Aging Urban Broads: The Manliest Of Women

Yet another churlish, resentful SWPL broad is on the warpath against game, armed with the same primitive stone tools all the other anti-game broads wield.

Reading the half-baked hate, I can’t help but get the impression of a very nervous woman. A woman apprehensive that men are gaining power in the sexual market and perhaps appalled that she is not any longer the primary target of that invigorated male sexual power. I can imagine her speaking truth to her indignation by assuming the role of the wise SWPL lady to a generation of younger women, admonishing them to never settle and scolding men to grow up.

But, you know, the times they change. The cock has no interest in your feeble hate. It doesn’t believe in synthesis, or syllogism, or in any absolute. What does it believe in? Pussy. And whatever it takes to get it. It’s self-evident.

The hater, McArdle, read an article by S.G. Belknap in The Point Magazine about pickup artists and seduction technology. McArdle sneers that men who learn game to attract women are “girly”.

I find it hilarious that the pick-up artists think of themselves as especially manly.  When I read this piece, what they sound like to me is girls–specifically, girls in the 14-17 age group.

The “learning seduction is girly” sneer is one of the most tedious repressed neoVictorian sniffs at game. It’s almost as if McArdle reads the comments here and sent a private shout out (and a pizza) to a bunch of my haters (hi, spoogen!) to agree on what they thought would be the most cutting sort of jab with which to poke the PUAs.

Spending all of your time thinking about how to attract the opposite sex?  Check.  Practicing poses in the mirror to figure out which ones are most attractive?  Check. Talking about it endlessly with your friends who only seem to care about the same, one, thing?  Check. Increasingly elaborate strategems for getting attention?  check.  Eventual evolution of said strategems into rituals as mechanical as playing the opening levels of an old-style video game?  Check.  If I close my eyes, I can still smell the bubble-gum scented lip gloss . . .

Worried that all that strategizing works? Check. Worried that all that strategizing will help men date younger, hotter, tighter women? Check. Doubly worried her lip gloss not be poppin’ anymore? Check.

For a supposedly rational liberdroid, McArdle seems oddly afflicted by the effervescent romantic idealism of the “just be yourself” and the “it should happen naturally” schools of nonthought. I’ve got news for her: courtship, attraction, and seduction ARE biomechanical processes that can be extracted from the misty ether and reduced to their core components. From such knowledge, generalizations can be made about the sexes. Does this fact bother many women? Sure it does. And I explained why in this post:

Generalizations offend women in a way they do not offend men because they breach the perimeter ego defense and strike right at a woman’s core self-conception — her belief in herself as Princess On A Cloud Carried Aloft By Admiring Suitors. If it’s true that her genes account for nearly all her success or failure with the men she wants, then there isn’t much she can do to improve her chances to fulfill her deepest desires. If it’s true (and it is) that men value beauty above all else, then it is logically inescapable that she is, to an unsettling degree, interchangeable with any women who are at or above her level of physical attractiveness.

Game, by stripping the seduction process into a flowchart for ease of learning and applying in the field, offends women’s sense of mystery and prerogative to act on intuition. Things better left shrouded in the unknown is the working preference of most women, not because they are more romantic than men (just the opposite is true), but because women are constitutionally wired to abhor the thought that men can exert calculated influence on women’s sexual desires and choices. Women want total and untrammeled choice in the dating market, and they want to prohibit men from enjoying the same extraordinary power. Game brings balance to the force, and that is highly threatening to women, particularly aging women for whom options are rapidly running out. (Reminder: Maxim #98: Marriage is no escape from the sexual market and the possibility that you may be outbid by a competitor with higher value.)

Ultimately, women hate the thought of game, (not game itself; that they love), because they want their alpha male – beta male distinctions predigested and unsullied by interference from proactive men intent on bringing chaos to the male hierarchy. This is why women love royalty and kings and princes so much; in that world, the alphas are identified and known. There is little churn. The women have only to concern themselves with competing with other women for the cocka of the top dog. But in a world of game, where the status of men is in a constant state of flux, ever-shifting and spoiling the tidiness of the women’s preferred caste systemed zero sum sexual market, there are additional stresses and concerns. Now the women have to figure out who among the millions of men trundling through their gleaming anonymous urban jungles tingling ginas left and right are the alpha males of their dreams and expectations. By muddying the waters, game makes this filtering process more difficult for women. More exhilarating, too.

McArdle imitates a snarky lip curl:

Do they send out for pizza while they talk, or would that just make Erik cry because he looks so fat in his new jeans?

Projection, it’s what’s for dinner!

