Feminists And Game

A commenter by the name of dizzy (judging by the spittle she sounds like a maladjusted feminist battleaxe with a neurotic fear of masculine desire) attempted to downplay the effectiveness of game in response to this post.

The guys who wrote the “game” books capitalized on an early information disparity. But the market has adjusted. Now it’s pretty common knowledge among women that the guy who’s being all charming and cocky and maybe using a few “neg hits,” learned it all from a book. (Actually, the “neg hits” are the real tell). And we’re not… what you’d call… impressed.

She is woefully behind the times.  Neg Hits are a tiny part of the player’s arsenal and, in fact, have been supplanted by much more advanced tactics.  What’s important is the attitude behind the Neg Hit, not the specific words used.  The seduction material and techniques available to the average guy now are so vast not even a bitter cunt on the lookout for game would detect when it was being used on her.

What’s more, even girls who KNOW game is being run on them STILL FALL FOR IT!  I’ve had girls say to me “Some guy read my palm yesterday!  But I still want you to read mine.”  That is the Achille’s Heel in all women — they cannot control their attraction impulses anymore than men can, so when men say and do certain things designed to light up the sex centers of her brain she will respond to them positively.

Given this, the guys who are still buying the books will end up taking home: 1) The girl who is too dumb to know to protect herself (usually, funny enough, because she’s husband-hunting and all her friends gave her a copy of that “He’s Just Not That Into You,” book, so she thinks she’s got you on the hook).

Any man who runs this stuff in the field will tell you it’s often the more intelligent women who lap up the sexy vibes created by a skilled player.  Smart, educated girls LOVE the back and forth of shit testing and teasing.  More importantly, they love to BE LED because they are exactly the kind of women who lead others around all day at their soul-sucking corporate gigs.  They YEARN to feel FEMININE again because they get so little chance during their humdrum lives to feel that way, and a player who understands the basic polarity of men and women can offer her that experience. 

2) The girl who is just dumb.

Wishful thinking.  In reality, game is LEAST effective on the really dumb girls.  For them, it’s best to go caveman.  Stupid girls respond better to ham-fisted come-ons.

3) The girl who knows what you’re up to and subscribes to the school of “use him right back.”

Another numbnut who thinks women can be like men.  Revenge fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, women are not wired to enjoy the pursuit of pumping and dumping men.  The way a woman “uses” a man is to string him along in LJBF land with the faintest promise of sex while never actually delivering the goods.  But then, a guy who runs game and has ascended the ranks in the Order of the Player knows enough to avoid falling into that trap.

4) The girl who knows what you’re up to and hates herself enough to try to convince you to stay, just stay, with her, for the night…

Riiight.  Because, you know, every other girl I’ve slept with hated herself.  That’s the ticket!  I have a better theory.  Maybe they all fall for a guy with game because… Satan made them do it.  Has about as much evidence.

The truth is that there are very few girls who hate themselves.  They may be insecure about this or that physical flaw, but in the big picture their egos are impenetrable fortresses of self-regard.  They clearly outstrip men in the ego stakes.  Anyhow, sluts who sleep around for validation don’t require game to close.  Simply acting like an asshole with them will work.

So either you “win” against someone who’s not playing, someone who is, um, handicapped (all due respect to the disabled) in the dating competition, someone who is making a fool of you, or someone who is crazy.

Third prize: you’re fired!
You may wanna re-check your assumptions, Sparky.

Good job. You’re the man.

Soon you will call me master.

Now go back to gaining money and power in order to get laid, as god intended, and I’ll get back to the kitchen and start making your sam-mich.

There is no god.
Money is not necessary to get laid.
And you can’t make a sammich without my lunchmeat.





Comments


  1. Have you seen this video that shows just your point?- Pretty amazing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZzjExe0XsA

    Like


  2. “The truth is that there are very few girls who hate themselves. They may be insecure about this or that physical flaw, but in the big picture their egos are impenetrable fortresses of self-regard. They clearly outstrip men in the ego stakes. ”

    How women match up to men in the ego stakes, Roissy, I don’t know. I’ve met a good many men who struck me as being full of self-conceit, but who may not have been when in the company of their male friends. I do know that women, even beautiful ones, are not always, perhaps not even very often, the fortresses of self-regard that you imagine us to be.

    I don’t disagree that “game” works, now that I have a clearer picture of what you mean by it than I did when I first began to read your blog. I don’t even disagree with your other points in this post. But I do think you’re wrong about this issue. There are many women who, feeling low for whatever reason (temporarily or as a chronic condition), will accept the attention of an attractive gamester who flatters them, because they are momentarily too weak to resist, and are devastated when it turns out that the man had no real interest in them. Not to mention that there are some game-players who have a sadistic streak, and will work to humiliate their partners as much as possible.

    Like


  3. Hi Clio,

    If the gamer is good the target will not know she is being gamed. She will only know that she is talking to a really cool, charming, funny guy to whom she is powerfully attracted.

    The only “defense” (and frankly, I’m puzzled as to why so many women on this board feel they need to “defend” against having a good time) against this is to put up a bitch shield a mile high. But the best PUAs can penetrate that too.

    There is no defense, Clio.

    Azuzuru

    Like


  4. Wow, just watched the Mystery video. Incredible — that girl was radioactive with bitchiness.

    Like


  5. on November 22, 2007 at 7:07 pm Cynically yours

    “That is the Achille’s Heel in all women — they cannot control their attraction impulses anymore than men can…”

    They have tight clothes, makeup, shaved legs (and more), makeup, colored hair, pushup bras and breast implants, and we all know it. Even so.

    Like


  6. They have tight clothes, makeup, shaved legs (and more)

    It’s the “and more” part that sucks :(((

    Like


  7. Many women are amused when a guy hits on them obviously and openly, provided he does it in a non-hackneyed and non-psychotic way. Same thing with the modern day “hitting on” called game. Many women know perfectly well when some guy is running game on them, and they don’t need to have read the book or heard about it at all. What they care about is how well the gamester does it. I’ve hit on women way out of my league, and found many of them at first contemptuously amused by my presumption, then charmed by it, then finally acceding to it. I demonstrated the confidence they like in a man precisely by reaching beyond my grasp.

    So women don’t mind come-ons, dizzy notwithstanding. They just hate lousy ones. And they don’t need to be “feeling low for whatever reason” to be susceptible to game, either. They just need to be approached the right way, is all. Demonstrate value to her…and by gum, she just might value you back!

    Like


  8. and frankly, I’m puzzled as to why so many women on this board feel they need to “defend” against having a good time

    It hurts like hell if you actually thought you connected and then it turns out he can penetrate the minds of many others. This has, of course, never happened to me.

    Like


  9. Yes, Azuzuru, if a woman hopes she has really attracted a man in a more than physical way and discovers later that it was a game and he has no interest in her beyond that, it can be a devastating experience.

    I repeat myself, but it appears to be necessary.

    Is it really so hard to understand that some people want love as well as sex? And that it might be painful to get only the latter when you wanted the former as well?

    PatrickH, I didn’t say that women only accept come-ons when they feel bad. I said that not all women who accept come-ons are supremely self-confident, and then I gave an example of what I meant: the kind of woman who ordinarily avoids pick-ups, but then accepts one in a moment of unhappiness, and becomes even more unhappy as a result.

    Sigh. I wish I could convince the men at this website that women are human. It sometimes seems to be a hopeless task.

    Like


  10. what about true love? does it exist? has it ever?

    Like


  11. on November 22, 2007 at 9:35 pm Cynically yours

    “if a woman hopes she has really attracted a man in a more than physical way and discovers later that it was a game and he has no interest in her beyond that, it can be a devastating experience.”

    That sort of game runs both ways, but here we are but novices. So I don’t think of you that way but let’s stay friends. And oh, could I borrow your car?

    Like


  12. I wish I could convince the men at this website that women are human. It sometimes seems to be a hopeless task.

    Why engage in a fruitless task? Honestly, trying to convince men on this website of anything positive about women is like trying to convince a site with women who have been recently abused their spouses that men are great.

    Like


  13. Perhaps you’re right, Hope. I hadn’t thought that they were all entirely, er, hopeless, but I dunno.

    Like


  14. I have yet to delve in to the dating scene at any point in my life (having been in really long term relationships or just completely asexual for long stretches) but I can attest to the fact that thinking you made a real connection with a guy who was only interested in the manipulation involved with flirting/charming you for several months and getting a “taste” of you before moving on HURTS like HELL. It’s only happened to me once but I’ve already got my bitch guard ready to go.

    Sadly, I was aware of the game being run on me from the start because they were obvious but he definitely had a way with words which I liked and I found it amusing and completely let my guard down even as he told me his twisted bitter views on women as manipulative and deceitful. I thought how funny! Oh well.

    As much as it hurt – I still find the whole experience amusing. Some men can learn tricks, maybe even most men – but this guy was a natural born charmer – even at 5’5” and 5 years younger than me, although he easily scored significantly older and younger women too. He could score women as long as they gave him an opening despite their initial and strong height requirements….of course he would NEVER hit on a woman taller than him.

    The point is most weaker to great players can get outplayed but its the one’s born with natural charisma who can pretty much run roughshod over you at the slightest bit of weakness/opening – full hoisted bitch guards are necessary and an unfortunate reality even if most men aren’t trying to play you (although I think most are) and its unfortunate some decent men get charred trying to seek entry.

    Like


  15. [quote]I wish I could convince the men at this website that women are human. It sometimes seems to be a hopeless task.
    [/quote]

    Look, we have just come to the realization that the best way to get with a woman is to not place her on a pedestal. When women react, chemically, to aggression and misogyny, can you really blame us for our attitudes?

    Women should just realize that if they want commitment they should look for a beta. Alphas are, by nature, polygamist.

    Like


  16. Ok, ok, whatever you say. But it’s “Achilles’ heel.”

    Like


  17. on November 23, 2007 at 5:22 am mr. s. johnson

    The one point I think most women reading this site overlook is that the men here are precisely, for the most part, those self-same “decent guys” who got fried one two many times by women. What those circumstances were for each man here varies, but mark my words, I would bet it is a near universal experience for the men here. When these men retool and rearm and return to the dating fray, it is no surprise that they do so with an ultra-masculine intensity of purpose, because they have learned that, as John Smith put it, women react chemically to agression and misogyny.

    Additionally, remember that mercy is a feminine virtue. Men who are ultimately successful alphas have little time for it. The most successful spreader of seed in history was probably Genghis Khan…merciful is not the first word that suggests itself. He, when a leader was most unmerciful when he revenged himself upon a nation or city, for example, the destruction of the Khwarezmid Empire,whose leaders had killed his emissaries.

