Thought Experiment

ANSWER:

Man (B) is worth more.

Man (A) will get more pussy than his intrinsic worth would suggest.

*******

Which person is worth more?

a. an overweight, balding, dull-witted man who is self-confident.

b. a good-looking, smart, rich man who is insecure.

Now ask yourself, which person will have more success with women?

How far can inner game take you? Is manufactured self-esteem — I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people want to bang me — an essential psyche-out or a chimera? Is it deceptive advertising or better marketing? Are all those pickup business models right in emphasizing getting a handle on your inner demons before tackling your outer battles, no matter the actual reality of your station in life?

Ultimately, mental calisthenics in service to ego-propping and conscious affirmations of self-confidence are acts of self-delusion. This is a rational choice, for the ability to delude oneself is a survival trait. For instance, we all live in a fantasy world concerning the real horrors of old age that await us.

Self-delusion or a depressive spiral ending with a gun barrel in your mouth. You choose.

And, thus, this is why so many instinctively recoil at the “ugly truths”. The abyss is too deep and too dark to contemplate.





Comments


  1. I have based my entire life around the idea that I delude myself.

    Like


  2. a. an overweight, balding, dull-witted man who is self-confident.
    b. a good-looking, smart, rich man who is insecure.

    In the real world, as opposed to a thought experiment, both of these types are uncommon. The overweight, balding, dull-witted man is much more likely to be insecure (unless he’s too dense to be aware of his shortcomings), while the good-looking, smart, rich man normally will be bursting with self-confidence.

    Like


  3. For starters, I will assume worth is defined by your somewhat specific definition of alphaness. In any other definition of worth, the answer seems very obvious to me.

    Since I’m closer to it (minus the rich but at least I’m not in debt), I would hope a).

    However, overweight can be fixed with relatively straight-forward measures. Balding takes a little more but still can be fixed.

    Whether insecurity in someone who already has everything else can be fixed is at best questionable (if having everything everybody wants does not make you self-confident, chances are nothing will).

    Like


  4. Evil guys really do get the most girls

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826614.100-bad-guys-really-do-get-the-most-girls.html

    “Men with the so-called ‘dark triad’ of personality traits –
    psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism – have a more prolific sex life”

    Like


  5. Um, Roissy, the “ugly truth” is that you are not special. Lots of people manufacture horror stories about some “other” – in your case, the big bad feminists who you think are preventing you from getting laid. (Way to forgo personal responsibility dude).

    And lots of people try to get attention through the internet.

    There wouldn’t be anything wrong with it, if you didn’t base your stupid scare stories on so many assumptions about women – that having sex lessens us, but not you, or that we are only worthwhile for our looks, for example. Both of those assumptions are based on the idea that a woman’s value is determined by how good she makes a man feel. And that’s as stupid as women who think men are only worthwhile when the nice little boys pay for pretty things.

    Also, you’re really angry and tend harbor people on your board like Gannon, who thinks 12 year olds should be having sex with older men because it’s good for the world.

    That is why people don’t like you. It’s not some resistance to your “message.” Because you don’t have a message, other than, “Women should do what I want, or I’ll yell…”

    Like


  6. The good-looking, smart, rich guy has a big advantage: he should have a much easier time passing the initial filter. The example is odd, though. I’ve met plenty of good-looking smart men, and while they may have a bundle of insecurities women were almost never one of them.

    While we’re talking about the intersection of looks and attitude, why not add “short” to a’s negative attributes? It is, or so the studies say, far more of a deal killer than “bald” or “overweight”.

    Like


  7. 5 And your post is relevant to this topic exactly how?

    (Unless you find general bashing to be always relevant, of course but it’s not exactly like you did say it never before)

    Like


  8. Worth more? B, you said it yourself he’s rich but that’s not what you meant right. Obviously you mean sexual market value.

    I know it’s a thought experiment but this is just to prove the mantra, “fake it till you make it”? Well shiiiiit, everyone has insecurities.

    Peter is right, on average good looking rich dudes won’t be plagued with as many insecurities wrt women as the poor fat baldies of the world. The unspoken truth is that rich smart good looking guys probably have far more latitude in game than poor fat baldies. It’s about potential and absent celebrity aka the special sauce, some guys have more than others. I’ve seen this myself. A rich good looking guy can make a few missteps in game, where a poor fat bald guy must display a level of game so tight that it rivals the center of a super-massive black hole.

    Like


  9. The only heart of darkness I see is in your limited perspective – self-worth is intrinsic to being human; if you think about it, it is a silly (and self-loathing) paradigm to judge oneself by our comparison to others.

    Like


  10. on June 18, 2008 at 6:32 pm Obama for President

    @Dizzy:
    Dizzy, please be specific when you cite mean. Gannon doesn’t believe that 12 year old girls should have sex with older men. Gannon said that he doesn’t believe in sending 15 year old boys to jail for having consentual sex with 12 year old girls. Gannon believes that AOC should be 14 and young men in their twenties should date teen girl to form lifelasting bonds and find true love. You might be horrified, but an AOC of 14 is the standard the European Union wants to impose on Europe (some jurisdictions in Europe have an AOC of 13 and others of 15). If you cite me, please be correct and specific.
    And 12 refers to the AOC for other Teenagers, for Adults it should be 14.
    Tanks
    Gannon.

    Like


  11. The post should say Gannon, not Obama for President.

    Like


  12. Dizzy, feminism is actually enabling Roissy (and others like him) to have more sexual access to women. Its sooo funny!

    Like


  13. You might be horrified, but an AOC of 14 is the standard the European Union wants to impose on Europe (some jurisdictions in Europe have an AOC of 13 and others of 15).

    WTF are you talking about? The EU messing with age of consent laws would get the member states pretty massively pissed off, so there won’t be any EU AOC. AOC on the continent varies from 12 to 18 and it’s most commonly either 15 or 16.

    Prohibiting 15-year-old boys from having sex with 12-year-olds would be mostly pointless at least in rural areas, as boys of that age would easily be punished by their peers in ways that the courts can’t use.

    Like


  14. Also, you’re really angry and tend harbor people on your board like Gannon, who thinks 12 year olds should be having sex with older men because it’s good for the world.

    Not to mention harboring people like me, who thinks that a nice, thick, luxuriant thatch is a delight of unimaginable proportions, holding luscious aromas and flavors within its rich depths.

    Like


  15. “Dizzy, feminism is actually enabling Roissy (and others like him) to have more sexual access to women. Its sooo funny!”

    Why would people having more sex be “sooo funny?” Are you 12? I don’t care if men have more sexual access to women. That would never be something I’d try to prevent, among adults.

    I’m saying that it is stupid to believe that when a woman “enables sexual access,” she is somehow lessened by the transaction while the man is not.

    Also, Gannon needs to stop talking about himself in the 3rd person. It’s creepy.

    Like


  16. “Men with the so-called ‘dark triad’ of personality traits –
    psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism – have a more prolific sex life”

    Perhaps they do. But do they do so by being obviously evil, or do they manage it, like that handsome serial killer (to take an extreme example) whose name I forget, by pretending to be nice guys? I haven’t read the article yet, so I don’t know whether it covers that angle.

    The women who knowingly select criminal types, or obviously brutal non-criminal types (the up-and-coming lawyer who swears at waiters when they don’t do what he wants, or shoves people down in subways when they get in his way), are a special category and usually have something wrong with them.

    Like


  17. dizzy diddled herself while writing me another mash note:
    Um, Roissy, the “ugly truth” is that you are not special.

    another unbiased third party heard from.

    in your case, the big bad feminists who you think are preventing you from getting laid.

    i’ve never said feminists are preventing me from getting laid. in fact, just the opposite.
    let me ask you, are your hands chafed to the bone from erecting roissy strawmen all the time? all you ever do here is put words in my mouth and twist my message into something unrecognizable for you to conveniently knock down in a hissy fit of feminist posturing. you’re projecting your hatred and bitterness of men and your post-hoc rationalizations for your failure with men onto me because you do not like that i shove the truth of the sexual market down your throat on a daily basis.
    now i wonder why that could be? hmmmm……

    that having sex lessens us, but not you,

    sex doesn’t “lessen” women except inasmuch as a slutty reputation will make her less desirable as a marriage partner, all else equal. in common parlance, this is known as the madonna/whore dichotomy, and it is a universal phenomenon that is based in a clear-headed understanding of the different psychological and biological natures of men and women.

    or that we are only worthwhile for our looks, for example.

    another strawman. what a surprise.
    a woman’s looks are her most important personal attribute in the sexual market, and of considerable importance in other market realms as well, such as the extra doors that will open for her in the job market.
    but an old grandmother who takes care of her grandkids is certainly valuable as a caregiver despite her zero value as a sex and romantic love partner.