She continues:

Who–over the age of 25–believes that investing most of your time and energy in attracting another person means that you’re gaining power over them?  At least the little girls eventually learn that sex and flirting are supposed to be fun.  And very few full time jobs are fun.

First, a man invests time and energy in attracting women in almost anything he does. Directly, he does this through courtship and game. Indirectly, he does this through status increasing activities which his genes have programmed him to do because it is an effective way to attract a lot of fertile age women. How does that Chris Rock joke go? If a man could get blowjobs with no effort, he’d be satisfied living in a cardboard box. That one method is considered less noble than the other and frowned upon by polite PC company is not a man’s moral crisis.

Second, in what warped fembot universe is successfully attracting women so that they have sex with you a sign of powerlessness? Is McArdle unaware of men’s ultimate goal? Hint: insert penis into vagina.

I’ve previously responded to the hackneyed hate from the likes of McArdle and her sisterhood of the traveling prigs. See this classic post. It’s nothing new. On the subject of “girly” male seducers:

12. Fallacy of Misdirected Obsession Hate

Hater: A guy who spends his life obsessing over how to get women is a loser.

A guy who spends his life obsessing over climbing the corporate ladder to get more attention from women is a loser.
A guy who spends his life obsessing over mastering guitar and playing in a rock band to get more attention from women is a loser.
A guy who spends his life obsessing over pursuing financial rewards and acquiring resources to get more attention from women is a loser.
A guy who….. ah, you get the point.

[…]

16. Dancing Monkey Hate

Hater: Men who run game are just doing the bidding of women. Alphas don’t entertain women.

If you want success with women, you are going to have to entertain them… one way or the other. The same is true of women. Once a woman stops entertaining men with her body, her femininity, and her commitment worthiness by getting fat, old, ugly, bitchy, or single mom-y, she stops having success with men. We are all doing the bidding of our biomechanical overlord, and on our knees to his will we surrender, by force or by choice. You fool yourself if you believe you have some plenary indulgence from this stark reality.
Or: If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

According to McArdle’s impeccable logic, I suppose the billions of women who studiously do their hair, dress in the latest fashions, wear makeup, tone their glutes, play hard to get, and consume everything from herbal elixirs to plastic surgery in order to turn back the hands of time are acting manly. Yes, I find it hilarious that all these women think of themselves as feminine.

There is also something to be said for the power of contrast. A man who displays dominant body language (learned or inherited) can strengthen and speed the seduction of women by handicapping himself with feminine flash. This flash can be expressed either through peacocking (exaggerated male fashion) or by running vulnerability game. Women are very attuned to male status, and a man can signal high status by refusing to play by the rules or fall in line with the norm. Defying a woman’s expectations is an effective seduction strategy.

Allow me to get personal for a moment. (double heh) This “men who learn the science of seduction are girly” meme has been spreading like a dumpy middle-aged ass among the cackling witch crowd lately. Perhaps a little of the old remote psychological diagnosis is in order. I wonder if these yuppie broads are projecting their deepest unmet desire for a sexy man who can properly seduce them after they daydream their way through another tepid rutting session with their pasty, doting, domestic chore-splitting beta provider husbands and boyfriends. Ya know, too much relationship exactness and complementarity is sand in the gears of the female soul.

(Note: Regular commenter Thursday has a number of insightful comments over at McArdle’s blog. Go check them out.)





Comments


  1. What’s grosser than gross? A middle aged woman’s lipstick on a drinking glass.

    Like


  2. on July 13, 2010 at 1:57 pm conscious animal

    I do understand their abhorrence at it. If women are unable to differentiate between learned alphaness and natural alphaness, they are fucked, because a natural beta with alpha game is still a natural beta.

    I reluctantly dedicate additional time to learn seducing women, but I have ulterior bureaucratic motives.

    Like


  3. on July 13, 2010 at 1:58 pm Blessent mon coeur

    She’s married. “The bride, 37, will keep her name.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/fashion/weddings/13mcardle.html

    Like


  4. on July 13, 2010 at 2:00 pm bristlecone

    BRAVO! I was hoping you’d respond.

    Like


  5. on July 13, 2010 at 2:01 pm Blessent mon coeur

    He’s 28.

    Like


  6. Took you long enough.

    Like


  7. Heh. People like McArdle have “projection” as their middle name. These aging feminists really are scraping the bottom of the barrell if the only insult they can throw back at men is that they’re acting like girls. Pathetic.

    Blessent: thanks for pointing out that NYT article about her. Married at 37 to a beta? Check. Keeping her name? Check. Complaining about how alphas are getting younger, hotter women? Check.