    Now, consider, that these men here have had their emissaries killed by women one too many times. These romantic fools tried to play the game the way women wanted–poems, protestations of love,etc.–and got nothing but humiliation. The weak among them broke…but the strong…the strong reforged themselves and decided to win what they sought..by any means necessary.

    Whether conquering cities or women’s virtue, the attitude is the same. If a man remakes himself into the sort of man who can win a city or bed a thousand women you have to expect this casual cruelty; and should you wish to stand against a Genghis, your best option is simply to avoid crossing his path.

    Like


  18. mr s. johnson, many of the things you name are in fact also adaptive survival strategies, according to the people who are knowledgeable about such matters. Steve Sailer certainly includes poetry, art, music, and verbal eloquence in general as skills men have mastered in order to win women’s love.

    Nor do women appreciate aggression and misogyny as such. Channeled aggression can be attractive; unchanneled aggression – the kind that erupts in nastiness or even violence towards others – rarely is, except to women who have emotional problems of their own, or who live in a setting where such qualities are useful (e.g. women who grow up in the ghettos of large cities.) Open misogyny is never attractive to any but really disturbed women. Unfortunately, it sometimes happens that men who seemed sweet-natured and good, along with the alpha’s quotient of male swagger, also turn out to be misogynists.

    I will remind you that Genghis Khan didn’t have “game”: he could rape with impunity instead. The question of whether women were attracted to him for his aggression is one he hardly needed to consider. The idea that anyone who is not a warrior of the Khan type is a beta is simply mistaken. I don’t suppose Mick Jagger was ever much good in a fight, but he seems to have done quite well with beautiful women.

    Jagger is of course also a polygamist. In general, however, I don’t think that polygamy is a universal alpha male trait – unless, like Roissy, you insist on defining alphaness as polygamy from the start. But I’ve known many successful men who were, as far as I could tell, faithful husbands married to pretty wives.

    Like


  19. I like Genghis Khan’s kind of game, very efficient. No time wasted on the attraction part.

    Like


  20. “I like Genghis Khan’s kind of game, very efficient. No time wasted on the attraction part.”
    Actually, that’s called rape. A rather effective approach, although such tactics would land you in jail nowadays.

    Like


  21. Jagger is of course also a polygamist. In general, however, I don’t think that polygamy is a universal alpha male trait – unless, like Roissy, you insist on defining alphaness as polygamy from the start. But I’ve known many successful men who were, as far as I could tell, faithful husbands married to pretty wives.
    Actually, I think a lot of men would be polygamous if we could get away with it. Exactly what an alpha male is varies from time to time, of course, but you never see scientists (or their ancient or medieval analogs) with multiple conquests.

    Like


  22. Roissy: “Revenge fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, women are not wired to enjoy the pursuit of pumping and dumping men.”

    Women don’t do it in quite the same numbers as men, but it’s certainly not rare.

    Or did I misunderstand your use of the term “pump and dump”? I interpreted it as “have a one-night stand with no intent to have a relationship” – correct me if I am wrong.

    Dizzy: “So either you “win” against someone who’s not playing, someone who is, um, handicapped (all due respect to the disabled) in the dating competition, someone who is making a fool of you, or someone who is crazy.”

    Why so negative? Usually when two people have a one-night stand with each other, they don’t think of it as making a fool of each other. They think about it as having a good time.

    alias clio: “Is it really so hard to understand that some people want love as well as sex? And that it might be painful to get only the latter when you wanted the former as well?”

    No, not at all. It’s just hard to understand why one would want or expect love from someone one has just met and had sex with. IMO love is something that develops over time and requires knowing a person quite well.

    A lot of people seem to imagine that love can somehow magically appear out of a sex act, or several. Probably it can, too, for some people, but for a lot of people it cannot, and I think it would be good if everybody understood it. It’s very disturbing when you have sex with somebody to whom you have explained that it’s just for fun, and they still expect love and romance afterwards.

    Like


  23. Vera, , I agree that women and men should not expect, and that few do expect, love to result from a one-night stand. I wrote what I did because I wasn’t sure if “pump and dump” actually means “one night stand” in Roissy’s terminology. From what I’ve understood, any intimate heterosexual relationship short of marriage that is ended by the man is a “pump and dump”. It’s in those situations where a longer connection had been established that someone who had expected more than a fling is likely to be hurt.

    As for explaining that it’s “just for fun”, many people are deliberately misleading about this element of the game. If seducing a particular partner requires the pretense that one is interested in more than a fling, there are many men (and perhaps women, but I don’t meet them) who are willing to do so.

    Like


  24. its the one’s born with natural charisma who can pretty much run roughshod over you at the slightest bit of weakness/opening

    the best is when they don’t even know they’re doing it!

    Like


  25. Honestly, trying to convince men on this website of anything positive about women is like trying to convince a site with women who have been recently abused their spouses that men are great.

    Or trying to convince me that shaved women are better.

    Like


  26. Steve Sailer certainly includes poetry, art, music, and verbal eloquence in general as skills men have mastered in order to win women’s love.

    Artists, musicians, actors and other artsy-type men usually do pretty well with women. Writers might be an exception, as they tend to be quite introverted.

    Like


  27. wow ladies, cant we just fuck and be friends?

    heres the new jam of the month:
    http://www.zshare.net/audio/428047770b4329/

    listen to the lyrics.

    Like


  28. on November 23, 2007 at 6:19 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    “…but this guy was a natural born charmer – even at 5′5” and 5 years younger than me…”

    Someone alert David Alexander about this!

    Like


  29. [quote]Clio said: “As for explaining that it’s “just for fun”, many people are deliberately misleading about this element of the game. If seducing a particular partner requires the pretense that one is interested in more than a fling, there are many men (and perhaps women, but I don’t meet them) who are willing to do so.”[/quote]

    If I meet a girl, we have a great time and we go home and have sex but a monogamous relationship doesn’t develop, how is that misleading her? I didn’t say “Oh honey, sleep with me now then let’s get married and grow old together.” She jumped into bed with me willingly.

    Of course, you have a point if you believe in the sexual revolution was a mistake and that a woman’s vagina should be ravaged only by a man with a batch of roses, professoins of undying love and fistful of poems. But believing that requires you also embrace some other very un-PC notions, e.g. women need to be “protected” from men because they are inherently weaker.

    Like


  30. Azuzuru, I don’t know how it’s possible for you to keep misunderstanding me this way. I can’t believe I’m being that unclear! I wasn’t describing the kind of situation you indicate at all. I DIDN’T mean one-night stands. I know I spoke of pick-ups in one comment in this thread; I meant
    the kind where the original encounter might be casual but then it goes on for weeks or months, until one of the parties comes to believe it might mean something.

    Besides, there are men who are malevolent enough to pursue a woman over a long period of time, only to tell her, once she finally says yes to some kind of intimacy, that they always hated her, or were just using her. I’m talking John Malkovich’s character in Dangerous Liaisons here (to give you a pop culture reference). And this kind of behaviour is commoner than you might think among men – perhaps women do it too, but I wouldn’t know because I don’t hear as many stories from men, being a woman myself.

    As for your references to un-PC notions, my dear man, you’re talking to the wrong female. I’m a conservative Catholic. I post comments here in the hope of catching a bit of insight into modern male attitudes to women. It’s not a very encouraging spectacle.

    Like


  31. on November 23, 2007 at 8:09 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    Getting back to the original post, someone needs to inform our feminist friend Dizzy that feminists are responsible for creating the whole situation where men need to “game” women.

    The sexual revolution basically ruined dating for pleasure and allowed Alphas to behave like Mormons on steroids. Then the infusion of women in the workplace (and the many set-asides for them) meant men had less capital in relation to women, so had to make themselves “hyper masculine” by use of the above tactics. Manners became passe when women began to cuss like sailors and women now had money. Hence, “the game.”

    Meanwhile, in universities, hate speech towards men was being taught under the guide of “women’s studies” (a non-scientific look at humans based on conjecture by misanthropes and guilty liberals). Men of the 1970s and 1980s swallowed the whole “all men are rapists” party line. But when the internet and talk radio emerged and networks (such as this one) were formed, a MASSIVE backlash occurred. Hence, a lot of men are angry as being portrayed as “evil,” when they’re the ones doing all the life-risking jobs and getting screwed with divorces and unfair paternity crap.

    The final nails in the coffin were the sexual harrassment and “hostile work enviornment” laws passed in 1986. Because of these laws, fewer women get asked out by men who they have worked alongisde — men who they have observed to be trusting, hard-working, honest, etc. This was historically the way men and women men (“The Philadelphia Story”). Now women need to hit the bar and club scene to meet men, and have no context in which to judge said men, so they wind up getting gamed.

    Bravo feminists! The laws of unintended consequences in action!

    Like


  32. It may surprise you that I agree with you, DoBA, more or less. Or perhaps not, now that you’ve had a look at my blog. I don’t think feminism itself can be held entirely responsible for the “sexual revolution”, though. Other things – the influx of women into coed universities, the automobile, WWII, and the Pill, in that order – all of which predate the “Women’s Lib” movement of the early 1970s – had a powerful influence on changing sexual mores as well.

    Coed universities allowed the young to meet when not under the watchful eyes of their parents. The car gave them a place to go where student “parietals”, the rules which prevented men from visiting women’s dorms, did not restrict opportunity. The War led many more young women and their parents to relax their traditional rules, as young men (and some women’s corps) faced imminent death. In Europe, of course, the sexes faced an equal threat of death, depending on where they lived and their occupations. In 1961, the Pill first appeared on the market, and made it possible to engage in sexual relations with less risk, thus leading to the sexual revolution.

    All these elements increased men’s ability to find sexually willing women throughout the first 60 years of the 20th century, in some cases decades before “second wave” feminism hit in the early 1970s. The rather stodgy NOW (National Organization for Women), an early manifestation of second wave feminism, was only founded in 1966.

    Sigh, again. I don’t know why I bother with this stuff; will any Roissy-readers read it? Still, you never know.

    Like


  33. Roissy,

    Not good with dissent, are we? A commenter happens to disagree with you and be female, and she is a maladjusted battle-axe?

    Come on. The words she wrote are measured—are you incapable of disagreeing with a woman online by using logic? Are your arguments so weak that you have to resort to name-calling and hand-waving? Those, of course, are techniques that only work on those who are already convinced, or those who are otherwise not thinking critically about your argument.

    I agree with dizzy. What she is basically saying is that game won’t help you get a woman who you wouldn’t otherwise get, unless that woman is very weak-willed. It goes both ways, the same is true for picking up men.

    Why does it bother you guys so much to think that the woman you pick up might actually *want* you? Why is sex something that has to be tricked out of women?