    Both of those assumptions are based on the idea that a woman’s value is determined by how good she makes a man feel.

    our worth as human beings is not determined in a vacuum. how men view you is directly applicable to your worth as a sexual being, unless you are a lesbian.
    come to think of it…

    And that’s as stupid as women who think men are only worthwhile when the nice little boys pay for pretty things.

    a man’s attractiveness to women is more complex. while more money is better than less money for attracting women, it is not the only variable. that is why stone cold golddiggers with nothing but cashing a man’s paychecks on their mind are in fact rare birds and not the only type of women men normally encounter.
    but if a golddigger wants a man for nothing but his money and he agrees to her terms, then he gets exactly what he pays for.

    Also, you’re really angry

    spot the projection!

    like Gannon, who thinks 12 year olds should be having sex with older men because it’s good for the world.

    the only way you can “win” an argument is by making one up out of wholecloth, eh?

    That is why people don’t like you.

    you don’t like me because i shit on you.
    ergo, “people” don’t like me.
    your logic astounds.

    Because you don’t have a message, other than, “Women should do what I want, or I’ll yell…”

    no, i just move on to a better prospect.
    yelling is beta.

    Like


  18. “Dizzy, please be specific when you cite mean. “

    Ok:

    “Pump and dump.”

    “Cum dumpster.”

    “Fat slut.”

    “Menstrual blood on kittens…”

    “Put her in her place.”

    “Show her whining ass who’s boss.”

    “Stick a dildo in her fat ass.”

    If you did a random quote generator from this site, nine times out of ten, it would be some huge generalization about the entire female sex, or some angry, “That woman needs to learn her place,” comment.

    Like


  19. “yelling is beta.”

    “dizzy diddled herself while writing me another mash note:”

    Insulting is beta too, right? And stop trying to pretend you read books. You wouldn’t recognize a strawman argument if it blew you.

    You’re an intellectually lazy attempting-to-shock-jock, and you’re seeking approval and attention by yelling, constantly, about how awful things are for the mens. You want pity and sympathy and for people to pay attention, gottdammit! Just like every other Archie Bunker wannabee. You’re nothing new, dude.

    Like


  20. I see where you’re coming from, there is a lot of self help guru bs (maybe some of it is useful to some people). Luckily you can be your own guru because self-esteem resides inside your own mind. There is nothing gimmicky or delusional about fixing the inner programming if you think it’s broken. That can take years, months, days, or seconds, it depends on how long it takes to approve yourself.

    Like


  21. I mean, there are those of us who feel that we were lied to, and cheated, and made to play the fool about “what women want”, but the actual relationships I’ve had with unattractive women haven’t been bad. Quite good, in fact, except physically. It’s the soul-sucking universal rejection from conventionally-attractive women on the way there that hurts, and there really doesn’t seem any way to leverage one’s romantic market value, except game.

    One classic feminist objection is that men object to the rejection itself, that they always want to hear “yes”. Damn straight. This is generally phrased (on http://www.realadultsex.com) that we think there “isn’t enough free pussy” in the world. Even given the possibility that the male sex drive is disproportionate, it is nothing if not adaptive, when all you care about is results =1 instead of results =0, you get the kinds of inner-city ferocity described by Steven Pinker.

    I don’t know any way around the darkness except to harden oneself to it or join with it.

    Like


  22. A, A, A.

    It’s amazing how many high-status girls at my university date guys that are dropouts or have no ambition. Then I realize that most of the college boys they interact with have no balls and are boring.

    Pretty easy pick!

    Like


  23. on June 18, 2008 at 7:41 pm Michael Katcher

    @Dizzy19 – Ironically, you threw up another strawman in the same post that you claim he doesn’t know what the term means. I don’t think I’ve ever heard Roissy complain about how bad things are for (his type of) men. What is it with women and logical argument?

    Like


  24. ” I don’t think I’ve ever heard Roissy complain about how bad things are for (his type of) men. What is it with women and logical argument?”

    Oh my dear Michael. You don’t understand the term, “irony,” and if you have never heard Roissy complain about how hard life is for men (divorce laws that make them pay to support their children, feminists who have hairy legs, blah blah BLAH), then either you can’t read or you agree so thoroughly with his assumptions that it doesn’t occur to you his comments are offensive.

    Trust me. They are, to anyone who spends half a second thinking about it, “Hmmm…. women are only valuable as partners for their hotness, and only young women are hot? What does that MEAN? That men can age but women can’t? That men are valuable for what they do, while women are only valuable in terms of how good they look to men?”

    My poor wittle head is spinning. Maybe some big tough guy should ask me to make him a sammich, because I’ve heard “the girls” like that.

    Like


  25. on June 18, 2008 at 7:58 pm Michael Katcher

    @Dizzy You quoted my sentence so I’m sure you read it. I don’t think Roissy types are concerned about divorce laws because they don’t get married or hairy-legged feminists because there are plenty of hairless, feminine women that sleep with him. Did my putting ‘his type of’ in parentheses confuse you?

    Like


  26. PS:

    i·ro·nies
    1.
    a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
    b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
    c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect

    Although you could have dimmly sensed that you were trying for option 2:
    2.
    a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland’s copying the nation she most hated” Richard Kain.
    b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
    3. Dramatic irony.
    4. Socratic irony.

    Even that doesn’t really work, though. It might be incongruous if I had mocked Roissy for throwing around argument terms when his idea of critical analysis is frat humor, while also doing exactly what he accused me of doing. But since anyone who has ever read this site for five minutes knows Roissy is a whiner-without-peer-or-par, then my comment about his complaints was not, as you assert, a strawman. So there’s no incongruity. It was a fairly weak base for your attempt at sounding smart, anyway.

    Like


  27. “I don’t think Roissy types are concerned about divorce laws because they don’t get married or hairy-legged feminists because there are plenty of hairless, feminine women that sleep with him. Did my putting ‘his type of’ in parentheses confuse you?”

    You’ve never read his site, then. Thanks for playing. Check the archives on your way out.

    Like


  28. “That men can age but women can’t?
    Dizzy, all he does is giving sound advice to women. If you want to start a family, do so when you are young and men want you. At age 32 it might be too late…
    Dizzy really, get a man, have babies, and be happy…
    It’s still not too late for you.

    Like


  29. “Dizzy really, get a man, have babies, and be happy…
    It’s still not too late for you.”

    Oh lord Gannon, I wish you’d stop pretending those three things are at all equivalent, or connected to each other in any way, really. I can have option 1 or option 2, or neither, and still be a cheery little option 3. Do you think men are worthless unless they have children before 30? Your idea of “sound advice” is just scary.

    Like


  30. on June 18, 2008 at 8:08 pm Michael Katcher

    Bitterness only makes you more unattractive.

    Like


  31. No brainer. The goog-looking man with low self confidence will win with women.

    That’s because most people who front and employ “game” and other conscious, calculated strategies to impress others are almost by definition lacking in true inner self-confidence.

    Self-confidence, or the lack of it, isn’t always overtly self-evident to the outside observer.

    Many people who are blessed with good looks, or who project the slickest, smoothest facades to the outside world are tormented by the most obsessive demons of self-doubt and self-hatred.

    I don’t know too much about the guy, and I’m sure I’ll be trashed here for using him as an example, but look at someone like Heath Ledger, for example.

    Put Heath Ledger, who most women would probably rate a 9 or 10 (and who, from appearances alone, most guys and many women might say had every reason to be self-confident) side-by-side with a short, bald guy like Danny De Vito.

    Who could get the hottest looking girls? Obviously, someone who looks like Ledger.

    But even that, plus a successful acting career, wasn’t enough for him to want to keep living.

    Who is still alive and enjoying his millions? The short, fat, bald, ugly guy.

    Like


  32. Ok, I’m out. Have fun talking about how the girls who won’t sleep with you are stupid and ugly and mean, and the girls who will sleep with you are stupid and slutty, and the girls you want are great until they age or get fat or something.

    It all makes a lot of sense. Really.

    Like


  33. “Bitterness only makes you more unattractive.’

    You don’t know what I look like. It’s the internet. But using, “Your ugly,” as an argument technique just proves you’re as educated and capable a debate partner as I figured you were when you first misused irony.

    Also, calling you on your shit is not, technically, bitter. Know it all, yes. Bitter, nah.

    I think you’re just bitter that I’m right 🙂

    Like


  34. Arghh. It should have said, “You’re ugly!” Damn angry typos.

    I need to get off here. Enjoy!

    Like


  35. Dizzy or Dizzy8

    I think by now we get it…. You don’t like Roissy or his blog or people that agree with what he writes. Obviously learning to practice law yourself you find a lot of what he writes offensive. My only question is why do you even bother reading the blog and leaving 20 almost stalker like comments. What’s the point? You already know what he’s going to say and you already think its wrong so why read? Wouldn’t it be easier to use all that energy for arguing you have to support a blog or something you do agree and believe in?

    Like


  36. on June 18, 2008 at 8:18 pm Tired of Smoke Rings

    Dizzy is like every punishing, can’t-let-it-go, ex-wife ball cutter, rolled into one sticky green mass. I don’t buy most of what Roissy is selling but his rap is way more entertaining than the tired projection routine D seems to find animating. Self parody seems to be the fate irony has prepared for the bitter and humorless.