    The world has left her behind and she doesn’t even know it. Sad.

    Like


  8. Another fine post by Roissy, but I think you outed GBFM as your alter-ego.

    Select phrases include “cocka” and “younger hotter tighter”

    Are you GBFM?

    Like


  9. because a natural beta with alpha game is still a natural beta.

    On the other hand, all apha or beta is simply defacto.

    The most peepsqueak-voiced, toe-staring, cringingly shy beta male I’ve ever seen, American Idol contestant and runner-up David Archuletta, had throngs of screaming groupies by the end of the season.

    Like


  10. on July 13, 2010 at 2:08 pm Vincent Ignatius

    McArdle is more proof that even the smartest women are unable to overcome emotion and accept the truth taught by game. I estimate that over 90% of women are completely incapable of accepting a truth that lowers their own drastically inflated self-perception.

    Like


  11. Women hate the idea of game because they wish that had it, or could make use out of it. Game is inherently female yes because it is nothing other than the understanding of women and how they seek mates. There is a big difference between one of the girls and with the girls. They would love it if it worked. Though they do have the fidelity issue in play. So there is more to it than just looks. Females need to hide the inherent slut. They do play the same games.

    Now the problem is of course is its a big world out there. Successful men are far more variable from camel jockey to canoe stroker, or from rock star to CEO. The female flexibility in mate selection means its more adjustable and anything adjustable can be adjusted.

    Baby making has not changed nearly as fast. Its still in the stone age. A baby factory has little to do with the weather or if its inland or on the coast. There is much less to adjust.

    Like


  12. on July 13, 2010 at 2:16 pm Vincent Ignatius

    I do understand their abhorrence at it. If women are unable to differentiate between learned alphaness and natural alphaness, they are fucked, because a natural beta with alpha game is still a natural beta.

    But women are selecting for things that would have helped their offspring tens of thousands of years ago. Arguably, a high-functioning beta (e.g. Bill Gates) is more likely to give a child the genes needed to perform well in modern times.

    The most peepsqueak-voiced, toe-staring, cringingly shy beta male I’ve ever seen, American Idol contestant and runner-up David Archuletta, had throngs of screaming groupies by the end of the season.

    Because humans now value many things that were useless in pre-civilized times, men can now gain status while being natural betas. Just listen to some emo. Those guys are putting pussy on a pedestal and if it wasn’t for their status, they’d be the same sexless losers they were before convincing a record executive that they could make money. Tiger Woods is an obvious example of a beta that got lucky and was propelled into alphadom by being good at something that wasn’t valued in the paleolithic.

    Like


  13. on July 13, 2010 at 2:25 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”’But, you know, the times they change. The cock has no interest in your feeble hate. It doesn’t believe in synthesis, or syllogism, or in any absolute. What does it believe in? Pussy. And whatever it takes to get it. It’s self-evident.”””’

    Truth and I think my dick might be related to Gangis Kahn.
    he he he

    Like


  14. Be nice to Megan who is wrong in this instance but is otherwise awesome. I bet you and Megan have a lot of regular readers in common.

    Like


  15. Most. Tedious. Objections. Ever.*

    * But we don’t need to care what women think. It works.

    Experiment:
    Listen to a woman tell you how it’s all nurture and not nature.
    Listen to her tell you how much insight she has into human character. Don’t contradict her.

    Then game her hard.

    Sleep with her on three separate occasions, to overcome the same tedious denials after the fact. Have her hooked.
    Then explain exactly what you did with a timeline and specific examples.
    “But it only works the first time, we see it after the first.” – had her over 3 times.
    “It works only when you’re weak.” – note her state when gamed, replay it for her.
    “You pretended you were someone else.” – make sure you never lied or pretended you were someone else.
    “You really are more attractive than other men.” – “…other men without game.”
    “I can see the depth in you.” – “Your game allowed me to see the depth in you once I was attracted to you.”

    Observe the rationalization hamsterwheel spin extra fast.
    Observe her cling to you harder because what you’ve done simply can’t be true. You must be that rare man she’s been after. She will prove it to herself by denying the evidence.

    Even better:

    Tell her how you’re gaming her as you do it. With good game, it makes no difference.

    They never pick up on it. It’s hardwired into the brain. The denial circuitry kicks in immediately.

    No man can perform cognitive dissonance as well as any woman.

    Pity them.