    Don’t you men think you deserve women who will acknowledge they desire you, even if you say something stupid? My women friends with game have told me that once they decide they are attracted to a man, they silently cross their fingers and hope to God he doesn’t say something so stupid or offensive that they can’t justify taking him home that night.

    Men and women both know when we are being flattered—it isn’t just members of the opposite sex seeking sex that engage in that ploy—it is any other human being that wants something from us. This goes equally well for the charmer at the bar or the crack salesman. Many of us know we’re being gamed, but if the attraction is strong enough, and we don’t find the game offensive, we will play along anyways.

    For the most part, when you succeed, it is because we are either attracted to you, or very, very foolish. I think the reason why these strategies work so well for men is that many of you are so afraid of rejection based on past experiences that having strategies helps you step up to the plate and swing. It is like dumbo’s feather. You can’t trick us into having sex, but if you approach us at all, and if you don’t make any of those fatal errors that prevent us from taking you home, you’re going to do well. Not because your way is the best way, but because your way is better than not having a plan at all and rushing headlong into adoration or poetry or flower giving.

    That is the part I like about the whole PUA movement, that you guys teach eachother how to regain confidence and go back into the breach. That’s what any good friend does to help someone who they know is repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot with the opposite sex.

    What really bothers me about you guys is the woman-hate. If you saw getting a woman’s attention as the exception, rather than the rule, as a measure of accomplishment, rather than something you were entitled to, what you did would still be pretty impressive.

    But instead, you write off many of us as “bitches” not because we have some inflated sense of self-worth, as you posit, but because we recognize the game and don’t want to play. I know what I want from a man, and it takes me more than one night at a bar to figure out if we are a good match for eachother. Those who aren’t, aren’t necessarily betas or bad guys, they just don’t give me what I need. Or I don’t give them what they need.

    I don’t think any of you are bad people for wanting to have casual sex with lots of attractive women. I do think that wanting to fuck someone who you feel contempt for is really disturbing. And I don’t find it any less disturbing when it occurs in a long-term relationship than when it occurs in a one night stand.

    God, I need sleep.

    And DoBA, you should really talk to someone who dated in the fifties before you complain about the pressure put on men in the dating scene. I also can’t understand why you are bitching about the sexual revolution. Hello! That and birth control are why more women are willing to have sex outside of marriage.

    Like


  34. M Bradwell, I both agree and disagree with your comment. I agree that it’s disturbing that so many men who post here think they have to “trick” a woman into having sexual relations; I also agree that it’s disturbing that they want to, er, f*** women for whom they feel contempt. (Although there I think you have it the wrong way around; in fact, many men who post here regularly feel contempt for the women they f***. I feel absurdly prudish writing that word in stars on a blog like this, but hey, it’s my nature.)

    What I don’t think you take into account is that it’s the sexual revolution, or rather, certain aspects of it, that has made so many men angry in this fashion. There I think DoBA is right: “The sexual revolution basically ruined dating for pleasure and allowed Alphas to behave like Mormons on steroids.” What I think he means here is that the sexual revolution made it possible (necessary?) to contemplate having sex before either party had any real knowledge of the other, and it made it possible for men who were aggressively self-confident, sexually speaking, to take all the prizes, i.e. the pretty young women, that they wanted, because they were the ones who had the courage (and indifference) necessary to risk repeated rejection in the dating game. Before sex became “casual”, it wasn’t so essential for men to be self-confident to approach women, because there was some ambiguity in the relationship. When a man asked a woman out on a “date”, he could pretend that all he really wanted was a charming dinner companion.

    On the other hand, what I think DoBA doesn’t take into account is that dating itself was a part of the sexual revolution. For most of recorded history, no parents who hoped to retain their status in their community would allow their daughters to be alone with a man. Period. Those whose circumstances forced them to permit their daughters some freedom of movement (e.g. they were poor; their daughters had to work for a living) worried about it continually. I’m not sure when young women of marriageable age were first allowed to go on dates alone with men, but I don’t think it happened until the first “sexual revolution”, in the 1920s. Perhaps the loss of so many young men in WWI had made parents less anxious about their daughters’ virtue, and more worried about their ever marrying at all. And even then, the men’s fear of pregnancy and shot-gun weddings must have kept most of the wome semi-safe.

    Like


  35. “For the most part, when you succeed, it is because we are either attracted to you, or very, very foolish. I think the reason why these strategies work so well for men is that many of you are so afraid of rejection based on past experiences that having strategies helps you step up to the plate and swing.”

    This is not why these strategies work. Models like the mystery method work because they have a theoretical grounding in evolutionary psychology and are extensively field tested.

    Men and women evince distinct mating preferences. Men for the large part are attracted to beautiful women because beauty is an indicator of health and fertility. Traditionally, women have easily figured out how to exploit this and have acted accordingly.

    Men are just now figuring out what women’s evolutionary preferences are and have only begun to develop techniques to convey these characteristics in as short a period of time and as efficiently as possible. That’s no more manipulative than what women have always done. It’s just that now the shoe is on the other foot.

    Like


  36. I think it’s fair if good people are now on an equal footing with women compared to traditional alpha male football players and drug dealers.

    The problem that most of you (who criticize us as women hating) have yet to address is that women are attracted, on a fundamental level, to men who don’t care to much about women. To the women, their priority is getting the seed of a dominant male. That’s it.

    Like


  37. Hi Clio,

    I must admit, I enjoy reading your carefully constructed and thought-out posts. Smart women turn me on :-D.

    Several women here make good points about the misogynistic drift of this board. I agree with them. This board often serves as an outlet for vitriolic spasms directed at lovely, sweet women and sometimes men. It’s unhealthy and destructive for both sexes to have a hostile and antagonistic attitude toward each other.

    I think I understand the misogyny because years ago I used to feel that way too. I was taught always to be a “gentleman” and treat the woman with “respect” and deference. A “nice guy,” I struck out again and again. Meanwhile, I saw the lovely women I wanted giving themselves to guys who used and abused them. It grinds a man down, ladies. “Well, f-ing bitches deserve it” became my default (and unhealthy) internal state regarding women.

    Then I began to learn the game. At first I learned on my own through trial and error and sheer willpower. I had some success. Then I discovered the Community and made quantum leaps in my progress. Women are no longer a problem for me — I can meet them anytime, anywhere I want. I know how to talk to them in a way that engages them and is fun for both of us. I know how to escalate smoothly and get them into bed. This is not a robotic program I’ve learned, ladies — it’s a function of understanding women better and expressing my unique personality in ways that hit into women’s attraction switches. It’s a win-win — they like it, and I’m getting a lot more action.

    I also learned the reasons why so many otherwise smart and lovely women date assholes. It’s because behavior that is corellated with asshole-ness — indifference, aloofness, sexual confidence, etc. — is the same behavior that triggers women’s evolutionary attraction switches. But here’s the fun bit — men can can learn to emulate these behaviors and pull the attraction switches without being an asshole.

    Over time I realized that it’s not women’s fault they are the way they are. It’s just evolution or nature or whatever. Call it unfair if you want, it’s just reality. Blaming and hating women is like hating a rose because it has thorns. Is it the rose’s fault? No. And it doesn’t make the rose any less lovely or special.

    My advice to the misogynists here is to let go of the hate and bitterness. Learn the game. Embrace and celebrate women for the lovely (if sometimes frustrating ;-)) creatures they are. You will be happier for it.

    Love,
    Azuzuru

    Like


  38. Azuzuru, you write about “striking out” in the days when you were a nice guy. I think I know what you mean – but I wonder if being too “nice” was your real problem in attracting women. Isn’t it possible that you just needed a little experience and seasoning under your belt? I’m a (bad but faithful) Catholic, so I can’t support game for its own sake. I do know, however, that it takes time and training to make a confident, masculine man. Most young men of today’s generation don’t have either of these graces.

    I’m certain that to men it looks as if attractive women never have to suffer these problems. But – do you know what it takes for women to learn to present themselves in a way that makes them attractive? There’s as much work in it for us as there is for you.

    Men are more vulnerable to, and less aware of, the tricks of the attraction game in women, than they think they are. A slight change of hairstyle, dress, or just the right eyeliner (believe it or not), can make a difference between a woman men like to look at (and more, alas), and one whom they don’t even see. Really.

    Like


  39. To M Bradwell,

    I think you are judging game by its worst practitioners in the pick-up community. The people who write misogynistic comments on message boards are probably the bottom of the barrel in the community. And there are a lot of sickos in the community. Having been in the community for about three years, I can say that there are some truly messed-up guys. And the most messed-up guys in the community do give off a weird vibe that girls immediately pick up on. That isn’t to say that those guys don’t get laid but when they do, it’s often by alcoholic, equally messed-up girls. Big surprise, a certain percentage of girls at a bar on a given night are dysfunctional alcoholics.

    I think there are plenty of guys in the community who know that woman have to be attracted in the first place and that guys can’t create attraction out of nothing. Lance Mason, the owner of Pick-up 101, says something like “attraction either is there or is almost impossible to create.” A lot of game is being able to showcase your attractive qualities in the first impression, read attraction signals, and manage a group so that you can game girls who are already attracted. This isn’t to say that there aren’t guys who think they can get attraction from a girl if they keep her in conversation long enough.

    Anyway, I’ll try to take a stab at what I think Roissy found so infuriating in the original comment. It’s the implication that the girl who falls for game isn’t as good as the girl who doesn’t. So she’s telling the community guy that even though he’s getting laid (after perhaps years of failure) that the girl he’s getting it on with is flawed. Things can be pretty dire for guys. A six month long dry spell is not at all unusual for guys who have some game and a pretty together life. So think about guys who had to join the community. It’s just not nice for feminists (who may not even like men and who aren’t comfortable with masculine desire) to beat up on guys who had to find the community to have successful with women. And dizzy is also being demeaning to the women which really calls dizzy’s feminism into question.

    Perhaps Roissy has seen dizzy’s attitude form girls in real life and is reading between the lines. So far I’ve seen this attitude from bitter, messed up girls who never wanted my affection and who I’ve stopped bothering with since I’ve learned game. Such girls resent the fact that guys are chasing girls who are, get this, pleasant to be around, like men in general, and are actually interested in them in particular. If the girls are young and attractive, that’s even worse.

    Like


  40. on November 24, 2007 at 7:42 am Days of Broken Arrows

    Clio,

    Second wave feminism is usually dated back to 1963, not the early 1970s. 1963 is when Betty Friedan published “The Feminine Mystique,” which had an immediate impact. I was just talking to a 60-something UPenn grad who told me she was required to wear some sort of uniform when she graduated in the early 1960s; when she returned circa ’66, women were running wild, so to speak.

