitrary age where females suddenly become self-aware, realizing the consequences of their actions, and stop seeking out alpha males. Thus there must not be an arbitrary age of consent for sex.

This post did get some criticism in the MRM. Here's one discussion.

And here's Hammers again, accusing other MRAs of being "pansies." 

One of Hammers' biggest defenders has been an antifeminist blogger by the nom-de-net of Schopenbecq, who is equally obsessed with the age of consent and what he sees as the superior attractiveness of teen girls. Here's one of his posts on the subject, which argues:

The age of consent has always been central to feminism. In fact, it has been its primary driving force right from the beginning. The purpose of this website is not to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent from the present feminist age of 16. For one thing, there is little or no chance of that happening in this author’s lifetime. However, I have no shame whatsoever in stating my clear belief that the age of consent ought to be what it still technically is in the majority of major civilised nations – namely, 14.

In this post, he mocks any man who doesn't think Heather Locklear's 13-year-old daughter is hotter than Locklear herself:

Results of a poll on Schopenbecq's site.

Here, he argues that feminism is a "Sexual Trade Union," and seems to suggest that increasing the age of consent from 12 was bad thing :

Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.

And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.

More misogyny:

Anglobitch: Women, Self Awareness and the Guillotine of Bitterness

Post-feminist women have been so indoctrinated by specious polemics extolling their (largely imaginary) talents, that they truly believe their ‘achievements’ are somehow self-determined. This is why the loss of their physical charms wreaks such havok on them. Having been nurtured on feminist pipe dreams, the cutting realization that their youthful ‘success’ was entirely due to sexual allure must be galling indeed. ... Indeed, the staunch bitterness of middle-aged Anglo-American women can be entirely attributed to this realization:

It wasn’t your 'talent' and 'intelligence' that men admired: it was your sweet young pussy. That pussy-pass departed with your first wrinkle: live with it, bitch.

Heretical Sex: Never Date Western Women

Big cities like London, New York and Sydney are jam-packed with beautiful foreign girls from Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. They are sexy, fun, good company and they treat men like human beings. They have not had their minds poisoned by feminist hate-speech. ... I urge all Western men to boycott Western Women if they can. Don't date them, don't marry them, don't have children with them. Find yourself a nice foreign girl, and find out what women should be like. If anyone asks you why, tell them it is a protest against feminist ideology. Once enough men start boycotting them, women will turn away from feminism.

Henry Makow has gotten too loopy for most Men's Rights activists to consider him as one of their own. But he remains one of the internet's most influential antifeminists. Here are some quotes from his classic in craziness How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women.

Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media  (i.e. propaganda.) to control society. ... Nicholas Rockefeller told [producer Aaron Russo] that his family foundation created women's liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. ....

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of  providers also destabilizes the family. 

Only satanists would trash motherhood. 

The fellows at the Manhood Academy have also gotten a lot of criticism from MRAs. It's not altogether clear why, since their ridiculously retrograde views of women are no more ridiculously retrograde than many of those I've quoted above. The key Manhood Academy text is a 135-page pdf called The Principles of Social Competence, which is full of stuff like this:

While women and children often lack the capacity to grasp the inner workings of authority, they still have an instinctual, positive response to it. Authority brings chaotic, aimless things, people, events and circumstances into a state of good order. ...  Masculinity is properly expressed in the form of authority.

You know what I said above about reading the originals? Don't bother in this case.

Speaking of women as children, who could forget this classic, from "ramzpaul" on The Spearhead: How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization, which posited:

Single mothers, rampant divorce, abortion and falling birth rates are part of the cancer that is destroying what is left of Western Civilization. But very few people (even conservatives) fail to realize that the inception of this cancer can be found in the passage of the 19th amendment.

I wrote about the piece, and reactions to it, here.

More Worst Of links to come! The Men's Rights movement produces fresh awfulness each and every day.

EDIT: Deansdale's Blog has weighed in on this Worst-of list and is surprisingly positive about the whole thing. Oh, not my post -- he hates my post, and me -- but the original MRA-n-pals posts. Elam's "Bash a Violent Bitch" post? "What’s the problem with this article? Nothing, really. ... Elam has some insightful observations about the nature of women in our contemporary cultures." Roissy's post about misogynist killer George Sodini? "What’s wrong with this article? Nothing."And RamZpaul's How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization? "There are valid arguments supporting his claim. It’s not PC, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong." 

He even sort-of defends good old Henry Makow and his bizarre conspiracy theoryies:

Actually this is not so crazy. You don’t believe it, that’s fine, but show me why this is soooo unacceptable. He states lots of things: some of them obvious, some of them researchable. But it’s not so radical.

 The only people he doesn't defend? The Manhood Academy guys. Apparently saying horrible, horrible shit about women is perfectly acceptable in Deansdale's vision of the MRM, but saying horrible, horrible shit about women while also calling other MRAs "manginas," as the Manhood Academy guys do, is totally BEYOND THE PALE!!!

QuoteOTD: Hark! A Huntress Approaches!

Woman, thou art a temptress!

Oh, lordy. I don't think I've read anything this awfully, painfully, suckily overwritten since, well, ever. I present to you an excerpt from a book called Real Men Can Read Women Like a Book, by Corey Donaldson, some dude who fancies himself an expert on the whole lady-figuring-out thing:

For the beauty of the wrong woman, many men have let the song within them fade away as they meander among the living dead, having charred their soul and scorched the playful lyrics that once echoed through a vibrant smile.

I can only hope the book this guy is reading women like isn't his own. Here's more: 

For these men, the memory that once energized them with the promise and childlike hope for a future filled with romantic glee now flickers weakly in the distance, in a time when innocence had not yet been corrected.