    Like


  16. Roissy is right about the hatrid of the idea of game. Feminists hate the idea of game because it destroys the notion that they are in control. The truth of the matter is that biology rules all, and the hormones and processes in the human female brain is something that society, education, sociology and experience cannot override. This means that despite their protests, feminists are just as susceptible to game as other women. They are attracted to alpha men notwithstanding that they are doing their hardest to feminize all men on the planet. Feminists are hard-wired, like all women, to be attracted to the basic aspects of masculinity and will react to it accordingly (unless they are hard-core lesbians, in which their brain chemistry is different – though such “women” really don’t matter at all in the scheme of things and can be written off as genetic aberrations). Game is just another way of emphasizing the masculine traits of men – it’s merely fluffing the plumage to stand out amongst the flock, so to speak.

    What man would proclaim that they aren’t attracted to beautiful women, and instead says that instead of hotter, younger women he lies old, fat women? A beta-liar, for one. And it would be a bullshit assertion that would immediately be called out for the lie that it is. So why then are people so willing to accept the idea proclaimed by feminists that they aren’t attracted to alpha men and are attracted to girly-boy betas (like McArdle’s 28 year old husband)? It is ridiculous, and would do society a whole hell of a lot of good if the lies just stopped. Men like beautiful women. Women like strong, masculine men and not “nice boys.” Liars like McArdle are hurting everyone because they spin a tale to deceive people. McArdle, in her case, is obviously lying because she is trying to delude herself into believing that her beta-husband is actually worthwhile. It’s a sad tale of her own psychological demons being transformed into social policy.

    Fuck that noice. Like all feminists, she is evil and her lies hurt people – mainly naive boys who don’t know any better and believe the bullshit about women liking “nice guys.” She should be held as an example of exactly the rationalization that goes on among aging pathetic women who experience a “Wile E. Coyote” moment as their attractiveness falls off a cliff and they realize that their status as women has fallen dramatically. In the old days, such aging women would be respected as mothers or grandmothers who would offer advice to young girls on how to attract the best man. Nowadays, these barren feminists harpies are not worth anything.

    Like


  17. that post is emblematic of the sort of logical fallacy that the mainstream makes when it attempts to discuss game. it falls under the same category as “no true scotsman.”

    anyone who practices game is silly, dishonest and pathetic. why? cause game is silly, dishonest and pathetic; therefore, anyone who practices it must be as well.

    Like


  18. that girl isn’t even cute. who cares what she says?

    Like


  19. A few weeks ago I was fairly convinced that Roissy was GBFM. Now I’m 99% certain of it. lolzololzolz

    Like


  20. on July 13, 2010 at 2:40 pm Devilmaycare

    My question is with the continued exposure of game to the mainstream are women getting wiser about detecting mystery method style game?

    Like


  21. just another girl dispensing advice by telling men to
    “just be themselves. “

    Like


  22. No doubt some women hate Game because they associate it with unsavory cliches like goofy peacocking and serial pump&dumping. If they internalized the fact that Game is essentially the male version of chicks not getting fat, they’d be for it.

    Like


  23. Thought experiment — ask a female hater of Game: how would you like it if you lived in a place where most guys are sexy and cool?

    Like


  24. “Be nice to Megan who is wrong in this instance but is otherwise awesome.”

    She used to be awesome, before she moved to DC, joined the political-industrial-complex and became a standard-issue Beltway cosmotarian.

    She’s awful now. I can’t even read her anymore.

    [editor: mcardle is also a pro open borders nutjob. she has little to commend her from what i’ve read so far.]

    Like


  25. The full S.G. Belknap article is a good read. I thought it nicely highlighted the absurdity of considering the essence of romance to be unconditional love. Since women will not love someone who loves them unconditionally, this leads to the absurd result of the lonely, unrequited love, as the most romantic and purest form of love. Improbably, the article basically endorses this definition and conclusion. Other than that its hard to argue with the article. If that is how you want to define love, then yes the successful application of game will indeed mean a life without “love”.

    Like


  26. on July 13, 2010 at 3:07 pm Black Rebel

    ‘Generalizations offend women in a way they do not offend men because they breach the perimeter ego defense and strike right at a woman’s core self-conception — her belief in herself as Princess On A Cloud Carried Aloft By Admiring Suitors.’

    So women hate generalizations because they topple the notion that every women is unique (no), special (no) and one-of-a-kind (no)?

    Bahahahahaha!

    Generalizations don’t bother men because men by and large don’t let trivial matters affect their mood, and things like depth, skill, character and integrity are largely male-only traits. Not because women are deficient in any way; but because they simply don’t NEED to be deep, skillful, brimming with character and principled to succeed in the mating game (in fact they are often counterproductive).