    The big explosion of feminism in the media happened circa 1970, and thus things like the pill were allowed to go from the sidelines into the mainstream. And while most of “recorded history” doesn’t include dating, my frame of reference is 20th century America.

    However, keep in mind that at least up till around 1990, guys were still expected to take women on dates. That’s when I saw drastic changes occur and this is where problems started occurring for me and other guys. Guys who genuinely enjoyed women’s company on dates were now dismissed as “beta losers” by women (and men) because a different culture had arisen. I used to call it the Beastie Boys culture.

    I come by this POV because, like Azuzuru, I got burned repeatedly because I “treated people the way I wanted to be treated.” This, to a large degree, stopped working for men — I largely blame feminism, but I’m sure economics and the waning influence of religion played a part.

    Anyway, I was able to sidestep the whole thing because I took to older women, long before anyone had ever coined the phrase “cougar!!”

    Like


  41. I’ve never understood dating the dawn of second-wave feminism back to the early 1960s, which is actually a rather recent phenomenon. (I’ve had to teach this stuff; I’ve watched the “debate” change over the last 15 years.) What impact did The Feminine Mystique, or feminism itself, have until the 1970s? Very little, until the new feminists of the early 1970s began to use the term “Women’s Liberation”. And they did – it wasn’t just a media coinage, as some people believe. Its use grew out of the movement’s supposed analogy to the liberation movements of the 1960s, which hadn’t been very kind to women. But yes, you’re right; these days historians of popular culture date the second wave back to 1963.

    Dating was already a dying phenomenon when I first went to university in the early 1980s. One reason why I and women like me have so much trouble establishing “relationships” is that we flatly refuse to hang out in bars trolling for pick-ups, so the change has had unfortunate consequences for women, too.

    Like


  42. roissy, in all your conquests, you’ve never encountered a woman of having detached, sex for-the-sake-of-sex sex???

    of course women want to be seduced. what’s the fun in rolling over and just spreading them? and most male/female relationships haven’t evolved from the second grade (ie giving her a note that says ‘i think you’re cute’).

    Like


  43. on November 24, 2007 at 3:37 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    Just to augment what Clio left unsaid, it all went downhill when they closed down the malt shops, The Four Aces stopped having hits, and guys stopped escorting their “best gal” to the ice cream socials.

    I blame Buddy Holly’s plane crash. It was all downhill from there, really. He was the ginchiest.

    Like


  44. I always considered myself fairly good at reading Roissy in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way, but the misogyny here is starting to get to me. He appears to dismiss dizzy’s whole argument simply because she is female and disagrees with him. Considering that he claims to devote his time to studying female behaviour you would think he would attempt to learn from their criticisms of his game, but instead he resorts to name calling- “feminist battleaxe” and “bitter cunt” spring to mind- and assumes that he understands the female brain [i]better than women themselves[/i].
    “The truth is that there are very few girls who hate themselves. They may be insecure about this or that physical flaw, but in the big picture their egos are impenetrable fortresses of self-regard.”
    What gives you the authority to contradict dizzy here, Roissy? You assume that you can understand better than a woman the kind of private insecurities which cannot be understood unless experienced. The majority of women battle with deep seated insecurities in their relationships with men. That is why game works. Cockiness, cruel humour and indifference from a man aggravate these insecurities. Cockiness makes the woman assume the man is somehow better than herself, humour encourages her to fit in with his point of view to avoid the joke being turned on her (as you did with dizzy) and indifference makes it necessary for her to perform in order to get his attention. All these things lead to the woman taking a submissive role and putting out. A woman doesn’t have to be some kind of approval seeking fuck-up for this to work on her. Everyone is insecure somehow and game brings it out. The only way that women will put out quickly other than insecurity is if they can sleep around without attachment. Oh but wait- “women are not wired to enjoy the pursuit of pumping and dumping men”. If you assume this is true, you therefore assume that every women you sleep with falls hopelessly in love with you and feels intense pain when you leave her for her hotter, sexier rival. If your theories on women are correct, you have based your entire sexual life around causing women humiliation and pain. Congratulations, you big brave alpha male you.

    Like


  45. on November 24, 2007 at 5:07 pm Gunslingergregi

    Take away the laws that make woman more powerfull than men and the shit will change.

    Like


  46. Done.

    Like


  47. Feminism, or the sexual revolution, is the unattractive woman’s revenge. When feminism moved away from advocating voting rights and rape victims but into the world of normal relationships was when it became the rejected woman’s ultimate vengeance. The vitriol that betas feel toward the most arrogantly good-looking women is multiplied by a hundredfold in a woman whom men did not even notice. I empathize with their pain even as I recoil at the carnage created by this monstrosity.

    When youth and beauty were prized above a woman’s intelligence and other abilities, a plain girl could expect to get nowhere. She might have been perpetually stuck as a poor old maid, envious of the gorgeous girls who graced the arms of successful men. Indeed, unless she was born to or married into a wealthy family, a truly ugly girl was doomed just as the “omegas” of the male persuasion.

    A slight change of hairstyle, dress, or just the right eyeliner (believe it or not), can make a difference between a woman men like to look at (and more, alas), and one whom they don’t even see.

    Some women are perpetually at a loss for making themselves more attractive. They might express no interest in making themselves more sexually attractive men — or if they do, they fail miserably at the attempt. They were somehow wired not for dressing up but for scholastic or professional pursuits. A lot of them, including numerous women in the women’s lib movement, were lesbians.

    Guys who genuinely enjoyed women’s company on dates were now dismissed as “beta losers” by women (and men) because a different culture had arisen.

    Those women who were dismissed as “hideous cows” by men (and women) can now become wealthy careerists, post-feminism. The rise of the “sugar mommy” who can afford to purchase the companionship of good-looking men attests to this. Sexual harassment is simply a natural extension of their power to keep young, attractive women at bay, submissive to not only men, but also powerful women. Equality was never the name of the game. It was equal opportunity — and the women who once could get nowhere, could now, with utter ruthlessness and unabashed masculine abandon, rise to the top.

    The bonus for the women who could not attract male attention with their looks? Beautiful but dumb-witted women believe they can emulate this behavior, and continuously aim for the best, wasting away their most attractive years. Betas now could no longer woo attractive women whom they could previously, because the status of womanhood has been elevated. Women who are “below average,” whom even the bottom-feeding betas did not glance at, now relish the attention of any man for whom she cares to open her legs.

    Neither misandry nor misogyny could have anticipated this kind of equal opportunity. The price of sex has never been so high, or so low.

    Like


  48. P.S. True story: a friend of a friend went out on a date with a girl, and saw that she had $30,000,000+ in the bank when she went to the ATM.

    Viva la revolución.

    Like


  49. Hope, I don’t know about what you’re saying in #47. As I think I’ve mentioned here before, for much of human history, it was parents who arranged marriages, regardless of their children’s emotional and sexual preferences. In much of the world today, that’s still commonplace. Where arranged marriage is the rule, plain women stand as much of a chance as pretty ones do, as parents tend to choose marital partners based on things like rank, money, possible business opportunities, and the like.

    Even in the United States, as recently as the 1950s, social status played as much of a part as sexual attraction in the mating game. Thus a Jack Kennedy could sleep with hundreds of pretty (or not-so-pretty) women, but marry only one whose background and social standing were a match for his own, not the one whom he found most attractive. Another issue: back when a majority (though by no means all) of women tried to remain virgins before marriage, men who wanted someone to have sex with had to take whoever was available and willing. I remember reading in a biography of Lillian Hellman, the playwright, a plain but smart woman, that she was sexually aggressive at a time when women almost never were, “and she cleaned up”, I think the biographer’s source said.

    I really think that in the present sexual-social system, pretty women have more of an advantage than they used to, because in the world of quick pick-ups, they are the most obviously appealing, and because far fewer people take social position, religious affiliation, and ethnic similarities into account when they choose a mate than they once did.

    It’s true that today women are able to get rich on their own if they have the right abilities, and if not rich, at least self-supporting. But there still aren’t that many women who are willing to buy sexual companionship; it’s too un-erotic for most women, since women usually need to know that they’re wanted by a man in order to feel aroused by him.

    Like


  50. I would love to meet one person you went to high school with. Then we could distinguish between when you were a loser that didn’t get laid, and when you were a loser that did get laid.

    Like


  51. You talking to me, anonymous?

    If so, what makes you think I’m a “loser”?

    Like


  52. on November 25, 2007 at 9:41 am Days of Broken Arrows

    Clio, the Anonymous post seems directed at Roissy. If someone’s gonna pick on you here, it will be me, and I try to do it with some panache.

    So how’s the “conservative Catholicism” thing workin’ for you anyway? Hehe.

    Like


  53. Days, your comments above (40) were brilliant and lucid and dead-on…and theb you had to go and spoil it all by saying you go after older women as a substitute for the lack of response you get from the younger set! I think Roissy would agree here, that this is the worst of cop-outs. Unless you have a personal thang for older women (in which case you’re forgiven), you shouldn’t let this serve as some kind of substitute for what you’re most attracted to. If you do, then you are worse than a mere beta, you’re a defeated beta male, a.k.a. a loser. I want to believe that a person who can write such brilliant observations is not a loser who trolls for 45 year-old women becaise you’ve accepted the fact that all the cute 20-25 year-olds have defeated you.

    Like


  54. Ha. I do it out of conviction, not because I find it easy. What a question to ask on a blog like this! But then the real question is, what’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this? Answer: Roissy often makes me think, “oh gross!” but then, sometimes, I laugh.

    Besides, I think you all need to be reminded that there are other ways to look at the world, and by someone who isn’t an Angry Young Feminist…

    Like


  55. Men – you started out as nice guys, were burned, and now adopt the ‘kill or be killed’ countenance wherein only victory matters?

    There’s a lot of space between Dick Van Dyke (boring?) and the Beasty Boys (too crude?).

    Like


  56. Does anyone know where I can find some more in-the-field videos like the first commenter posted? It is one thing to read how these PUAs work their magic, and quite another to see it live.

    Thanks in advance.

    gburdell — at — gmail — dot — com

    Like


  57. Hope, I don’t know about what you’re saying in #47.

    You don’t know how to appreciate a good conspiracy theory. 😉

    Like


  58. Hope,

    You’re absolutely right. Ashley Judd became much less hot when she became a feminist.

    Plus, the only unachieved goal of modern feminism is that we wimmens need a network as good as Spike. What the eff is this Lifetime crap (apologies to alias clio for the profanity)? Mother may I sleep with danger? WTF? Well, honey, I thought your father and I had raised you better than that, but if you must, use a prophylactic and let’s run down to the range for a refresher, shall we?