And more:

There are women who pride themselves on their ability go out and hunt for sex from any man they want regardless of who she or he is already committed to ... These hunters are the shame of men, they are easy to identify and their future is predictably lonely as their faces literally crack like the bloody worn sole of a wrinkled old foot. They end up as old hags with sharply wounded faces of treachery spread out in the bitterness of their discontent.

Oh, ok, just one more:

These female hunters judge the short term results of their behavior as most desirable and delicious to the hell-bent bloodlust of their unquenchable taste for the chase of a man’s power.

Or for the taste of some ice cream. Everybody likes ice cream.

More excerpts here, on MarkyMark's Mens Rightsy blog. The web page for the book, here. Please do not buy it, as that will only encourage him.

Scary Man-sters and Super Creeps

Pablo Picasso had a way with the ladies.

"Well some people try to pick up girls, and get called assholes," the song goes. "This never happened to Pablo Picasso. He could walk down your street, and girls could not resist his stare. ... Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole." This is more or less true, even though, by almost every account, Picasso was pretty much a complete douchebag.

Life is unfair. Famous men can behave like utter boors and predators towards the opposite sex and get away with it, even win reputations as charming ladykillers. The rest of us, well, we make awkward passes and often get rejected; sometimes we even get called creeps. This makes some men bitter; a few even become Men's Rights Activists.

In a recent article on AlterNet, feminist sex blogger Clarisse Thorn offers a defense, of sorts, of men unfairly labelled "creeps." "Why Do We Demonize Men Who Are Honest About Their Sexual Needs?" the article's title asks, and it's not a bad question. Women are naturally, and quite justifiably, wary of the attention of strange men, who could easily turn out to be predators. "So it's completely understandable that we're all on high alert for predatory expressions of male sexuality," she writes. What this means is that perfectly decent guys are sometimes seen as creeps until proven innocent.

The pressure put on men to be initiators, yet avoid seeming creepy or aggressive leads to an unpleasant double bind. After all, the same gross cultural pressures that make women into objects force men into instigators. ... So how can a man express his sexual needs without being tarred as a creep?

Her solution? We need to "accept male desire" as natural and legitimate -- not something "toxic," or some kind of macho accomplishment:

Like everyone, men deserve to feel as though their sexuality is hot, awesome, delicious, valuable, and can be pleasurable for all parties in a consensual situation. Just as women shouldn't have to feel exploited when they have consensual sex, men shouldn't have to feel like they're exploiting someone when they have consensual sex.

It's hard to disagree with that. I worry, though, that many of the guys in Thorn's intended audience will only notice the bit about male sexuality being "hot, awesome, delicious and valuable," and miss her careful caveats about consent -- which she repeats three times in two sentences in an attempt to drive home the point. Unfortunately, as Amanda Marcotte puts it in a response to Thorn's piece: 

[O]ne thing creepy dudes all have in common is they only hear what they want to hear. So even though Clarisse actually writes, "It’s also incumbent upon us to honor each others’ boundaries," creepy dudes are going to hear, "See, this lady agrees with me that it’s perfectly fine for me to use 'pick-up artist' techniques to put women that are 15 years younger than me and who don’t want to talk to me in situations where they have trouble finding a polite way to escape conversation with me. And I’m entitled to be such a miserable fuckhead, because men are so oppressed because they don’t get to have sex with whoever they want whenever they want."

Looking through the comments Thorn's article got on AlterNet, Marcotte finds ample evidence of this kind of creepiness -- men with both a sense of entitlement and a massive amount of self-pity. That toxic attitude shows up as well in a comment from the perhaps aptly named "jackwripper" in a discussion of Thorn's piece in the Men's Rights subreddit on Reddit:

[W]hen the vast majority of men have to ask hundreds or thousands of women on dates, for sex, for a dance, to talk, just to get one positive response, then, as a man, you either go through life alone, or you proposition thousands of women.

Women as a group could fix this with one of two behavior changes. Women could initiate these encounters when they see a man they are attracted to... not REALLY hot, but attractive enough. ... The other behavior change women could adopt, would be to stop rejecting out of hand every man and every approach that is not an absolute perfect match. Men learn not to be very picky, maybe women need to learn not to be picky too. This statement also includes the women who men have to be less picky about. It is very strange how a female "3" can reject the advances of a male "7" because she is convinced she is a "9" and expects a male "10".

It's a bizarre and insidious sort of argument: Women need to start having sex with men they don't want to have sex with, because otherwise some men will have to go through life alone -- or, I guess, with "2s" who aren't too stuck up to go out with them. Why exactly is it women's job to "fix this?" Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Jackwripper's argument eerily echoes the logic of George Sodini, the bitter, dateless antifeminist asshole who shot 12 women in a health club last year because he felt young women had unfairly rejected him. And so it's perhaps not surprising that Sodini had his defenders in the MRA/pickup artist crowd. As one fan of Sodini put it in a comment at the time on a PUA blog popular with MRAs: 

I think every man DOES deserve to get laid. ... The problem is, our feminized society has given every woman the power to hold out for higher quality men than they deserve. This creates an imbalance that leads to tragedies like the one in PA. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (Newton’s 3rd Law) If empowered women keep applying pressure, they will create an explosion.

So, women, the message is clear: Date some losers, or someone is going to get shot.

No one "deserves" to get laid. If you're a creepy asshole who doesn't understand that any woman is allowed to turn you down for sex, for whatever reason she wants, however stupid it might seem to you, then you don't deserve shit.