    Like


  27. The article portraits men in a negative way for doing something all girls do. Think about that.

    Like


  28. On the other hand, women are more than comfortable with there being ample pool of betas/orbiters/niceguys around to take advantage of. Game shrinks thier numbers.

    Like


  29. Megan M. can afford to disparage game, she did quite well for herself despite almost letting the clock run out. But she shouldn’t imagine herself typical.

    Like


  30. on July 13, 2010 at 3:17 pm Steve Johnson

    TFG

    “She’s awful now. I can’t even read her anymore.”

    I think she’s crossed the line.

    She’s great. She’s a living example of how stupid you have to pretend to be to get a gig writing for a mainstream publication.

    Rule: Never question (or even admit that there are) assumptions you make about politics / economics / society

    No one could have seen the mortgage crisis coming!

    Why oh why can’t we close the racial achievement gap? Is it due to conscious racism or unconscious racism?

    etc.

    Everything is a polite disagreement between reasonable people (all of whom are actually insane).

    Like


  31. Feminists don’t hate game because of some desire to weed out natural alphas from betas – I doubt they even consciously accept the concept. Feminists (as opposed to women in general) hate the notion of it because its basic tenants expose the lie of their equalist fantasies – proving that a woman craves, above all else, a mate of higher perceived status that she can look up to (and in many cases would prefer to share such a mate than to be treated well by a mate of equal perceived value). It exposes the mystery of female sexual preference in a way that, from the perspective of a staunch feminist, is generally not flattering to women. Rather than reexamine their own belief system, they choose to condemn that which challenges it.

    Like


  32. On the other hand, women are more than comfortable with there being ample pool of betas/orbiters/niceguys around to take advantage of. Game shrinks thier numbers.

    true story. the other day i had a conversation with this girl about why i don’t buy girls drinks or take them out for dinner. the conversation went something like this:

    me: i don’t buy any girl dinner until things have reached a certain point.

    her: why not? it’s nice when a guy shows his interest by taking you out.

    me: and too many girls will take advantage of that because it’s a free dinner.

    her: yeah, but’s it’ nice.

    me: why should i be nice to someone who has no interest and just wants a free dinner.

    her: cause it’s nice.

    i was drunk at the time and this went on for a few more minutes. i was just waiting for her to either make an actual point or realize that there’s no reason for me to be “nice” to someone who has no interest in being “nice” to me.

    Like


  33. Dave: “Be nice to Megan”?

    What the hell for? She’s lying, and not about something minimal, but about the most basic genetic traits hardwired into our brains: attraction to the opposite sex.

    There is something very evil in the idea that she is promoting. She is telling people to ignore their genetic and biological urges, and for very sinister reasons. Feminism is a demented, evil ideology. It tries to turn lies into truth, men into women, women into men, and for what? So that some aging harpy can convince herself that it’s society to blame for the fault that men no longer consider her attractive? Again, fuck that noise.

    It is terrible that people like McArdle and others say that game is wrong, or that Roissy is objectifying women. He’s not. If anything, he is valuing them for being exactly what they are: real women, not some fake invented ideology of women. He’s speaking crystal clear truths that everyone should understand. Also, his message is a message of freedom in a world that seems content to run on lies. He says, and it is true, that men are attracted to hot, young women. He says, and it is true, that women like masculine men. He is a liberator. It is liberating to pull the veil of lies away from people so that they understand this basic truth. How many cruel marriages could be avoided or saved if men understood these basic truths? How many successful marriages or happy bachelors would there be if people acted like he said? How many women would be happier knowing that there is nothing wrong with acting feminine, trying to look beautiful, and ignoring the Women’s Studies Department at their university as a basket of lies? How many women would avoid the heap of lies that await them as they age into barren crones, instead of being happy grandmothers passing on beauty tips to their granddaughters, if they listened to these truths?

    It’s not necessary to delve into the motivations feminists have for trying to subvert the natural order of things. Their motivations are as complex as a hamster spinning on a wheel. It is enough to know and recognize it for the lie that it is and the failure it has resulted in.

    My life has been infinately happier for learning these truths, as I was raised by a family of pedastiling manginas. McArdle should be mocked for the harpy that she is: for the devil is a proud spirit, and cannot stand mockery.

    Like


  34. @j r
    i was drunk at the time and this went on for a few more minutes. i was just waiting for her to either make an actual point or realize that there’s no reason for me to be “nice” to someone who has no interest in being “nice” to me.

    You got the point, though.