    Like


  59. Hi Jane,

    Yes, there’s a lot of space between Dick van Dyke and The Beastie Boys. Ditto for pickup.

    Like any discipline, the pickup community has many “schools.” Some emphasize robotic “routines” and canned material. Others emphasize working on building inner confidence. There are also a full range of individuals that apply their teachings in different ways. Pickup is as diverse as the individuals in it, which means pretty gosh darn diverse.

    Some guys are fueled by bitterness created by their past experiences with women. Many of them are out for “revenge” (rather pointless in my view). They are quite miserable people — how can harming others bring happiness? It can’t.

    This behavior is frowned upon by many in the community. I know this sounds hokey, but at its core, pickup is all about self improvement, believing in yourself and learning to achieve your goals. It’s about making your life and the lives of those around you brighter. That includes treating women with respect as you game them (contrary to the beliefs of many ladies on this board, the two are not mutually exclusive at all — in fact, done properly they complement each other).

    The pickup gurus I admire — Sebastian Drake, Sean Messenger — teach respect for and love of women. They teach never to “neg hit.” Instead they preach that it’s better to reward a woman for her good qualities and get her feeling good. If she feels good when she’s around you and not only do you add value to her life, but you get her into bed a whole lot quicker.

    The following is from a post on Sean Messenger’s site. It captures his philosophy pretty well:

    “from March 2006.

    Being in love with a great chick has made me much gentler, more generous, more playful, sexier, more mischevious, everything. It makes me see every single day what things really do make women fully bloom, and it has absolutely made me a much better pickup artist.

    It also has significantly lowered my patience for guys who use any kind of mind games or ploys to work a girl’s self-esteem in order to have sex with them. I now feel much more protective of girls, and want to keep teaching guys so that girls everywhere will have better dates to choose from. My chick tells me that after we break up, she’s going to call me for recommendations, because she refuses now to date anyone who hasn’t learned from me so she knows that he knows what he’s doing.

    As for styles, all the instructors have very different personalities and approaches, but there are some core things we have in common that don’t necessarily mesh with other pickup theories.

    1) We truly love women and really do think everything they do is cute. No drama, no stress

    2) Having fun is more important than looking cool

    3) Attraction either happens right away, or not at all

    4) It’s not attraction, but connection, that enables a woman to enjoy her sexuality with you

    5) Always, always, always protect her emotions and her social status. Never do anything to embarrass your woman, even if it’s just a one-night stand ”

    Love,
    Azuzuru

    Like


  60. on November 26, 2007 at 11:09 am Days of Broken Arrows

    Joe T said: “Days, your comments above (40) were brilliant and lucid and dead-on…and theb you had to go and spoil it all by saying you go after older women as a substitute for the lack of response you get from the younger set!”

    Um…I did this like 15 years ago when I was very young. It worked for me. I make no apologies — I come from a different set of circumstances and never wanted a “family” and kids, and all that American apple pie crap.

    Younger women got on my nerves. I was career-oriented and already writing for a newspaper professionally by age 20. I had no time for fucking Bon Jovi big hair bullshit. The fact is, that I was just plain old attracted to older women more — women I worked iwht, my ex’s mom, etc.. Some guys like Hispanic women — I liked ’em older. Why does this make me a loser? I found something I didn’t like and was able to succeed with something that turned me on. I consider this success.

    Like


  61. So true that the girls who are aware of “the game” fall for it the hardest.

    Like


  62. You guys just aren’t getting it.

    I’m going to give away the big secret here – this is the trick:

    THE TRICK IS THERE IS NO TRICK. There is no man behind the curtain. What you see is what you get. Any PUA worth his salt knows that “game” is learning how to chip away all the bullshit from yourself, like Michelangelo bringing David to the surface from a slab of marble.

    Yes, there are a lot of scripted routines out there. But the idea behind the routines is that you start out using them for only a few months, and then replace them with stories of your own. The routines are only examples of the format a PUA should use when telling stories about himself. The idea is to “fake it until you make it”.

    I love how these keyboard jockeys tell us that “this stuff only works on drunk sluts”. I concur with Roissy that this is not what we encounter “in the field”. In fact, the more sober and intelligent the woman is, the better it works. When I do run a routine these days, I tell the woman “Hey, this is a fun routine I learned” and then run it, and they love it. Because in reality, it’s just a fun game for both of us to express our personalities to each other.

    I think it’s ironic that the people who say game only works on “drunk sluts” are the ones who objectify and label women, whereas a good PUA does not judge women for expressing themselves sexually. Will the real misogynist please stand up?

    Like


  63. on November 26, 2007 at 5:42 pm journeytoselfdestruction

    Azuzuru:
    “Some guys are fueled by bitterness created by their past experiences with women. Many of them are out for “revenge” (rather pointless in my view). They are quite miserable people — how can harming others bring happiness? It can’t.”

    Perhaps, it cannot bring “true” happiness. I’ll trade transient ecstacy and total satisfaction for “true” happiness anyday.

    I haven’t had any negative relationship experiences with women. Just having to deal with them on a daily basis leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

    Like


  64. I wrote that a year ago, you doink. Why the outrage now? And I have no idea why you think I’m afraid of male desire. I don’t like fending off attempted manipulation. That’s not the same thing as not liking sex. And it has little to do with feminism (except for the whole self-determination thing, which you do seem to be oddly angered by, when practiced by a woman).

    Anyway, from what I’ve seen, many of you haven’t thought through your arguments here. Also some commenters appear to be nothing more than uneducated, seriously unpleasant assholes who want to blame feminism for the fact that no woman in her right mind would sleep with such a load.

    So, I like to get on here and question the many, many, many inconsistencies I find. That’s really all there is to it.

    PS – The “proof” found above in your self-reported exploits doesn’t really address my argument.

    Like


  65. Days of Broken Arrow.

    Your argument against feminism is 1) based on a misrepresentation of several basic and easily discoverable facts. And 2) Stupid. (That is the clinical term, I do not have a better one).

    Just a few points:
    – Sexual harassment laws are not ruining women’s lives by cutting down on the number of (non-offensive) date offers. Most people today meet their spouse at work. It’s pretty well documented.
    – As has been said by another commenter above, a woman who witholds her attention from you is not perpetuating some serious injustice. Because you are not owed anyone’s attention. Because you’re not an infant, you are an adult (right, right? Oh god. You’re really 12, aren’t you?)
    – Adding a college literature course on the very few women who managed to get published before the year 1900 is not the same as “practicing hate speech against men.”
    – And men were not forced to become “hyper masculine” because the little women got, um, jobs. I’m not sure I follow your leap there, but if you mean that women need men to be somehow superior to a woman in order to date, you’re being sort of demeaning. And wrong.

    Thanks to everyone who already called him to task. We all know it’s probably not going to have much effect. But it’s still kind of fun, right?

    Like


  66. Dizzy:
    It’s not about attempted manipulation. It’s about decent guys learning the necessary skills to do well with women. It’s not just about the proof found in his self-reported exploits. Unless the entire male gender is perpetuating some kind of self-delusional lie, it’s pretty common knowledge that behaving like Tucker Max will get you laid alot more than exhibiting the stereotypical “beta” male characteristics.

    From what I’ve seen you haven’t thought through your arguments either. You’re just regurgitating post-modern bullshit that your women’s studies professor taught you.
    If you’re going to question the inconsistencies, please do something else other than say something is wrong and it is axiomatically self-evident, so I’m not even going to bother to explain why it’s wrong. That sounds vaguely religious in nature. Is feminism a religion now?

    point-by-point:

    -spouses:
    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1169-1018(198909)1%3A44%3A1%3C91%3AFASASO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1#abstract
    http://www.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/cv.pdf
    sorry, about it being french, but it’s the only thing I could find. If you can find a better studying proving your point, I’d love to see it. Sexual harrasment laws do make working with women far more annoying, because I have to be constantly making sure I use gender neutral pro-nouns and writing. Imagine if it was Spanish? that would be terrible at least the English language has the word “it” when talking about feminists and androgynous fatties.
    -Correct. However, if we know what to do and say to get said attention, why do you try to paint it as manipulation. We’re just more interesting people.
    -Men were forced to become hyper-masculine, because when women gained the ability to support themselves women began selecting for sex, based on attraction. Read attraction, which is entirely different from love, which means that betas are completely out of luck. They either grow a pair or become another David Alexander. Whether a guy is going to treat you right or treat you like shit doesn’t matter when he’s just their for sex. Now I have no problem with women, behave like alpha males when it comes to sex, but what happened was that female liberation just resulted in women acting more like men and most of the decent men that were out there getting shafted. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Religious oppression led to the enlightenment, which in turn led to the romantic era.
    Now an entire generation of women is discovering that although they have infinite disposable income and everything they were told to want, they’re missing the one thing money can’t buy.

    Thank you, and have a nice day with your cats 🙂

    Like


  67. Hmmm….

    Men who behave like Tucker Max get laid (or at least say they do…) So what? Do you really think they’re sleeping with the brainy ones? Does your claim in any way address anything I’ve said above?

    And men who “know what to say and do to get attention” could be considered “interesting people.” I guess that’s at least close to true. But they’re not necessarily interesting in a GOOD way.

    Oh, and I’ve never taken a women’s studies class. Nor do I have the slightest clue what you are referring to as “my feminist bullshit.” Was it when I said that women don’t owe you their attention? Or the comment about a woman’s right to self-determination? Because, well, you shouldn’t really have to oppose those ideas in order to get laid. Just saying.

    Anyway, I’m not sure what you were trying to say, really. The things you did say didn’t make a lot of sense. Sex could hardly be considered, “The one thing money can’t buy,” as you claim. And I don’t like cats.

    Like


  68. Actually, yes I do think they’re sleeping with the brainy ones. The attractive brainy ones. Only desperate nerds want the unattractive brainy ones. Hence, the bitterness. No one likes being at the bottom of the totem pole.

    They’re no necessarily interesting in a bad way, either. I believe that was your implication, of course I could be wrong.

    I actually agreed with you on the fact that women don’t owe anybody attention. Glad to see your excellent reading comprehension! I actual believe in equal opportunity, because every one should have a chance to prove themselves. I don’t believe in de facto equality, because I know I’m better than 99% of the population. It’s competing with the top 1% that I care about. It felt nice saying that 😀

    That one thing that money can’t buy is actually love. What kind of person thinks sex, when someone says “the one thing money can’t buy”? Seriously… and I thought I was cynical and jaded.

    Like


  69. Alias clio,

    I don’t think I share yours and DoBA’s view of the sexual revolution. In the absence of data showing that some select group of men are getting all of the sex, I’d be hesistent to believe it. Re: dating and a charming dinner companion, now there is the unthreatening want to hang out/get coffee/get lunch? Men also can easily spend time with women outside of the dating context without harming her reputation.