    Like


  37. on June 18, 2008 at 8:30 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @dizzy &
    @roissy

    to Roissy:
    I find that she (dizzy) loves you Roissy. I am serious when I say that. I suspect she has been stalking this blog for some time, and that her fights with you are designed to disengage your mental reasoning skills (which would identify her as a 5 or 6, which she knows she is) and engage your emotions, which are a female’s domain. Probable motive? Because she wants your alpha sperm, and then be able to say from her new found personal experience that you are a jerk beta who failed to measure up, and thats why she “dumped” you.

    Secondary Reason, you are upsetting the Fem’s applecart, and waking up the male sheeple, you uppity scoundrel. and You need to be put back into your chains… Only if we could just figure out how to turn your words into “Hate Speach”, and take away your 1st amendment male privilege.

    “My lady, methinks thy doth protest to much”

    To Dizzy:
    Madam? Do you always get this pissy before you bleed
    or are you naturally this crazy? I think I have seen enough evidence to make the finding that you are an agent provocateur in the gender war. Are you of the mindset of Catherine (“Kitty”) MacKinnon and her Ilk?

    “In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent”
    – Catherine (“Kitty”) MacKinnon, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, p. 129.

    If…
    If Yes, then

    You individuals, take your sex and gender and turn it into marxist group-class warfare for the replacement and transfer of power from males to females.
    1. Rape is an criminal act performed by individuals, and in rarer instances gangs, on individuals.
    2. Consent in all instances , is understood as a meeting of the individual minds of each participent, in an agreement or disagreement.
    At no time in recorded history has any Majority or Minority group of humanity spoken to one another as a single voice to determine anything ever.

    To other females, and male feminists. I do not hate you. Never have, Never will. I hate your actions at times, and sometimes I decide to be rude or mean. My hurtful comments directed at dizzy are meant to be inflamitory, and hopefully shock her out of her programing and into acting like a civilized, self-aware, human being. (long odds at that)

    I hope against hope that she will wake up and realize that she is a puppet, and not to a movement that really wants equality, but wants to destroy humanity as is has been known. The Family will be replaced with State worship, and Zero Population Growth (eugenics) will continue to publish propaganda that fools people into thinking that there are too many humans, and we need to have more birth control and more abortions… perhaps we should pass such laws in the US, just like in China. Wake Up Dizzy!

    Like


  38. There’s evidence from evolutionary psychology that men have a hardwired psychological bias to over-assume that women are attracted to them. Presumably those who assumed it was on were more likely to seek out and explore opportunities (more likely to pass on their genes), whereas those who under-assumed would have fewer offspring.

    The moral: calibrate in favor of assuming it’s always on.

    This isn’t really inner game though, so much as it is a psychological bias.

    Like


  39. dizzy came to terms with her undying love for her lord and master:
    if you have never heard Roissy complain about how hard life is for men (divorce laws that make them pay to support their children

    i have said marriage is a bad deal for men, and unfair divorce laws are part of the reason why.
    that is not the same as complaining how hard life is for men. in fact, life is pretty fucking fun when you are a man who isn’t paying child support or alimony through the nose!

    , feminists who have hairy legs, blah blah BLAH),

    hairy legs are unattractive on women.
    i suppose this makes my life hard if visual pollution is the standard of measure.

    then either you can’t read or you agree so thoroughly with his assumptions that it doesn’t occur to you his comments are offensive.

    are you offended? good! i wouldn’t have it any other way.

    Like


  40. on June 18, 2008 at 8:59 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @5 dizzy

    “Um, Roissy, the “ugly truth” is that you are not special. Lots of people manufacture horror stories about some “other” – in your case, the big bad feminists who you think are preventing you from getting laid. (Way to forgo personal responsibility dude). ”

    Are you denying that feminism is the biggest cockblocker in history? Worse then lesbianism I might add, because a lot of lesbians have been know to slip up or experiment with a male.
    Even Saint Sapho, had her sailor (male).

    Oddly enough, I have been picked up at lesbian bars more times than when I have visited NOW meetups.

    —————————————————————————–
    “Also, you’re really angry”(1) and “tend harbor people on your board like Gannon, who thinks 12 year olds should be having sex with older men because it’s good for the world.”(2)

    Re (1) Nice to know that your a psychic as well as psychotic.
    What evidentary burden did you use to convict? Because it was neither Preponderance of the evidence, nor Beyond a reasonable doubt. Those who practice self-delusion are incapable of discerning reality, and blindly grope for truth.
    I think you, like many females (and quite a few males) are ruled by emotion. and I present your Projection as prima fascia evidence for the record.

    Re (2) Are you sure you are quoting his thoughts/values/beliefs correctly, if not now is the the time to fess up and make redress, otherwise the diligent will do the research, to find if your claims about his statements match up with his statements of record. And you “credibility” will be weighed, measured, and found wanting.

    Perhaps you read him with preconceived notions banging around in your head and gained nothing but a flawed misunderstanding of his words.
    Or Perhaps you skimmed and didn’t actually read what he said. A sad comment on your study habits, in the least.
    (Reminds me of other students who used to pass classes based on their ability to suck up and flatter a teacher, or trade in secret favors)

    Like


  41. on June 18, 2008 at 9:04 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    @38 Skeletor

    There’s evidence from evolutionary psychology that men have a hardwired psychological bias to over-assume that women are attracted to them.

    Evidence??? or Theory… which is it… Please Direct Me to this
    Data that you are pawning off on us. Is it in any of the Peer Reviewed Journals?? Cough it up, or I decry Bullshiz!

    Like


  42. > There’s evidence from evolutionary psychology that men have a hardwired psychological bias to over-assume that women are attracted to them.

    It’s probably related to the phenomenon of overconfidence which is very widely documented in economics and psychology. In effect, you overweight the possibilites for a good outcome or alternatively believe you know more than you actually do (personally, I’m the exact opposite).

    Like


  43. on June 18, 2008 at 9:47 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    Again… Thats theory… Give me Facts
    Thats what evidence is Facts, not supposition of probables.

    There is a dead human on the floor, with a lethal gunshot wound in the head. I am holding a smoking revolver. If the ballistics match, and the autopsy finds no other causes for death.
    Then it is a fact that I am holding the murder weapon.
    The security camera on the nearby ATM machine, shot film showing me pull the Trigger.
    That is evidence that I committed homicide.

    The detective find out that the decedent was jewish, and that I had not robbed him and supposes that I am an anti-Semite.

    In my confession, I admit, that I discovered, and then later double tapped the decedent for seducing and molesting my 6 year old son or daughter, while my testimony is not a fact;

    his DNA evidence found within the Rape Kit at the hospital/lab/evidence room
    is provable a fact but not superposition or theory.

    Ok, lesson finished.

    I desire “38 Skeletor” to provide evidence for the information he is posting. Because I detest propaganda.

    @42 Nupnup
    “It’s probably related to the phenomenon of overconfidence which is very widely documented in economics and psychology.”

    Again show proof / source for your conjecture of causality.
    Probables don’t convict. Evidence does. Peer Reviewed / Published Evidence removes the possibility of Cooked Books or Fixed studies, to the trillions to one odds.*

    *(an admitted cooked number to illustrate a greater truth, the number is probably much higher)

    Like


  44. Really, if “dizzy” is all the feminist cadre can come up with on this site, then feminism is doomed…

    America is ground zero for ballcutting feminists — in fact, America invented feminism (along with the gas guzzler car, the subprime mortgage, and a lot of other doomed ideas…)

    Lots of countries now have feminists of various stripes, but in all my travels, I find it funny that American feminists are the only feminists in the world who expect men to act like something other than men.

    Feminists in other countries fight for greater representation in government, better child care, etc.

    But feminists in the U.S. are the only ones who profess the credo, “the personal is the political”, and expect men to distort and sacrifice their inherent masculine natures — particularly in relationships.

    While feminists of other countries fight for just causes while retaining their inherent femininity, American feminists are the only ones who are in the business of wringing their hands over nonsensical shit like the so-called “sexual double standard” and other bogus issues that have nothing to do with real feminism.

    Just my random thoughts…

    Like


  45. on June 18, 2008 at 11:15 pm Jim Rockford

    Isn’t the feminist discussion with Dizzy ignoring the topic?

    Q: Who has more attractiveness to women? Good looking rich guy or confident less physically splendid guy?

    I think the answer is neither, in that it misses what women select for. The bad boy, or the dark triad trait man. Bill Gates when he was single in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s should have had women climbing all over him — he was powerful, rich, successful beyond belief, the confidant of Presidents and other supremely powerful men, not bad looking though in need of a makeover. Yet it was some rather plain looking woman in his own company who landed him, without much competition.

    By contrast, look at Scott Baio. A minor TV celebrity who’s fame passed him back in 1978, an aging pretty boy, had women all over him back then. Even though Bill Gates was a better genetic bet (smarts + billions = success) for offspring. Clearly other factors in sexual selection were at work.