    It’s nice – for *them*. Who wouldn’t want someone to buy them dinner in exchange for nothing?

    Sounds pretty damned good to me.

    Like


  35. [editor: the devil’s in the details. i’ve witnessed too many mid 30s women settle with dumpy asexual herbs to believe that the hit the average woman takes by waiting ten years past her peak to marry is anything like what i would describe as minimal. but of course in these older women’s minds they don’t believe they have settled. that is testament to the power of ego assuaging self-delusion.]

    is that necessarily settling or has their taste simply shifted to the right on the cad-to-dad continuum?

    Like


  36. Everytime one of these god-awful articles runs and Roissy responds it’s like Dr. Manhattan being lured onto the battlefield.

    The Atlantic (Newsweek comes to mind also) continue to promote these angles and seem completely obtuse to reader comments that absolutely destroy the premise.

    Thursday also did a great number in the comments the last time Atlantic queefed one of these pieces.

    Time to go play in the comments section!

    Like


  37. Truth be told Megan is attractive. Much more attractive than the bridegroom peter.

    The man has beta provider tattooed on his ass- that is where she probably pegs her new bridegroom.

    her husband never found game- and she wrote this piece to tell him he doesn’t need it.

    [editor: he is a dyed in the wool beta for marrying a woman ten years older than himself. that is self-evident. by that fact alone it is simple to deduce she settled for him. but the power balance will shift in his favor rather quickly, to mcardle’s chagrin. when she is 50 he’ll be 40… and have a lot more options in the sexual market than her, even without game. i anticipate an ugly divorce.

    perhaps she wrote that piece as a preemptive strike against his future wandering eye self?]

    Like


  38. that was mean.

    [editor: america, fuck yeah! this ain’t no recipe swapping meet.]

    i wish him (the bride) well in the marriage- well enough that he doesn’t get divorced and raped.

    [the marital options-stability crosslinked index is dangerously in the red.]

    some older women get lucky and manage to snare a younger beta- most of the 30ish women in NYC are not so lucky.

    [a younger man is not a step up for women. usually, a man significantly younger than his blushing bride has crippling intrinsic beta flaws that prevent him from dating the younger hotter women he’d prefer. and women aren’t particularly impressed by male youth in and of itself.]

    Like


  39. McArdle is a strange bird. She looks bit like Lisa Loeb (a 5-7 I’d wager rating schemes, here. I think her 2 main challenges from being rated a 6-8 are that she is really smart and really tall. I mean, she is a lot smarter and taller than most men. She’s an outlier from a different dimension, but she does more than her share making this world a better place by highlighting what is uncomfortably true. Which is what I appreciate about this blog, too.

    Her husband is pretty brilliant, too. Which leads me to the question I’d love to get your take on: what do you think about Peter Orszag?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/11/bianna-golodryga-photos-m_n_419052.html

    [editor: i don’t get these guys saying mcardle is attractive. she’s not ugly, but she’s no looker either.

    i’d give her a 5.]

    Like


  40. It’s nice – for *them*. Who wouldn’t want someone to buy them dinner in exchange for nothing?

    Sounds pretty damned good to me.

    exactly. i would be nice if every girl i went out with immediately dropped to her knees and offered to felate me, but as a rational person i understand why they don’t.

    Like


  41. The correct quote from Dave Chappele: “If a man could fuck a women in a cardboard box, he wouldn’t buy a house!”

    Wald

    [editor: thanks wald. i figured it was one of those two guys.]

    Like


  42. McArdle’s commentary is merely thus:

    Single out “the enemy” and mock/defame them, without seriously addressing any issues. This is how Jon Stewart-types butter their bread, which I find mildly ironic as their set tends to be the type who (attempt to) identify with the intelligentsia.

    At any rate, I found the masculine/feminine dichotomy to be a straw man. Employing game properly takes effort and motivation. For woman, being attractive and charming also takes effort and motivation. Pretending it doesn’t is a loser’s cop-out.

    This isn’t a gender issue, it’s an issue with motivation – of which most people could use a healthy dose.

    [editor: actually, the effort required by women in their prime years to find a mate is significantly lower than the effort men must expend to attract women.]

    Like


  43. The real reasons why feminists hate the concept of Game:

    – It implies that we’re not born as blank slates, and that we have programmed “animal” natures that are difficult – if not impossible – to alter, even through the application of carefully distilled ideology.

    – This offends the fundamental premise of 3rd-wave feminism and all leftist thought: that we are “perfectable” through social or political change, if only we find the right social policy.