    Skeletor,

    Evolutionary psychology is b.s. Now, if you want to talk about psychology-psychology, a number of the methods used by Mystery et al. involve creating artificial intimacy. If you treat a woman like an intimate, she will start to see herself/want to see herself that way. Unless, like me, she finds artificial intimacy very offense. There was a scientific american episode once where they discussed an experiment where men and women were instructed to stare into eachothers’ eyes like they were in love. Afterwards, they filled out a questionnaire, and discussed the attraction they felt for the stranger opposite.

    John Smith,

    (And this is building somewhat on Jane’s comment that there is a lot of space between the boyscout and the bad boy.) I criticize the woman hating when it is overt (i.e., pump and dump, maladjusted feminist battleaxe, r labeling women who turn him down as “bitches,” etc.) I don’t think that pursuing women is woman-hate. Re: wanting a dominant male–that may be true, but if so, our definitions of ‘dominant’ are different than Roissy’s alpha male.

    Also, I think that Jane has really latched on to something important. Guys who are just plain “nice” are often really hard to get to know. They are so accomodating and unwilling to offend that you never get an idea of what they’re really like, unless you put in a lot of effort to break through that mask. I have never dated an arrogant guy (well, past the second date, that is). (To use an old pilot’s saying, it’s not arrogance if you can back it up.) Not one. Most of the guys I’ve dated have been very confident, but they don’t jerk me around. If they did, I’d walk. Of all my close friends, the only one that routinely dates jerks is a very damaged person.

    My point is that not all women follow the same rules.

    Azuzuru and DoBA,

    I’m curious to know more about interactions in which you were rejected for being a good guy. Because it is so alien from my own experience (and that of my male friends) I’d be really interested to hear. It may be that since I’m in a different generation/part of the country, whatever, I’m just not running with the same people you are, but I’m really curious to hear more.

    I’m very confused by this whole alpha/beta thing. I don’t know how I would classify the men in my life (or the men I have dated). Some of you seem to base it on how many women a man could get, while others seem to require that he actually get the women.

    Like


  70. M. Bradwell, I don’t think I ever said that a select group of men is getting all the sex, although I suppose it’s possible, and I’ve never tried to fight the Roissy-pack on this particular point.

    My own point, about the dangers of the sexual revolution, as distinct from the feminist revolution, which is not at all the same thing (so exclude for the moment issues of women’s careers and so forth), is that it’s led to a deep sense of insecurity, first of all in the children of divorce – and yes, there are statistics to back this up – and then in their older selves as they date and mate, so that they find it harder to trust people and commit themselves. Starting out with these lowered expectations, they may marry, but they don’t fully trust in marriage, and so may help to provoke what they most fear: divorce.

    But the CODs are only one part of the equation. The sexual revolution has also led to rising expectations of what “great sex” actually is, leading men to look for and emphasize women’s appearance perhaps more than ever before in history, and leading women, or at least ambitious ones, to seek out the dynamic and exciting men who appear likely to make good lovers, perhaps at the expense of being good husbands. (I think this is what DOBA and Roissy mean by alphas getting all the women.)

    Most women’s greater willingness, since the sexual revolution, to have uncommitted sex outside marriage, has also meant that those women who are not willing to do so get shut out of the dating game altogether. However attractive you may be, there’s always someone who’s more so – and if she’s also willing to have sex, your attractiveness value goes down. Those men who eventually tire of the single life may eventually marry, but they are more likely to marry women whom they’ve slept with already, whether they’re alphas or betas or what have you.

    Finally, quite apart from the impact of the experience of parental divorce, as a child, on one’s sexual habits as an adult, the experience of going through many relationships burns people out, emotionally. This is even more true of those people who stick to “long-term relationships” than those who engage in casual sex, which, though physically more dangerous (the risk of disease, pregnancy, and, for women, the possibility of rape are higher here), is emotionally less taxing than experiencing the breakup of several serious, established relationships.

    And that’s leaving out the non-sexual impact of the sexual revolution: the terrible toll that widespread fatherlessness has taken on the African American population in the United States.

    So: that’s why I don’t like the sexual revolution. I don’t know about DoBA; I think he’s much more accepting of the whole thing – aside from the impact it’s had on men who don’t like to play the superstud game.

    Like


  71. on November 27, 2007 at 10:48 am Days of Broken Arrows

    Bradwell said: “Azuzuru and DoBA … I’m curious to know more about interactions in which you were rejected for being a good guy.”

    I’m a bit loathe to admit this on this board, but what the heck. I had a violent, angry Italian dad who was insane possessive and jealous of my mother. I considered all this antiquated and thought myself progressive. I shut up when I felt jealous and kept aggression in check (not that I felt much of either).

    Here are an embarrassing two breakup scenarios between ages 21 and 25:

    1). “Dating you is like dating my brother; you’re never angry upset, or jealous.”

    2). “I like it rough. I like to be slapped around duing sex and told what to do by my boyfriend. I find that hot. You’re too laid back.”

    I’m sure all the would-be Valentinos here are gonna knock me for this, but too bad this is the way I was then.

    Like


  72. Re: the utube video:

    Oh man I dated that dude! Mr. I’m going to randomly and repeatedly flip my hair out for you to admire! Because there is nothing manlier than a thick long mane of lusciousness.

    Wow that takes me back. I fondly remember, that first morning, his voice gleefully from my bathroom. He said “For future reference, your future husband likes to pee sitting down.” Then he asked to borrow some underwear.

    Sure he was crazy, but you know what they say.

    Yay! good times.

    Like


  73. Days of Broken Arrows,

    Eh, I’ve certainly been there with the first one. My parents didn’t fight much, but for whatever reason, I was terrified of starting an argument in my first relationship. Mostly, I think it was because of then bf’s reticence–he was so restrained that I felt that I had to be restrained, so when he’d do stuff that bugged me, I’d either ignore it or barely mention it.

    I don’t think wanting your partner to be jealous is much of a healthy dynamic–perhaps she had a similar family background to yours? But if she never saw much emotion out of you, she might have been afraid to express her own emotions (b/c she might think you’d judge her) or she might think you just didn’t care. Or, considering the age, she might have been young and foolish and poor at articulating what bothered her.

    And for the second one, sometimes people’s kinks just don’t align. I know a lot of pressure is put on men to provide women with the kind of sex the woman wants, but if you’re incompatible, it doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Or if you just weren’t ready to push your boundaries in that way at that time, which considering your dad, isn’t a total shock.

    How did game change things for you? Did you begin to feign things you didn’t think/feel, or did you just sort of upregulate your reactions?

    Like


  74. DoBA, you do realise that the description you’ve just given of what women demand in men is the polar opposite of the cool, uncaring “vibe” that Roissy suggests is the best way to snag female attention?

    There’s so much contradiction in the ideas of “alpha” that I read here that I have no idea what to make of them. Or rather, how men understand the idea of being an alpha.

    Like


  75. Nullpointer, your writing is bad. Just. Bad. Really scattered. So maybe you do think you’re getting the brainy ones. Some girl who like, read the Grisham book before they made it into a movie would be a real prize for you. Yes.

    Anyway. You still haven’t addressed the discussion topic: I said that only a woman in a weakened condition (there was no mention of “sluts”- sheesh) would think it’s a great idea to sleep with some guy who insulted her in public. Roissy responded that the girls who fall for his “game,” the girls he sleeps with, are very, very smart.

    Sure they are Roissy. Sure they are.

    And you guys spend so much time on here talking about how all the women you sleep with are sooooo dumb and easy to manipulate because I’m… wrong? (And the women who won’t sleep with you are “high-achieving agressive bitches”). Isn’t there even a thread on here about how the less education a woman has, the more attractive and “feminine” she is? And isn’t “feminine” your euphemism for “dumb enough to sleep with me?”

    Do you really think I’ve said something shocking, then? Or did I just repeat your own comments back to you?

    Like


  76. Alias clio,

    I was thinking of this part of your post:

    There I think DoBA is right: “The sexual revolution basically ruined dating for pleasure and allowed Alphas to behave like Mormons on steroids.” What I think he means here is that the sexual revolution made it possible (necessary?) to contemplate having sex before either party had any real knowledge of the other, and it made it possible for men who were aggressively self-confident, sexually speaking, to take all the prizes, i.e. the pretty young women, that they wanted, because they were the ones who had the courage (and indifference) necessary to risk repeated rejection in the dating game.

    I apologize if I misread.

    With the stats. on children and divorce, I wonder if there are any good statistics on children with parents in a bad marriage. I’ve known two men like that, one who said he wished his parents had divorced (and there was no real open anger or physical abuse, just quiet dislike/contempt). I do wish that people would be more careful before they entered marriage.

    Re: who makes good lovers, some of my more experienced women friends have told me that some of the hyper-attractive men are crap in bed, because their supply of attractive women is so constant, they’ve never really had to try. Again, I know that some men fare better than others, but I’ve known guys who are pretty beta who’ve had a fair amount of sex (even if their pickup technique sucks and they have super long dry spells.)

    My view of the sexual revolution is that it has both made it easier for people to talk about sex and figure out what gives them sexual pleasure (and to figure out that their desires aren’t really that ‘abnormal’) and, on the downside, made sex a more mandatory/expected part of relationships. (Not good, in my mind, b/c no one should be having it if they don’t want it.)

    I think that women who don’t want to have premarital sex don’t find their situation quite as dire as you think–I know a few, and usually they belong to a religious tradition in which their choice is valued, and they wouldn’t want to date/marry outside of that tradition anyways. Of course, a lot of the people I socialize with are exclusive before sex enters the picture, so the women don’t stand the risk of being dumped if they don’t have sex on the third date, but I think you are right that continuing not to have sex would eventually take its toll on the relationship. I’m no more a fan of compulsive sexuality than compulsive chastity, so I’m with you there.

    I don’t really feel that I’ve been damaged by my series of long-term relationships. There haven’t been many, and I’ve picked my partners very carefully, and I’ve been very careful not to enter one until I am really over the last one. What would have been disastrous, for me, was to marry my first boyfriend. By being with him and having things go wrong, I learned a lot about what I really wanted. Some people, like my parents, are fortunate enough that one of their first serious relationships ends up being the one. The rest of us just need time, and as long as we keep past relationships in perspective, and learn from our mistakes (actually, I see it more as learning who we are and aren’t compatible with) I don’t see a problem.

    I do agree that it is bad to have a boyfriend/girlfriend simply for the sake of having one, though. I think that becoming emotionally bonded for a long period of time with someone who you wouldn’t want to really be committed to is a bad idea.