    I think the answer is that if women’s choices are not constrained, they select for the “Big Man” type of personality, who can run from Charles Barkley and Karl Malone (who actually did get a 13 year old pregnant at age 22 and never paid child support) on the benign side to say, Charles Taylor of Liberia. Famous for his forces hacking off limbs.

    Whereas I think male selection particularly past say age 25 or so, is different. While looks are important I don’t think past a certain floor of physical attractiveness they are dominant. Likely more important is the woman’s personality, character, and intelligence which are critical factors for long term relationships.

    The negative implications of feminism are of course two fold:

    1. Selection unconstrained for “Big Men” produces a society comprised of Barkleys, Malones, and Taylors. Not Bill Gates or Linus Torvalds or say, Burt Rutan. [Scientific and engineering achievement requires a different sort of man than women prefer. They may be nerdy and not particularly verbal, but modern society absolutely must have them, even if women would rather have the bad boy.]

    Taken to it’s logical conclusion, the feminist ideal of many, many bad boys = social collapse.

    2. In the interim, the non-bad boy men are the mating game losers. They can be relied upon to not be happy about it, and misogyny, real not pretend versions, will be openly expressed and acted upon politically as these groups become larger and more potent. China’s experience is instructive (selective sex abortion means many Chinese men will never have wives and produce mass violence/instability).

    Men with wives, and particularly men with wives and daughters are very rarely misogynists. Men with no sexual contact or hope of sex and intimacy in a relationship end up like Mohammed Atta. Coming at your office window in jumbo jet. It’s instructive that only al-Shehhi, who was the only one of the pilots who was married (to a German woman) wanted out of the plot.

    Feminism, in the interim results in large amounts of un-connected men, who will predictably become misogynists. Feminists fail in thinking that the tactic of continued not sleeping with these men, or continued social ostracism will somehow work magic and constrain them socially.

    But then I never saw the feminist wisdom of large amounts of young men outside relationships and with no purpose.

    Like


  46. But do they do so by being obviously evil, or do they manage it, like that handsome serial killer (to take an extreme example) whose name I forget, by pretending to be nice guys?

    I don’t think they looked at attractiveness in the studies, but sociopaths are typically described as superficially very charming.

    I’ve just finished a book on facial appearance and social psychology, as well as lots of follow-up articles, and it seems that babyfaced men (but not women) are more likely to show bad boy behavior.

    Their outward appearance is disarming and somewhat attractive, but they’re up to something else inside, in other words. That’s my guess about how the “dark triad” guys get girls: by dishonest outward signaling, in biological terms.

    Like


  47. BTW, “Dark Triad” would be a great name for Roissy’s rock trio, although it does sound a bit emo…

    Like


  48. Dizzy simply needs to get her brains fucked out. Clearly it has been a while since that has happened to her, if ever. A good, thorough fuck might calm her down for a while.

    Like


  49. Folks, the point to take away from the Dark Triad study isn’t that women only like sociopaths, or even that they like sociopaths more than other men. There is not anywhere near enough evidence to justify that, and the sociopaths might have more relationships just because they WANT more.

    The only reasonable conclusion to make is that women are either incapable of telling that men ARE sociopaths, or that they don’t really care.

    The first makes sense: You can’t really know a person’s personality…people still surprise you even after 20 years.

    The second means that women don’t give a shit about a personality. They don’t care if you cure cancer, help old women cross the street, rob hundreds of thousands of people of their money, or killed 6 million Jews. Women just don’t care.

    Even those conclusions are a bit shaky. But they’re the best ones available.

    Like


  50. on June 19, 2008 at 12:15 am anonymous 57

    44 “While feminists of other countries fight for just causes while retaining their inherent femininity, American feminists are the only ones who are in the business of wringing their hands over nonsensical shit like the so-called “sexual double standard” and other bogus issues that have nothing to do with real feminism.”

    While I’m tickled to see a distinction being made, rather than the painting of Feminism as a single monolithic entity as is usually seen here, as an American feminist (one of the just-causes kind) I feel obliged to point out that the hand-wringing ones do not speak for the rest of us.

    Feminism is not the enemy: stupid, selfish people with a ridiculously-inflated sense of entitlement are. The legal system surrounding marriage & divorce is clearly flawed, but the flaw of those who exploit it is that they’re weak, selfish people who lack character, *not* that women (or feminists) in general are conniving lampreys.

    But valuing women primarily for superficial qualities is going to contribute, at least to some degree, to the development of superficial women. Why should they care about depth when that’s not what’s rewarded?

    “Men with wives, and particularly men with wives and daughters are very rarely misogynists.”

    I question this on the basis of personal experience: I’ve known quite a number of unhappily married men who turned out openly hostile towards women. Not that they didn’t have cause to be unhappy, but punishing all women for the faults of a few doesn’t seem a logical or proportionate response, either….

    Like


  51. on June 19, 2008 at 12:31 am anonymous 57

    I realize anecdotal evidence doesn’t bring the house down around here, but I thought I’d estrogen the place up a little:

    “The only reasonable conclusion to make is that women are either incapable of telling that men ARE sociopaths, or that they don’t really care.”

    Going by the admittedly small sample of my friends and myself, I submit that the former is almost always the case. The truly bad eggs have always revealed themselves to be bad eggs only after a long period of laying good-guy groundwork. Dismay is the only reaction I’ve ever seen from the women: dismay that a person can front one thing so successfully while actually being the total opposite; and dismay that she was so badly fooled. I’ve never met a woman who’d be phlegmatic about dating a sociopath…and actually, I hope I never do, because that’s fucked up!

    Like


  52. I have the coveted social invisibility that street-harassed feminists supposedly crave, as a differently-abled (read: “fucking gimp”) male hippie in a West Coast beach town. I have nearly limitless agency in eliciting a response, because I am never a direct threat in the same way that I am never immediately a sex object, and many women, whether I speak to them or try to initiate non-verbally, reply only with that harsh, uncomfortable smile that is the simian demonstration of non-threat through limited acknowledgement. The walls of passively-indifferent body language that constantly surround me are massive, as pronounced as the tendency of women to stare through me.

    I am, in contrast to this, hyper-aware of what my bent body is communicating, and my attempts to be open and friendly may or may not be interpreted as gamma-kowtowing to people who are “whole.” I have never been an introvert, but I can only attempt to engage, never compel a response.

    Like


  53. on June 19, 2008 at 2:16 am Patrick Bateman

    I know an a (not balding) and he gets decent bitches and knows all the important people in the club scene back home.

    I know a b (wealthy but not rich) and he also fucks a lot of bitches but only ugly ones because he’s not confident enough to go for decent girls. He did manage to get himself a banging wife somehow.

    Like


  54. on June 19, 2008 at 2:28 am Jim Rockford

    Anon57 — a man with a wife and sons has his genetic future tied up into his wife’s ability to earn and contribute to the household. So that his sons get braces for their teeth, good schooling, all the things that contribute to reproductive success.

    When he has both a wife and a daughter, his reproductive success is tied to both his wife’s earnings (requiring freedom, stability, good treatment of women) and the ability of his daughters to be successful reproductively, again requiring a positive environment for women.

    I’ll cite New Zealand and Wyoming, both of which gave women the right to vote in the 1870’s, out of a desire to attract and keep women on what amounted to a harsh frontier. Your anecdotal data points are poor arguments.

    As for the bad boy stuff, there are other explanations possible.

    1. Women may over-estimate the ability of their beauty and “specialness” to “change” said bad boy into a domesticated monster THEY control. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a textbook case. They know he’s bad, they just think they hold the leash.
    2. Women depend on mediating institutions that would include other people’s independent assessment of a man’s character and suitability. Lacking those independent assessments, women go by celebrity (“if he’s famous, he must be good!”) or social success and ability to display “game” i.e. smoothness and seduction and no nervousness as markers of good character.
    3. Women accurately perceive warning signs of bad character, but pursue an unsuitable man anyway in the blind belief that their initial assessment was wrong, given the powerful attraction of dominant physical and social behavior.

    To me this is more evidence that both male and female sexuality need mediating/controlling institutions to prevent chaos and instability.

    Like


  55. on June 19, 2008 at 2:45 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @54 Jim Rockford
    “As for the bad boy stuff, there are other explanations possible.

    1. Women may over-estimate the ability of their beauty and “specialness” to “change” said bad boy into a domesticated monster THEY control. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a textbook case. They know he’s bad, they just think they hold the leash.”

    To the females who think this, my only response is as follows:

    “Men cannot be governed and remain men. Domesticate the wolf and he changes both physically and mentally. His muzzle shrinks, his teeth diminish, he loses size, speed, and strength, He grows spots. His ears flop. His brain withers. He becomes a dog. Men are on the verge of becoming dogs — the changes are underway already — unless we do something to stop it.”