    – If this truly is an aspect of human nature, then it’s not possible to control it adequately in order to rebalance and equalize the power distribution, because women will fundamentally not like the result. Feminism makes them hate male power; but being female makes them crave male power over them.

    – This attack on the fundamental philosophical outlook of feminism and “leftist” assumptions is more threatening than any attack on their ideas of feminine power.

    – This also assaults basic religious concepts that require us to not be, in effect, animals. It’s unpretty and makes us unspecial.

    – Real progress in social technology is halted because rigid ideologies prevent the examination of human nature more honestly.

    If we’re programmed to be sexual animals with programmed animal-instinct responses, and sexual behavior shows this most clearly, then there’s little scope to modify or correct this behavior.

    Of all women, feminists fall hardest and deepest for powerful men with good game – probably *because* they think about power and control in relationships all the time. And their cognitive dissonance tricks them into thinking they’re immune. Makes for easy moving targets.

    Like


  44. on July 13, 2010 at 3:36 pm Trimegistus

    I think we’re reading far too much into the feminists’ dislike of game and related techniques. It’s not about control or free will or anything like that. They just don’t like the thought of men getting laid.

    Like


  45. Who gives a FUCK about what these wimmen think? Certainly not me…..

    Like


  46. on July 13, 2010 at 3:41 pm Steve Johnson

    Wald-

    So a while back I hit and quit some chick who told me about how she had once dated a homeless guy for a while. Full on “spends nights in a NYC homeless shelter” homeless.

    Since then I’ve been telling this story to women (it’s a fun little tidbit) and guess what? She isn’t the only one.

    The apocalypse has arrived. I’ll be ordering my refrigerator box on Amazon. Last delivery I’ll be getting at a fixed address.

    Like


  47. that is a poor pic of her. http://freshideasnutritainment.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/megan-mcardle.jpg

    the times pic is much better as are these two.

    she is not smoking hot- but she is a babe if you compare her to the bride-husband.

    [editor: still not seeing it. but in light of the better photos, i’ll bump up my ranking for her to a 5.5]

    Like


  48. Gorby,

    You’re right, but it’s not worth getting into their myriad motivations. As an intellectual exercise, it can be interesting to pick apart the motivations of these twisted women. But as a practical matter, it makes little sense. It’s enough for men to know that a feminist is someone that should be ignored and mocked. Frankly, most people don’t have the time to spend on trying to understand that sort of twisted thinking.

    Like


  49. McArdle is attractive? You guys who think that need to get out more. Unless you’re about 80 years old, then your attractiveness comment makes sense.

    Like


  50. The husband looks to be 6’2 as well.

    At that height and with his age, with a lot of game he could be fucking leggy 21 year old model wannabes.

    what a waste of potential.

    Like


  51. The principles of game, when first encountered, come across as quite offensive to even a reasonably open-minded person (meaning female). It threatens a lot of things you believe in. Having been through all five stages of grieving myself, I can relate. Obviously, McArdle is stuck in denial stage. But the real question is: Do these principles come closer to the truth than anything else? Do they work? I think you know the answer.

    Like


  52. on July 13, 2010 at 4:00 pm Note to millionaires

    female family member turned down the beta millionaires always held out for alpha millionaire. Note to beta millionaire’s get game get rid of oneitis. Or being a millionaire without game is sad.

    Like


  53. @Slav

    “Another fine post by Roissy, but I think you outed GBFM as your alter-ego. Select phrases include “cocka” and “younger hotter tighter” Are you GBFM

    Hell, I’ve started to say “younger hotter tighter,” and I’m sure not GBFM.

    [editor: it’s a tribute. sucky sucky cocka fie dolla?]

    Like


  54. “Babe” should not used to describe her. She looks like an over-the-hill SWPL type. Maybe she used to look good back in her 20s within that narrow type of crowd, but definitely not now. And why is some married chick in her late 30s even qualified to write about game anyways?

    Like


  55. on July 13, 2010 at 4:03 pm Black Rebel

    6?

    Maybe a Wichita or Des Moines 6, not an NYC 6.

    Her complexion is lifeless and her features are plain, I also don’t like the asexual sheblazer + long skirt combo and sinewy hands. How old is she, 35?

    My verdict: NYC 5, likely former NYC 6.5-7 (age 18-24).

    Notice the strong brow though. She looks like the type of chick who chews men up an dspits them out for breakfast. Should be a fun cougar ride in 10 years for some gameless sap.

    Like


  56. McArdle is 6’2″ and Suderman does not seem to have the most lucrative career. Had she maximized her timing she would have found a taller guy who made a lot of money.