    Like


  77. M. Bradwell, I see why you might make that assumption about what I think. I was trying to picture the world as it must look from a “player’s” point of view. As far as I can remember, that is…

    Like


  78. The thing that Dizzy misses is that for a lot of guys, bedding an attractive woman is a big win *no matter why she does it*. Certainly the pleasure is not very dependent on her IQ.

    Like


  79. Nullpointer, your writing is bad. Just. Bad. Really scattered. So maybe you do think you’re getting the brainy ones. Some girl who like, read the Grisham book before they made it into a movie would be a real prize for you. Yes.
    Short sentences. Were cool. In high school. English. Really.
    Most girls that think they’re brainy are usually bitchy and incredibly high strung, while not really being smart. The smartest girl I’ve known was a shy UW med school graduate, who even though she had a 4.0, was extremely humble and you’d never she graduated from the honors program magna cum laude. Of course grades, don’t mean anything, but this isn’t some liberal arts program where you can BS your way through. Luckily she was a crazy Christian with self-imposed celibacy. However, she always seemed to fall for the jerks with game. She got hurt over and over, because one they realized she wasn’t putting out they dropped her like a hot potato.

    Anyway. You still haven’t addressed the discussion topic: I said that only a woman in a weakened condition (there was no mention of “sluts”- sheesh) would think it’s a great idea to sleep with some guy who insulted her in public. Roissy responded that the girls who fall for his “game,” the girls he sleeps with, are very, very smart.

    What is a weakened condition? That’s too ambigous to address very well. I think Roissy point unless you have a postrionic brain with an emotion chip you can just shut off like data, it doesn’t matter what state the girl is in. A large part of skill in the game is reframing and evolutionary state changes to put the girl in a more receptive state. It’s the same thing a salesperson does. You are just selling yourself. If you want to call sales and seduction manipulation, then maybe you’re right it is manipulation. Don’t see how that changes much.


    And you guys spend so much time on here talking about how all the women you sleep with are sooooo dumb and easy to manipulate because I’m… wrong? (And the women who won’t sleep with you are “high-achieving agressive bitches”). Isn’t there even a thread on here about how the less education a woman has, the more attractive and “feminine” she is? And isn’t “feminine” your euphemism for “dumb enough to sleep with me?”

    I can’t speak for everyone on here since I fall somewhere in the middle between DA and Raging Angry White Males. I did write a thread though on how EASY it is to game high-achieving women, thanks to PUA and popularization of the seduction community.

    Do you really think I’ve said something shocking, then? Or did I just repeat your own comments back to you?

    You should read my comments, before making blanket statements. I’m one of the more tempered commenters. I’m pretty clear on my support for equal opportunity, while maintaining that feminism has had unintended effects. Mainly, completely undermining the sexual power of women and resulting in unhappy women, who say things like why would I need a guy, when I can have a boat and anything money can buy? I know guys can be pretty bad sometimes but trading them for materialism doesn’t seem like a step up. Look up the independent women’s forum. Those women are amazing. They’ve managed to balance career with life, without making the sacrifices some of the previous generation have.
    Disclaimer:
    The only thing I’m bitter about is the fact that I was misled about how I should behave towards women for so many years. If I had the game when I was in high school, my life would be entirely different.

    Like


  80. You know, I always thought this was all about high school. Most of the rest of us have moved on from that sort of, “Some people rate and I hate everyone who judges me but I really hate the people who are too stupid and losery to judge me…” mess.

    And short sentences. Are great. When you suspect your audience’s… capabilities.

    But look, let’s stop sniping. I think this board is great. Hilarious, even. It’s a place where the little things that sort of bothered me, the double standards, the assumptions about a woman’s place in the world, all that, find the light of day. I don’t want it to stop, because I want to know how people like the guys on here think. I want to know what I’m dealing with in the big, bad world.

    Also, in real life, guys like you look angry and I steer clear and if you corner me and try to get me to agree with you on something I will be noncommittal and get away from you as quickly as possible. But on this board, you seem small and frightened. That is reassuring.

    So keep on keeping on. Spill it. I will laugh. But I wouldn’t stop you for the world.

    Like


  81. But on this board, you seem small and frightened.

    projection – it’s what’s for dinner!

    Like


  82. It’s not our fault you lack the ability to use compound sentences. They taught that back in high school. I guess you must have gotten over using them.

    So, now I’m curious how would you pick out a guy like “us”. I mean do we have a sign that says we read Roissy’s blog? Well, maybe if we’re peacocking…

    Do you find a guy like David Alexander attractive? You constantly indicate that we’re wrong, chauvinistic, and guys who only get the dumb girls, but you give no alternate explanation. You give no reason, no counter argument, and no alternate hypothesis.

    Perhaps you will indulge me in a simple exercise… assuming your not a lesbian. Describe the minimum characteristics/requirements that a guy you’d be willing to sleep with. Next to do a guy you’d like to date seriously.

    Then explain why those qualities are desireable in each case, and why a guy like that would even want to date you in the first place.

    I also think you should consider that not everyone on this

    Like


  83. tizzy:
    Anyway. You still haven’t addressed the discussion topic: I said that only a woman in a weakened condition (there was no mention of “sluts”- sheesh) would think it’s a great idea to sleep with some guy who insulted her in public.

    where do you get this idea that good game is about insulting women?

    Roissy responded that the girls who fall for his “game,” the girls he sleeps with, are very, very smart.

    i live in washington dc in a gentrified yuppie hood.
    dc has the highest number of masters degree holders per capita.
    my last two flings were a 6 figure corporate lawyer and an art gallery owner.
    so tell me again about all the dumb girls falling for my game.

    Sure they are Roissy. Sure they are.

    proof by assertion is down the hall and to your left.

    And you guys spend so much time on here talking about how all the women you sleep with are sooooo dumb and easy to manipulate because I’m… wrong?

    do you even read this blog?
    running game is no more about manipulating women than you wearing a short skirt and makeup is about manipulating men.

    (And the women who won’t sleep with you are “high-achieving agressive bitches”).

    no, they’re just lesbians. 😉

    Isn’t there even a thread on here about how the less education a woman has, the more attractive and “feminine” she is?

    you’re confused.
    the less educated a woman is, the wider her dating pool of men will be, because of the powerful desire of women to date up.
    femininity and attractiveness can be found in women at all educational levels.
    what i have written about on the subject is the trend toward a lack of femininity in ambitious, careerist women who work in highly competitive fields like law and business.
    you being exhibit A.
    btw, how much forearm hair do you have?

    And isn’t “feminine” your euphemism for “dumb enough to sleep with me?”

    no.
    but it’s no surprise that a bitter ballcutting afeminine misandrist who spitefully throws her fellow sisters overboard for being “dumb enough” to fall for a man with seductive charms would think that.
    you are a champion of feminism.

    But I wouldn’t stop you for the world.

    you couldn’t.

    dizzy, unless you routinely hit on women for sex what makes you think you would know more about what it takes to get a woman into bed than me?
    ps: being a woman doesn’t count because what women say they want and what actually turns them on are two different things.

    Like


  84. Oh lord. I don’t have forearm hair. (Not that I think it’s some sort of horrible thing to have – your rants about mustaches and whatever are pretty stupid, actually). And I didn’t throw my sisters overboard. I simply listed the types of girls who would be likely to fall for what you’re offering. I have as much sympathy for them as I have… doubts… about your self-reported successes.

    And where, oh where, did you come up with all the bitter-ball-cutting spittle stuff? Just because I think you, personally, have little more than not-as-clever-as-you-think tricks which may or may not be working the way you represent, how does it follow that I hate men? I think your “game” sounds annoying and your thoughts on sexual relations are trite and full of internal contradictions and quite hurtful assumptions (that only women who you find attractive are “normal,” or that only a woman who can keep a man for a long time would be considered an alpha female, for example). That has nothing to do with hating half the population. And you’re the only one throwing out insults and spittle.

    Is this how it works? You say a bunch of nasty things, make a few random, unsupported assertions and when people don’t want to deal with you anymore, or waste their time answering your crap, you count it as a win? Nice game dude.

    Like


  85. I have as much sympathy for them as I have… doubts… about your self-reported successes.

    I don’t know but it sounds like you have alot of doubts about Roissy’s self-reported successes, but not alot of sympathy for the girls that would fall for what he’s offering.

    Coherency check, please?

    You’re doing the same thing as roissy, just without supporting your arguments. That makes a BIG difference.

    Like


  86. Roissy,

    If good game isn’t about insulting women, then what was the idea behind this post:

    If you want to know why American women have such unrealistic expectations, ridiculously out-of-sync standards, neurotically overblown egos, schizophrenic flakiness, and chronic selfishness –
    it’s all in the numbers.
    the fat, porky, tubby numbers.

    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/fat-american-women-dating-disparity/

    Like


  87. M Bradwell, I think it’s clear Roissy’s not into consistency or any of those other things foamy-mouthed feminists get so worked up about.

    And Nullpointer, sheesh. So NOW you think I don’t have sympathy for other women? Even though I said I do? Since when is just calling me a liar some advanced argument technique?

    As I’m sure you know, there are a number of really good books on logical fallacies, and the tools of analysis. Please read one before you try your, “I’ll just say something random…” strategy again.

    Like


  88. bradwell got all sanctimonious:
    If good game isn’t about insulting women

    you mean “fat women”. that’s quite a bit different than insulting all women. after all, most obesity is self-inflicted.

    dizzy and bradwell scissored:
    And Nullpointer, sheesh. So NOW you think I don’t have sympathy for other women?

    nullpointer was referring to your habit of calling girls “dumb” and “ignorant” for enjoying the feeling of being seduced by an attractive man.
    how very feminist of you.

    best,

    roissy

    Like


  89. No, Nullpointer was just misquoting me. And I didn’t say it’s dumb to be seduced by an attractive man. That scenario, taking place among equals, sounds lovely. I said that if you manipulate people (and your site is replete with comments about how women don’t know what they want and men have to do what they can to get laid in order to avoid living death and whatever) all you get is someone who, for whatever reason at that time, can be manipulated.

    And I certainly don’t mean that the person being manipulated is somehow a bad or “stupid” person. Everyone has weak moments. What I’m saying is that the person who can only “charm” the weak, isn’t proving his strength.

    Like


  90. What I’m saying is that the person who can only “charm” the weak, isn’t proving his strength.

    your mistake is in thinking women who choose to sleep with charming men are weak.
    and if you’re going to toss around the scare word of manipulation so recklessly, remember that all goal-oriented communication is a form of manipulation.
    and every time a man approaches a woman to talk to her he has a goal in mind, whether you like it or not.

    Like


  91. Where’s the part where you’re “charming” again? Because I can’t picture someone who would refer to a woman the way you have (c–, cum-dumpster, weak, emotional, controllable) as being any sort of competition for Cary Grant.