    — The Ceo Lia Wheeler, Phoebus Krumm

    Like


  56. on June 19, 2008 at 2:56 am SovereignAmericanMale

    @18 dizzy8

    (Roissy) “Dizzy, please be specific when you cite mean. “

    (Dizzy)Ok:

    “If you did a random quote generator from this site, nine times out of ten, it would be some huge generalization about the entire female sex, or some angry, “That woman needs to learn her place,” comment.”

    “If you did a random quote generator from this site…”

    “…from this site…”

    According to the sane, perfectly normal, ideal woman known as Dizzy:
    Anything “from this site” is a specific citation written by Roissy. Outstanding!!! She has LOST IT!!!

    Like


  57. on June 19, 2008 at 3:09 am anonymous 57

    “I’ll cite New Zealand and Wyoming, both of which gave women the right to vote in the 1870’s, out of a desire to attract and keep women on what amounted to a harsh frontier. Your anecdotal data points are poor arguments.”

    I did not claim they were arguments, I simply cited them as my experiences. And they do have the benefit of being significantly more recent than the 1870s.

    You made this claim: “Men with wives, and particularly men with wives and daughters are very rarely misogynists.” I stated that I’ve interacted with enough exceptions to make your claim questionable.

    Like


  58. on June 19, 2008 at 3:26 am anonymous 57

    54. “Women accurately perceive warning signs of bad character, but pursue an unsuitable man anyway in the blind belief that their initial assessment was wrong, given the powerful attraction of dominant physical and social behavior.”

    I expect this is what’s usually meant by the whole “women going for bad boys” thing, although I don’t think the phenomenon of bad-guys-flying-under-the-radar-by-masquerading-as-good-guys can be discounted, either. Whether that’s due to exceptionally good acting on the guys’ part or pervasive bad-guy blindness on the women’s, I couldn’t say. (And I say this as someone who’s made this mistake myself.)

    Like


  59. on June 19, 2008 at 3:50 am SovereignAmericanMale

    So what do you do with good guys who mass-queer-raid as Bad Boys, when their cover is blown? Dump em?

    Like


  60. on June 19, 2008 at 3:51 am Comment_On_Zero_Empathy

    ***
    Going by the admittedly small sample of my friends and myself, I submit that the former is almost always the case. The truly bad eggs have always revealed themselves to be bad eggs only after a long period of laying good-guy groundwork. Dismay is the only reaction I’ve ever seen from the women: dismay that a person can front one thing so successfully while actually being the total opposite; and dismay that she was so badly fooled. I’ve never met a woman who’d be phlegmatic about dating a sociopath…and actually, I hope I never do, because that’s fucked up!
    ***
    Commenting on the obvious, the women “fooled” saw the sociopath be a sociopath over and over again. But not to *THEM*. Probably only to men. Having an effective empathy of zero towards men, this was just meaningless noise that they weren’t even aware happened. In fact, “saw” is a relatively silly descriptor. It happened around them, but they were unaware of it.

    Then the sociopath isn’t nice to them. Suddenly, it’s real, and his sociopathic tendencies matter.

    Also, there is alot, “it’s only men he mistreats who cares?”

    On an episode of Shark, they made a big deal about how a very violent criminal was “abusive to his wife” and how “bad” this was. Of course, she knew where his money came from, but, as a woman would say, that’s only “man blood”. Who cares? Oh-My-God did you see the unkind look he gave his poor wife? Cluck-Cluck-Cluck.

    Like


  61. on June 19, 2008 at 4:07 am anonymous 57

    “Commenting on the obvious, the women “fooled” saw the sociopath be a sociopath over and over again. But not to *THEM*. Probably only to men. Having an effective empathy of zero towards men, this was just meaningless noise that they weren’t even aware happened. In fact, “saw” is a relatively silly descriptor. It happened around them, but they were unaware of it.”

    What I’m telling you is that, in the instances I’m describing, this recognition-but-refusal-to-admit-it is not what happened. And you are assigning a lack of empathy that is entirely inaccurate.

    What I’m about to say is applicable to a number of the men who post here, not men in general: it’s little wonder that so many of you have to resort to things like game, when you refuse to even entertain the notion that some women, at least, are whole, functioning, rational humans with a full spectrum of intellect, emotion & integrity, just as you regard yourselves to be.

    If you want this to be the He-Man Women-Haters Club, you should just put up a sign and be done with it.

    Like


  62. on June 19, 2008 at 4:12 am anonymous 57

    “So what do you do with good guys who mass-queer-raid as Bad Boys, when their cover is blown? Dump em?”

    With a quickness. Liars deserve nothing. And then I beat myself up for being so easily fooled, and try to learn from the experience without being jaded by it.

    Like


  63. “With a quickness. Liars deserve nothing. And then I beat myself up for being so easily fooled, and try to learn from the experience without being jaded by it.”

    I think you’re lying, or, rather, misrepresenting your true action. Human beings are not wired to admit they are wrong so easily. Hence, why people stick with losing stocks.

    Of course, I could be wrong, but women in general still might be willing to stick with the bad boy.

    Like


  64. on June 19, 2008 at 4:48 am SovereignAmericanMale

    So, Anon 57,
    let me get this right. You would stay with a Bad boy if he was in fact, a bad boy and not fake about it, and with a Good guy, as long as he was a true good guy. Because neither one is a liar?

    Please read slowly, my comment again… You may have read it really fast without letting it sink in, before your response.
    Here let me contrast it with what I DID NOT SAY.

    I didn’t say “so what do you do with bad boys who mass-queer-raid as good boys”

    side note:
    “you refuse to even entertain the notion that some women, at least, are whole, functioning, rational humans with a full spectrum of intellect, emotion & integrity, just as you regard yourselves to be”

    As for me, I give acknowledgment to those ladies that presently post, are of your “notion”. In fact, I have directed positive statements to them, and You are one that number.
    I am a recent poster, and I haven’t read all of the archives, to give everyone a cookie/gold star. Please don’t let the absence of my external acknowledgment, fool you into thinking that I don’t discern between Dross and Silver.

    As for the He-man woman haters club, count me out, as I have already made my position clear in post 37. I don’t hate women or male feminists, but sometimes I hate their actions.

    Like


  65. Selection unconstrained for “Big Men” produces a society comprised of Barkleys, Malones, and Taylors. Not Bill Gates or Linus Torvalds or say, Burt Rutan.

    Taken to it’s logical conclusion, the feminist ideal of many, many bad boys = social collapse.

    Just take a look at many inner-city neighborhoods for a real-world laboratory of this phenomenon.

    Like


  66. The legal system surrounding marriage & divorce is clearly flawed, but the flaw of those who exploit it is that they’re weak, selfish people who lack character, *not* that women (or feminists) in general are conniving lampreys.

    What gets women the “conniving lamprey” label isn’t really divorce itself, though that certainly doesn’t help, but that women pushed for creating the system as it is, loudly and publicly oppose changing it, cheer on and encourage their divorcing “sisters” to exploit it, and ostracize women who object.

    Like


  67. So you want peer-reviewed data? Start at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overconfidence_effect#External_links

    Having a grounding behavioral econ, I can at least attest for the 4th reference (Kahneman ,Tversky, et al.) being worth a read. If Peer-reviewed is not good enough, then Kahneman got the 2002 Nobel prize.

    Or use Google Scholar. Tons of stuff around.

    Like


  68. on June 19, 2008 at 12:45 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    Thank you, Nupnup

    Like


  69. on June 19, 2008 at 12:59 pm anonymous 57

    63 “I think you’re lying, or, rather, misrepresenting your true action. Human beings are not wired to admit they are wrong so easily. Hence, why people stick with losing stocks.

    “Of course, I could be wrong, but women in general still might be willing to stick with the bad boy.”

    I’m not lying, but that doesn’t mean you’re wrong about the second part. Enough women must be willing to stay with bad boys to make it the recognizable trend that it seems to be.

    Like


  70. on June 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm anonymous 57

    “let me get this right. You would stay with a Bad boy if he was in fact, a bad boy and not fake about it, and with a Good guy, as long as he was a true good guy. Because neither one is a liar?”

    No. I was addressing *only* the phenomenon of sociopaths who masquerade as decent guys for a long period of time, who don’t reveal their true colors until after a woman is involved with the facade he’s presented. I was not talking about the up-front bad boy.

    “Please read slowly, my comment again… You may have read it really fast without letting it sink in, before your response.
    Here let me contrast it with what I DID NOT SAY.

    “I didn’t say “so what do you do with bad boys who mass-queer-raid as good boys”

    My apologies — I did, in fact, read that backwards. Shouldn’t post when tired.

    As to your question: I don’t do anything with good boys who masquerade as bad boys. For one thing, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered one…although I might have and not known it, because bad boys — whether genuine or phony — don’t interest me, and I wouldn’t spend enough time interacting with them to determine whether they’re faking or not. I’ve known women with a taste for that kind of drama, but I’m not one of them.

    “As for me, I give acknowledgment to those ladies that presently post, are of your “notion”. In fact, I have directed positive statements to them, and You are one that number.
    …Please don’t let the absence of my external acknowledgment, fool you into thinking that I don’t discern between Dross and Silver.