    You may think you can be nice when you want, to women who, in your mind, “deserve” it. But I’ll bet your anger shows through.

    And then you prove your point by saying the only reason a man approaches a woman is because he’s trying to get laid. (Which discounts your immediately prior claim that I’m using “manipulation as a scare word.”) I’m sure you’re right, about you. But unless you only talk to buddies who can also help you get laid (possible, although sad, if true) then at some point in your life you communicate for another purpose. And only a bigot would choose to reserve a true conversation for only men, or only women.

    Like


  92. Is it just me, or does anyone else think you should just rename your site to “Life in Hell”? Players are to feminists what criminals are to the police and what prostitution is to the priesthood. One feeds off the other in a perverse and symbiotic dance. Both are cynical, neurotic, manipulative, aggressive or worse; passive aggressive. May you all gnaw, slash, impale, degrade, use, and abuse each other till death do you part.

    Men and women who want to avoid further episodes of life in hell should simply stop yammering endlessly about the war between the sexes and who’s winning, suffering the most, has the “upper” hand, the most reason to bitch and justify whatever shitty behavior their impulses present to them, and learn to read body language. Your own included. Try being authentic yourself and look for authentic people and you can quit going around in endless circles of arrogant misery. Try listening to “In Sync with the Opposite Sex” by Allison Armstrong, and before you make any assumptions; NO she is not a feminist.

    Like


  93. Roissy, man you got me hooked.

    Your point is true to 100%.

    The girls who fall for will played game are the more intelligent ones, as the stupider ones do not have the brain capacity to be played on.

    Asshole caveman number game with the dumb ones is the way to go.

    An example from me,

    what my 6″, 9.5 blonde, very intelligent, (also bossy, challenging and control freak) ex forgets to mention about the night we met is that, I was being heavily entertained by a 6″3′ 9.5 blonde bombshell (a very good friend with some occasional benefits at that time)….

    Preselection at its finest.

    And in the beginning of the relationship where I had my self confidence off the roof, she would tell me the stories about the “idiots” “loosers” etc hit on her, which I would laugh off.

    All these guys were sincere in their approach, and sported somehow a decent conversation.

    One night she came, and said “Wow… A guy approached me in the best way possible” … ” He came up and told me “My friend thinks you are a bitch, but I think there is some kindness still there. So I thought I’d find out””

    DHV, IOI, NEG (Quoting mistery)…

    She fell for it heavily, where a dumb girl would go “Ya call’n me biatch????”

    I realized my girl was gamed. And it worked.

    And other experiences with girls prove this.

    Like


  94. “”[quote]Clio said: “As for explaining that it’s “just for fun”, many people are deliberately misleading about this element of the game. If seducing a particular partner requires the pretense that one is interested in more than a fling, there are many men (and perhaps women, but I don’t meet them) who are willing to do so.”[/quote]

    If I meet a girl, we have a great time and we go home and have sex but a monogamous relationship doesn’t develop, how is that misleading her? I didn’t say “Oh honey, sleep with me now then let’s get married and grow old together.” She jumped into bed with me willingly.

    Of course, you have a point if you believe in the sexual revolution was a mistake and that a woman’s vagina should be ravaged only by a man with a batch of roses, professoins of undying love and fistful of poems. But believing that requires you also embrace some other very un-PC notions, e.g. women need to be “protected” from men because they are inherently weaker.””

    I’m politically incorrect in my opinions and did not get lynched for it. I think the sexual revolution was a mistake on part of the heterosexual feminine women jumping on the bandwagon of the more masculine women.

    I think that in an ideal world, women would better protect their virtue and men would be more protective of women too.

    Women are being told by Cosmo, Sex in the city, feminists etc. that if they are sexy, sleep with a man soon, perform great in bed and talk everything to death, they will get a man to commit and be romantic. Women who have more education and come from a middle to upper middle class background are more likely to buy into these ideas than working class women who usually have a different set of lies sold to them.

    I think men are trying to believe that a lot of women like sex for sex’s sake or deserve the pain they get or whatever, but would hate it if the same happened to their little sister or daughter.

    It is not really a black and white situations, there are so many shades of grey.

    You have the guy who says he is “currently playing the field but could see himself falling in love with a sweet, giving, kinky woman. I really like you, love the way you smile, can’t help but drown in your eyes” to a girl on the first date and then beds her six ways to sunday and leaves in the morning. In that case, the girl was simply being naive or deluded or easy or whatnot.

    At the other end of the spectrum, you have the guy who spends six months dating a girl, met the parents, bought a fake engagement ring and then dumped the girl after sex. Here, the guy is as close to pure evil as you can get. I can’t see anyone but a fullblown sociopath doing this for fun.

    But how about the guy who thinks he is madly in love with a girl, they have sex after a month and then a few more times and then finds out she is not the one for him. Is it more jerky to break up, or to keep having sex with her for two years while keeping his eyes open to better options?

    How about the guy who fakes feelings for a couple of dates, doing what he can to “crack this nut”, basically acting like a guy in love just to get sex.

    What if the girl in the first situation is 16 and the guy is 23? What if the girl is 26 but has mental problems? What if both her parents just died and she is in a weak spot.

    Fact is that if a guy outright says he is going to have sex with a girl 3 times and then move on, very few women will take that offer. For most women, the pleasure of sex largely depend on the woman’s feeling, real or imagined, of being loved.

    I don’t think intelligence or beauty can really protect a woman, only self knowledge, discipline, commitment to feminine values, and the courage to see reality for what it is can help a lot. It is futile pursuit for women to be angry at the man who played her, since she cannot effectively control the future behaviour of all players in town. Asking herself why she did something she later regretted is a lot more effective.

    “I really think that in the present sexual-social system, pretty women have more of an advantage than they used to, because in the world of quick pick-ups, they are the most obviously appealing, and because far fewer people take social position, religious affiliation, and ethnic similarities into account when they choose a mate than they once did.

    It’s true that today women are able to get rich on their own if they have the right abilities, and if not rich, at least self-supporting. But there still aren’t that many women who are willing to buy sexual companionship; it’s too un-erotic for most women, since women usually need to know that they’re wanted by a man in order to feel aroused by him.”

    I don’t know about that. Pretty women could expect to marry up, though not too far up. A gorgeous middle class girl could marry a normal looking upper middle class boy. That said, she could not expect to be more than a misstress to an aristocrat.

    The ugly girl in the 50’s could either marry below her station, be celibate for life or be a fallen woman if she had casual sex. The latter meant misery and shame, the first mean poverty and shame. In case she was rich, a man may have married her so her father would give him a partnership in his business. She would thus be married to a man who was not attracted to her, which is pretty miserable again. She can now have casual sex with decent looking men who would not be bothered to take her out in the past. Cosmo tells her she has a chance with these men and she can pretend that they are attracted to her as much as they are attracted to the prettier girl. She can take care of her own material needs.

    Poor women, because their father could not support them, they could not get decently paying jobs and many of the men in their social class had problems like unemployment, alchoholism, violence, had is pretty badly. A lot of poor women were misstresses, prostituted themselves or were taken advantage of at work, the lines frequently blurring between the three. I think that between welfare, better paying jobs and more social moblility, they have it a bit better. Except that the pool of available men to them is now a lot smaller.

    Sexual harassment laws do have ther function, as long as normal flirting behaviours are not seen as sexual harassment. Threathening a girl with job loss if she does not comply is not far from rape. Just making eyecontact or asking a girl out is not forbidden as far as I know. I think saying something suggestive or sexual is forbiddn in the US but not in Europe. I’m not sure it should be.

    It is a bit harsh to fire a guy who commented on the beauty of his colleague’s bottom just once, but if he did it repeatedly, it would be wrong to have him stay while she gets burnout or depression or quits because of her suffering. I do know a woman who had to quit her job because older men at work repeatedly asked her to come to a hotel with them. I think it is also more threathening when it comes from older men, especially your boss or supervisor.

    I guess the latter kind of behaviour never really resulted in meaningful, loving relationships anyway. If American men are afraid to ask a woman at work out on a date, that is pretty sad for both of the sexes. Flirting at work is not a bad thing, it can bring some fun and friendliness into the workplace.

    “1) We truly love women and really do think everything they do is cute. No drama, no stress

    2) Having fun is more important than looking cool

    3) Attraction either happens right away, or not at all

    4) It’s not attraction, but connection, that enables a woman to enjoy her sexuality with you

    5) Always, always, always protect her emotions and her social status. Never do anything to embarrass your woman, even if it’s just a one-night stand ””

    These are very good rules and they will likely work on all women both for short term and long term relationships, plus they would help a guy have an enjoyable life. It is right up there with going to the gym, finding hobbies you like and getting your career on in building character and personality. This makes him more of a catch and also makes it easier for him to enjoy single life.
    I think 1,2 and 3 can be used by women too 4 is a bit irrelevant for women, but 5 could be applied to men albeit in a different way.

    I think seduction has gotten a bad name because the hit it and quit it, bitter men are very in your face and all over the media. I guess the men who are too lazy to do self improvement love to use the darker philosophies that get them the women with low selfeem and even lower self control. Most women do want to be seduced, especially by boyfriends and husbands. As long as women stay close to themselves and avoid casual sex if that is not what they want, seduction can be an intoxicatingly pleasant activity for both the sexes. A seductive date is an enjoyable event in its own right, even if nothing in terms of sex or relationship comes out of it, it affirms a man’s masculinity and a woman’s femininity.

    Have you got a link to Sebastian Drake and Sean Messenger’s sites? Do they write stuff for women?

    “My view of the sexual revolution is that it has both made it easier for people to talk about sex and figure out what gives them sexual pleasure (and to figure out that their desires aren’t really that ‘abnormal’) and, on the downside, made sex a more mandatory/expected part of relationships. (Not good, in my mind, b/c no one should be having it if they don’t want it.)”

    The absurd thing is that there are people having sex with someone they dont feel comfortable talking about sex with.
    I have noticed that some women are simply masculine and can very much enjoy casual sex with another masculine man or they can marry a feminine man and wear the pants. I’m glad that these women now have the opportunity to do what suits their nature. They just should not put pressure on other women to follow their lead. I would like for different kinds of relationship styles to coexist peacefully.
    but I’m not sure if that is humanly possible. The pendulum is already swinging back.

    Like


  95. I’m not sure why you bother(ed) responding to these trolls. Women like cocky guys, period. If all guys were cocky, women would love more guys. It’s like: suppose women could read a book and it would make them really pretty and skinny. Would men care that their new-found attractiveness comes from a book? Of course not. It’s the end result that matters, not how a person got there.

    Like