    True enough, you have done, and I appreciate it.

    “As for the He-man woman haters club, count me out, as I have already made my position clear in post 37. I don’t hate women or male feminists, but sometimes I hate their actions.”

    True again. I’m sorry I was snappish; again, too tired, and also misinterpreted what you said by misreading your post. I appreciate the dialogue; you give me hope.

    And Nupnup, thank you for the link, but I have to tell you, peer-related data doesn’t mean a lot to me if I’m witnessing, first-hand, reality that contradicts it. It’s not that your data doesn’t serve a purpose, but practically speaking, it doesn’t help in the here & now. I’ll stick with empirical evidence.

    Like


  71. “My only question is why you even bother reading the blog…”

    1) People I have to interact with read this blog. As a general good girl, in real life I was mostly insulated from the penalties men dish out to women they don’t like. I wasn’t the “ballbusting” girl at work the guys were complaining about. I wasn’t the bitchy controlling girlfriend. The only time I really hear negativity is when I won’t let a guy hit on me. (Very, very scary situations, btw – you guys are jackasses). Reading this stuff lets me know what people like you really think of women who disagree with you, and reminds me that even if you fake being nice to me in person for a while, you’re bitter underneath. I learn the stories and little trigger phrases to separate the whiny, un-selfreliant assholes like roissy from the regular guys. I can now pick out the people who want to control me and avoid them.

    2) Every time I comment, Roissy plays to his base with frat boy humor about menstruation, you guys start yelling about how ugly I am (like you’d have any idea) and the scary commenters come out and try to “prove” how smart they are with totally crap attempts at logic and some more “women are me–an” whiny insults. (Thank you, Michael and Broken Arrow). It’s funny for me. And it pushes away potential readers. This blog could almost pass for mainstream, if people like Gannon would stay off it.

    3) I’ve said it before: This blog is a fascinating primer on the domestic violence mindset. And a lot of the really angry things Roissy says about women – that they don’t count outside of the sexual marketplace, that their attempts to get jobs are all about gaining “control,” and so on – have been completely accepted by large chunks of our society. No wonder domestic violence rates are so damn high. This blog is a window into something that’s really wrong with our culture. It’s like reading Klan literature or something. And you’re all totally sure you’re right. I’ve always been fascinated with the way people cope with not getting what they want. Some people blame themselves. Some people blame other races. Some people rant about ‘entitled” women and advise sticking to teenaged and foreign women, because they are more “agreeable.”

    4) I can’t imagine feeling so weak and powerless that the comments on this board are comforting, or make sense. I keep coming back here the way little kids check under the bandaid, “Yep, it’s still there, and it’s gross. Ew! I’m going to poke it and see if it oozes pus…” You guys are amazing in your lack of self awareness and inability to reason through your problems. Roissy’s level of vitriol is kind of something else. It’s all just weird, and fascinating. Also hilarious, unintentionally so on your part, but still good times.

    Like


  72. I mean, I am “A”, in that I HAVE to be upbeat and positive in all my dealings with women, or get labeled as the “angry gimp loser who can’t get any.” So I find it hilarious that what I actually CAN supply (good sex) is obviated for the most part, in dealing with young, pretty, able-bodied women, by stereotypes of desirability or the fact that what they really want is a success object. Good thing that the fat differently-abled to-disabled women I fuck didn’t get the memo that they were supposed to be sexless, lifeless husks waiting passively for death. My disability also verges on invisibility at times, so I can play at higher beta instead of regular, and of course there’s the middle-class snobbery.

    So the question becomes how to love women who don’t want to fuck you, in spite of their bad choice in men (because NOT fucking you is a priori a bad choice) and how to seamlessly move on to the next attempt.

    Like


  73. Dizzy,

    You realize you’re arguing from a place of female privilege, right?
    It’s really, really easy to get marginalized socially and sexually for men in this culture, as any dialogue with a cat-calling hard-hat, or any review of the psych literature would reveal. The fact that you have ZERO empathy is unsurprising, to say the least. I would invite you to experience a day in my body and mind as a social question mark (admittedly, the fact that I live as a lower-middle-class male in an upper-class area, grandfathered-in rent control and my long residence being to blame or credit, compounds it) where very often the ONLY choice I have is to act out or not, where I am an inherent threat and little else, where what I bring to the table is ignored by women who stand on the shoulders of family money (which means men’s past labors, really) to look down on the world. And it takes a tremendous mental effort to cope with what I think is fundamental unfairness (I have literally NOT BEEN GIVEN THE TIME OF DAY on many an occasion) while repeating the mantra that nobody owes me anything.

    Interestingly, my father experienced much the same thing, as a member of the “greatest generation” who failed to marry when WW2 vets were heros. Waiting too late (he was extremely shy, and young, and was in the last cohort of the war, being processed in in Dec ’44) meant that he dealt with the Jewish women of the 60s and 70s, for whom a solid (and at that point, aging) middle-class engineer was no longer a “good catch.” And the shyness didn’t help much either. So it’s a miracle I’m here at all.

    The beautiful thing about social dynamics of raw power is that your awareness of them doesn’t change them a bit. It takes massive social changes in aggregate behavior to do so.

    Like


  74. By the way Dizzy, my ideas are completely mainstream in Europe. They are so mainstream in fact that they are reflected in legislation. All I’m doing is defending natural, European, universal standards for sexual consent. I bet you consider yourself open and tolerant on other cultures, but de facto you are not.

    Like


  75. Further dizzy: Your #4 indicates that you are empowered, probably by feminism. Not only are you not weak and powerless, you cannot imagine being so. Lots of men in powerful hegemonic positions cannot imagine women’s powerlessness either–for those women who are powerless–but we don’t applaud their lack of insight. Or do anything other than call it out as such.

    When women don’t get what they want, it’s “discrimination.”
    When men don’t get what they want, its “entitlement”.
    Feminism is the origin of this particular discursive difference.

    Like


  76. Roissy, there’s an article in the Telegraph about players, you, and James Bond. Seems it centers around having a “dark triad” – which is a great term for those who are good at getting lots of pussy, since it’s … aw heck, finish that one yourself.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2150930/Secrets-of-James-Bond%27s-success-with-women-unravelled.html

    Like


  77. “You realize you’re arguing from a place of female privilege, right?
    It’s really, really easy to get marginalized socially and sexually for men in this culture, as any dialogue with a cat-calling hard-hat, or any review of the psych literature would reveal. The fact that you have ZERO empathy is unsurprising, to say the least.”

    You do realize that no one owes you a night in her bed? That you are not being “discriminated against” if your version of a “dream girl” decides that you are not what she wants?

    It’s obvious you don’t. That’s the problem on here. You guys act like woman’s right not to want you = hurtful behavior. And that’s why I have zero empathy. Women have been dealing with men’s ability to walk away from us for a millenia. You guys haven’t been able to make it 30 years without all this whining about how much it hurts when people don’t do what you want.

    The way you guys all play the victim is ridiculous. Listen to yourselves! “Age of consent laws are too high! Women get upset when I sleep with other women! Women want me to treat them like a PRINCESS (as in, not yell at them in public, or grab their boobs at work, based on past comments) Wah!”

    It’s all about trying to control other people so that your life is better. You don’t have the right to do it. And that makes you mad. Roissy is your whiny little dream guy because he acts like there is a way to control women, and tells you that women are bad and we deserve it, and that it’s easy to do anyway because we’re all so stu-u-pid. That’s half the posts on this board. And none of you ever seem to see how weak you all sound.

    Like


  78. dizzy wailed:
    1) People I have to interact with read this blog. As a general good girl, in real life I was mostly insulated from the penalties men dish out to women they don’t like. I wasn’t the “ballbusting” girl at work the guys were complaining about. I wasn’t the bitchy controlling girlfriend. The only time I really hear negativity is when I won’t let a guy hit on me. (Very, very scary situations, btw – you guys are jackasses). Reading this stuff lets me know what people like you really think of women who disagree with you, and reminds me that even if you fake being nice to me in person for a while, you’re bitter underneath. I learn the stories and little trigger phrases to separate the whiny, un-selfreliant assholes like roissy from the regular guys. I can now pick out the people who want to control me and avoid them.

    2) Every time I comment, Roissy plays to his base with frat boy humor about menstruation, you guys start yelling about how ugly I am (like you’d have any idea) and the scary commenters come out and try to “prove” how smart they are with totally crap attempts at logic and some more “women are me–an” whiny insults. (Thank you, Michael and Broken Arrow). It’s funny for me. And it pushes away potential readers. This blog could almost pass for mainstream, if people like Gannon would stay off it.

    3) I’ve said it before: This blog is a fascinating primer on the domestic violence mindset. And a lot of the really angry things Roissy says about women – that they don’t count outside of the sexual marketplace, that their attempts to get jobs are all about gaining “control,” and so on – have been completely accepted by large chunks of our society. No wonder domestic violence rates are so damn high. This blog is a window into something that’s really wrong with our culture. It’s like reading Klan literature or something. And you’re all totally sure you’re right. I’ve always been fascinated with the way people cope with not getting what they want. Some people blame themselves. Some people blame other races. Some people rant about ‘entitled” women and advise sticking to teenaged and foreign women, because they are more “agreeable.”

    4) I can’t imagine feeling so weak and powerless that the comments on this board are comforting, or make sense. I keep coming back here the way little kids check under the bandaid, “Yep, it’s still there, and it’s gross. Ew! I’m going to poke it and see if it oozes pus…” You guys are amazing in your lack of self awareness and inability to reason through your problems. Roissy’s level of vitriol is kind of something else. It’s all just weird, and fascinating. Also hilarious, unintentionally so on your part, but still good times.

    you have lost all perspective.

    ps: cunt.

    Like


  79. Self-delusion or a depressive spiral ending with a gun barrel in your mouth. You choose.

    It’s only because you’ve embraced a hedonistic philosophy that you confront this stark choice. There are alternatives – and while most of them involve self-delusion there are some, like stoicism, that don’t seem to.

    Like


  80. Dizzy,

    I am inclined to agree with Roissy’s assessment of your post. Of course no one “owes” me anything–it still hurts. Obviously you have the absolute equanimity of someone who can be denied something you find vital indefinitely, for all the wrong reasons, and never get angry, upset, or hurtful More likely, you are not seriously deprived of anything you greatly desire. I am trying to illustrate that I have seen within my own family and my own life examples of the EXACT sociological developments Roissy critiques. I assure you, being without what you want in an absolute desert of social isolation encourages rather astute self-reflection.

    The rest of your comment is too whacked-out to allow much reply.

    Like


  81. on June 19, 2008 at 5:19 pm Tired of Smoke Rings

    “This blog is a window into something that’s really wrong with our culture. It’s like reading Klan literature or something.”

    Dizzy the oppressed. Notice how Dizzy takes no responsibility for her own actions or opinions and regards simple disagreements as something akin to sin. She is not even reading this by her own initiative, her co-workers are forcing her to do it. She habitually hoses this blog with bile and expects applause in return. And so the self-parody continues…

    Like


  82. >All I’m doing is defending natural, European, universal standards for sexual consent. I bet you consider yourself open and tolerant on other cultures, but de facto you are not.

    What part of Europe exactly?

    While we (Europe as a whole) generally have lower AoC than in the US, we do not see 16year old marry 28 year olds (mostly 18 is earliest for marriage by law). And if we do, we certainly don’t think it to be normal. Not in any European culture I’ve ever heard of, anyway.

    Like


  83. on June 19, 2008 at 5:43 pm Comment_On_Ignoring_Comments

    Comment:
    ***
    Commenting on the obvious, the women “fooled” saw the sociopath be a sociopath over and over again. But not to *THEM*. Probably only to men. Having an effective empathy of zero towards men, this was just meaningless noise that they weren’t even aware happened.
    ***

    ***
    In fact, “saw” is a relatively silly descriptor. It happened around them, but they were unaware of it.
    ***

    Reply:
    ***
    What I’m telling you is that, in the instances I’m describing, this recognition-but-refusal-to-admit-it is not what happened. And you are assigning a lack of empathy that is entirely inaccurate.
    ***

    “Recognition-but-refusal-to-admit” requires “Recognition”. I said “they weren’t even aware what happened”. If you lacked empathy, I’m curious as to how you would figure out that you weren’t seeing, what you weren’t seeing.

    Let us look at, Dizzy, and others, the dark days when women were ruthlessly used and disgarded by souless men. Let us look to the 1920s.

    When the Titanic sunk, there was about 2,224 people on board. Only 711 of them survived, about 1 in 3.

    Of the 1,690 men, what percentage, how many, do you think survived? Really, answer this, that is the point of an Empathy test.

    Of the 425 women, what percentage, how many, do you think survived?

    Of the 109 children, what percentage, how many, do you think survived?

    After you have used your super-enlightened empathy to exactly guess the numbers, look here:
    http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm

    How appalling wrong were you?

    Like


  84. What part of Europe exactly?

    Hm, let’s see
    France: 15
    Spain: 13
    Austria: 14
    Germany:16, 14, depends on the circumstances.
    (14 when the partner is blow 21, parental consent. Between 14-15 sex can be ilegal if it was achieved exploiting the inmaturity of the partner).
    I lived in Germany and say 15 year old girls dating older guys around 25. Speciall turks liked to date young german teens.

    Like


  85. The European Union wants 14 by the way, because psychologists have established that at that age girls have enough cognitive, emotional and intelectual maturity to consent on sex.

    Like


  86. on June 19, 2008 at 6:40 pm anonymous 57

    66 “What gets women the “conniving lamprey” label isn’t really divorce itself, though that certainly doesn’t help, but that women pushed for creating the system as it is, loudly and publicly oppose changing it, cheer on and encourage their divorcing “sisters” to exploit it, and ostracize women who object.”

    I actually don’t have a problem with that label being used *for those who deserve it*. What I take issue with is it being the assumed default setting for womenkind, which seems to be the majority attitude of the commenting here. There isn’t much in the way of innocent-until-proven-guilty for women; the assumption is conniving-lamprey-until-proven-innocent. If women who post here are a little defensive, this may be part of the reason why.

    If you’re going to assume the worst of people, you shouldn’t be surprised when they oblige you by fulfilling your expectations. (I mean a general “you”, not you specifically, Bob Smith.)

    It still comes down to changing the system. If the system didn’t reward the shitty behavior of the exploiters, you’d soon see a change in that behavior. I am *not* excusing that behavior, btw; only observing that it’s ludicrous to expect it to change if there are no consequences for it.

    For those who were dismissive about the relevance of concepts like bravery/cowardice and honor in today’s world: people who are instilled with a sense of honor wouldn’t exploit the system in the first place.

    Like


  87. on June 19, 2008 at 6:41 pm anonymous 57

    83. “Let us look at, Dizzy, and others, the dark days when women were ruthlessly used and disgarded by souless men. Let us look to the 1920s.

    “When the Titanic sunk, there was about 2,224 people on board. Only 711 of them survived, about 1 in 3.”

    Are you seriously asking anyone to analyze statistics about who survived a shipwreck in order to determine how to handle real-life dealings with living humans?? I sincerely hope you’re joking.

    KassyK is right: life is too short for this. I’m going kayaking!

    Like


  88. Clio, that would be Ted Bundy, serial killer and necrophiliac. Another psychopath that had scads of women proposing marriage until he was put to death.

    Just for my own edification, is the aforementioned unduly confident Guy A any different from the PUA crowd?

    Like


  89. Nobody really likes what the turks do except for a subset of them. At the very least I have never ever met anyone who thought it to be a good thing. The very most of it is really forced relations like you see it in some parts of the Arabian world.

    You occasionally see a 15 year old dating a mid twenties guy but most people (men and women) prefer she would not. Tell me what you want, but girls at that age ARE immature. I never tried (I dont think I could take the bullshit and experienced girls make for better lays, on average), but for an ok looking mid twenties guy with ample financial resources it is not so much a question of game but outright manipulation. Biology or not, it just does not fit a 21st century middle European society. [1]

    Save for a few exceptions, the 18-25 year olds are better looking anyhow.

    [1] Personally I much prefer girls making their own money, anyhow.

    Like


  90. on June 19, 2008 at 8:55 pm Michael Katcher

    I wonder what the bigger maturity gap is: a young 20s guy dating a 15 year old girl or an older man in his 40s or 50s dating a 21 year old girl. I’m 22 and more mature than many of my friends and I’m definitely more immature than my girlfriend of the same age.

    Like


  91. on June 19, 2008 at 11:00 pm SovereignAmericanMale

    In Post 37
    Are you of the mindset of Catherine (”Kitty”) MacKinnon and her Ilk?
    (all hetrosex is rape / marxist class warfare)
    No Answer from dizzy.
    —————-
    In Post 40
    Are you denying that feminism is the biggest cockblocker in history?
    No Answer from dizzy.

    She misquotes Gannon, and from a willful misunderstanding of his position, attacks a strawman.
    when challenged on this, she feigns catatonic ignorance.

    Re (2) Are you sure you are quoting his thoughts/values/beliefs correctly?; if not now is the the time to fess up and make redress, otherwise the diligent will do the research, to find if your claims about his statements match up with his statements of record. And you “credibility” will be weighed, measured, and found wanting

    {I think the specter of what Gannon raises, (men preferring a younger year model for the mother of his children/wife) really pisses her off, because her biological clock is in Dead Heat overtime at age 32.}

    ——————–

    In post 56

    Her delusional insanity is laid bare for all to see.

    According to dizzy:
    Anything “from this site” is a specific citation written by Roissy.

    ——————–
    71 dizzy said:

    (A)
    “you guys start yelling about how ugly I am (like you’d have any idea) and the scary commenters come out and try to “prove” how smart they are with totally crap attempts at logic”

    She fails to perceive that there exists such a thing as internal beauty, or a beautiful mind. Her insanity has blinded her to the fact, that her Mind is unsanitary, unkempt, polluted, evil, and UGLY, and I suspect that her exterior would show it as well, in real life. (filthy car, unchanged kitty litter box etc.)

    (B)
    (3) “I’ve said it before: This blog is a fascinating primer on the domestic violence mindset.”
    (4) “It’s all just weird, and fascinating. Also hilarious, unintentionally so on your part, but still good times.”

    I am now convinced she has rape fantasies, is a rape survivor or both. (alleged domestic violence talk = fascinating) She is riveted to her seat, she protests, yet she cannot get enough, GLUTTONOUS COW. Your not worthy of a man going to prison for raping you (for the record, no woman is), or giving into provocation, and letting wrath consume him, in a display of domestic “man on woman” violence, that your behavior suggests you desire. I suspect its fuled by guilt from your last abortion eating away at your soul, and that you are seeking punishment for an absolution.

    (C)
    (4)
    “You guys are amazing in your lack of self awareness and inability to reason through your problems.”

    You are making a good case, that the some of the nutjobs lack self awareness, that they are indeed fruitloops, instead professing that everyone else is insane. We call this Projection, and dizzy is a past master at it.
    ——————-

    @48 Racer X said:

    Dizzy simply needs to get her brains fucked out. Clearly it has been a while since that has happened to her, if ever. A good, thorough fuck might calm her down for a while

    Dear Racer X,
    I so disagree, but you remind me of what a girl named Robynn posted on a message bored.

    05/12/08(Mon)22:18:39 No.67227351

    >>67226958
    Women need to be raped. It is the only language we understand. Women enjoy rape. Don’t let us tell you otherwise, because we are notorious liars and don’t know our own minds. Women want to be held down and fucked hard. We want to be made to cry and scream. We have a biological imperative to be raped. Did you know that women who are raped are twice as likely to conceive as women who have unprotected consensual sex? It is a fact. Women who are raped often have orgasms as well – some of us who have never had an orgasm in their lives save for a rape. The desire to be sexually dominated is deeply programed into the woman.I am a witness. This is a fact of evolution that cannot be denied without women becoming unbalanced. Feminism is really just an outward manifestation of an internal problem with modern women.

    These other ‘feminists’ desperately want to be put in their place. That’s why they act out so much and are so belligerent. Whether they know it or not, subconsciously they want to piss men off and get men to make them submit. They want to be slapped in the face, told to shut the fuck up, and then raped until they can’t stand up. This is what women really want.
    I say you men, give it to us.

    Like


  92. @Nupnup: all I’m saying it shouldn’t be criminalized. And most Europeans countries don’t if she is in her middteens. Also, I think you are underestimating middteens. The subjects they earn in highschool aren’t easy: math, physics, algebra, Pythagoras, quemistry. they know what they do. And they have the right to chose. People shouldn’t go to jail just because they love each other.

    Like


  93. A girl’s legal age of consent should be the same as her legal age of emancipation, so that her father needn’t suffer her sleeping with someone he disapproves of while having to board her.

    Like


  94. on June 20, 2008 at 12:29 am Tupac Chopra

    Regarding the whole women/sociopath issue — I’ve always gotten a kick out of the wives of mafia dons and crime bosses. The home life is comfortable and idyllic. One might almost think the wives had no idea what their husbands do to secure such a lifestyle. Oh but they do….somewhere in their minds. You name it: killing, torturing, ruining communities with drugs and violence….

    All of that is met with a mental shrug of “whatev” when they gaze upon their marble floors, remodelled kitchens, and manicured lawns.

    Human nature truly is defined by power. When you have it, you don’t have to pay much mind to quaint notions of decency or humanity. You just need to make sure you’re kids have the latest designer clothes and go the the most exclusive schools.

    Reproduction Uber Alles

    Like


  95. @PA
    No. A man who leaves a girl pregant has civil responsibility ($$$), but not criminal responsibility.

    Like


  96. > I think you are underestimating middteens. The subjects they earn in highschool aren’t easy: math, physics, algebra, Pythagoras, quemistry.

    Only they – nurture or nature – neither seem to like it nor do very well at it. They seem more apt at parroting back whatever they heard instead of coming up with genuine insight (which is partly why you see very few woman in science, I believe). Not true for all of them, of course, but seems true on average.

    I’ve known one or two mid teens who I’d definitely consider fuckable but other than that? Not really. Besides, with AoC 16 it would have been a problem anyhow (OTOH, it implies that prostitution of 16 year old is legal which I don’t think it should be). I agree that AoC 18 is pretty ridiculous but 14-16 is ok (with an appropriate sliding scale based on the difference of age).

    Like


  97. To Sovereign American Male and anyone else who takes “Robynn’s” drivel seriously: I don’t believe for a minute that it was posted by an actual woman and wouldn’t believe it unless I saw it proved in court, with photos and DNA testing as backup. It sounds like pure male fantasy of the most degraded and, I hope, rare, kind.

    And if that post did turn out to be written by a woman after all, I would warn you: she is not representative of anyone but herself.

    Like


  98. Haven’t really been keeping up with all this, but I was over at a friend’s house last night and he mentioned something that I thought worth mentioning.

    He grew up in Caracas and lives in New York now but most of his family is still in Venezuela. He commented that he was surprised when his cousin (16) mentioned she was dating an older guy (26) but then remembered that that’s just how it’s done back home.

    This isn’t some poor peasant kid. His family is a wealthy, social Caracas family. The family is aware of the relationship and fully supportive.

    I know a lot of people call out Gannon for his thoughts on age (or in Dizzy’s case, misattributes thoughts to him). Just wanted to throw out an anecdote that supports his feeling that his views are the norm in many other places.

    Like


  99. Thanks Michael for understanding that in Latinamerica it is not strange for young men in their twenties to date teen girls.

    Like


  100. In latinamerica, even guys who are in their thirties up to their early forties, do not marry women past their middtwenties.

    Like


  101. And lest some harpy complain about what happens when the wife gets older and the guy drops her for someone younger, these are strongly Catholic countries. My friend’s father (mentioned in the previous post) is turning 80 this year, while his mother is 61 (and still quite beautiful by the way, she clearly takes care of herself). He’s the youngest of six, which is why his parents are so old (he’s 24). His father may have married a much younger woman, but they’ve been together for forty years and raised a wonderful family.

    Like


  102. My grandfather came to America to make his fortune, went back to the old country when he was 31 and found his blushing bride, who was all of 17-years old.

    They were married until his death at age 92 and raised 9 children.

    Like


  103. @Michael: you have it completely right. Divorce still happens rarely in Southamerica. marriage is really intended for life, and people don’t break up the marriages when the first problems arrive. Just like it used to be in the USA. Also, having a younger wife from the beginning helps, since she will always appear younger. A forty year old man will be happy with a 28 year old wife, but it is much more difficult with a woman his own age. It’s really glad to meet somebody who knows how things work in more catholic countries, specially in southamerica. The protestant church has become very antimale, and I have more and more respect for the catholic chirch every day. great to know you Michael, and Brutus you too.

    Like


  104. on June 20, 2008 at 9:15 pm Comment_On_Life_And_Death

    ***
    83. “Let us look at, Dizzy, and others, the dark days when women were ruthlessly used and disgarded by souless men. Let us look to the 1920s.

    “When the Titanic sunk, there was about 2,224 people on board. Only 711 of them survived, about 1 in 3.”

    Are you seriously asking anyone to analyze statistics about who survived a shipwreck in order to determine how to handle real-life dealings with living humans?? I sincerely hope you’re joking.

    KassyK is right: life is too short for this. I’m going kayaking!
    ***
    I’m asking people to look at how others acted when they knew they could/would die in order to understand people better?

    Why yes, yes I am. I know it’s painful, compared to some nonsensical, fabricated story that a 1000 harpies can repeat over and over again, but, this is how over 1500 men acted. Poor and rich, coward and bully and gentleman.

    If it isn’t good enough for you, that’s cause you know it says something you don’t like.

    Like


  105. on June 22, 2008 at 4:52 am anonymous 57

    “If it isn’t good enough for you, that’s cause you know it says something you don’t like.”

    No, it’s because I value empirical evidence *now*, concerning how people are behaving *now*, over empty statistics about people who lived & died almost 100 years ago.

    The data you’re citing doesn’t apply in any respect whatsoever to what I was discussing: specific incidents of sociopaths going to some lengths to disguise their nature from the people they were dating. You ascribed insensitivity to those who were fooled; I said you were wrong. And you were. You assumed the worst about people you know nothing about, dismissing them as lacking empathy purely on the basis of their being female. That says more about your prejudices than mine. You can paint generalizations across the board with your gender brush; I’ll continue to let individuals prove themselves on the basis of how they comport themselves in the present, not how some fraction of their gender behaved in the past.

    Also, I am not Dizzy. And kayaking was great, thanks for asking!

    Like


  106. Apparently the most depressed people are the ones with the most accurate perception of reality and themselves.

    Like