    McArdle wrote a lot of excellent posts against Obamacare, especially pointing out that universal health care wouldn’t actually increase people’s health in any measurable way. This is the correct argument, not that it mattered.

    Like


  57. Never underestimate the subliminal power of the Precipice.

    Even if women are particularly attractive, their options really fall off at 40. Denial can go on only so long.

    The difference for men ( regularly being able to date women 10-15 years younger than they are) is profound.

    There’s a vast, boiling ocean of tears lying just below that ideological crust.

    Like


  58. Again, many guys here are putting too much emphasis on what some manly, old, feminut broad spews out on a website. She is not even cute.

    Why waste your time on her blather? Go out and sarge.

    Like


  59. Shoot, I have to change that, the editor is thelp999, sorry.

    Yesterday you did economics w/ graphs, maybe you pissed the gods off thus a PUA article was done. Or some ladies at the Atlantic are trying to get dates by being critical.

    Like


  60. Somebody’s touchy. Seriously Roissy, weren’t you holding up Mystery as an example of the feminization of the western male awhile back?

    [editor: catch me if you can!]

    Like


  61. i’ve witnessed too many mid 30s women settle with dumpy asexual herbs to believe that the hit the average woman takes by waiting ten years past her peak to marry is anything like what i would describe as minimal.

    I hate to have to chime anything in backing in this up, but the tall, broad, classically handsome, similarly aged man I effortlessly attracted at 23 does not approach me with the same alacrity nowadays. Physically, the men I interact with now look less Hollywood cute.

    is that necessarily settling or has their taste simply shifted to the right on the cad-to-dad continuum?

    Of course, in pretty much every measure I’d rank current boys hirer than those awfully cute ones from my youth. Whether this is self-delusion, or a result of dating people better suited to me . . .

    Like


  62. “Thursday
    Megan is frequently very good on economics. Much better than some of the truly fucked up Austrian conspiracy theorists a lot of people seem to prefer here.

    But like a lot of people who do economics, she has an Aspergery streak that prevents her from seeing human nature for what it truly is. Combine that with a streak of feminine idealization about how love, sex and marriage should be and her response is perfectly predictable.”

    I disagree with this. Megan used to be a very good blogger, but to me it seems that she has become too conventional, too sensitive to remaining in the mainstream, since she joined The Atlantic. There has also always been a typically-female element of special pleading in her blogging — her devotion to principle obviously and frequently slips when it is her own ox that is being gored; her game post is a case in point, IMO.

    I suspect I read all those blogs you characterize as “truly fucked up Austrian conspiracy theorists” — they may be wrong, but they are a lot more fun to read.

    Like


  63. @devilmaycare

    “My question is with the continued exposure of game to the mainstream are women getting wiser about detecting mystery method style game?”

    No. Game is evolving.

    Mystery Method style game was state of the art when it first came out, but now not so much.

    There are now so many different styles, that you could pick and choose based on what type you like.

    Plus, the best type of game is the type that looks like a normal, well executed pick up. It is impossible to detect, unless women in droves start turning down charming men (never going to happen).

    Obviously, this takes a lot of practice to master, but nothing in life is easy.

    Like


  64. Megan McArdle’s problem is twofold. First, she is doing the opposite of empathic insight – she is imagining others in her shoes, rather than putting herself in others’ shoes. Male buddies often do this when one is going through a drought, and the other is in a relationship or in some other way getting laid with regularity. The satisfied friend should put himself in the drought friend’s shoes, and advise him on what he is doing wrong and what he needs to change, tactically, to get some (e.g. game). Instead, what the satisfied friend (especially if lazy) will often do is imagine the drought guy in his shoes (i.e. getting laid regularly) and give terrible advice like “Hey man, just let it happen. Don’t force it.” That’s good advice for the guy who knows he’s getting some, but bad for the guy in a slump. Similarly, McArdle is pretending that other women are in her shoes (older, past their prime, focused on career and alleged satisfaction with beta husband) instead of recognizing that the people she is “speaking” to – the ones getting gamed – are younger, singler, hotter. If she put herself in their shoes, she’d reach a different conclusion.

    But McArdle’s second and biggest mistake is that she is directing her fire at the wrong enemy. Game is a tactic, not an imperative. Game is, by definition, a toolbox – a package comprising whatever methods will best maximize a man’s ability to have sex with the hottest women he can. Currently, society is constructed so that women choose sexual partners essentially on a whim (the “tingle”) – and so game is directed towards understanding what whims hot girls tend to have. Not surprisingly, since those whims are by definition poorly thought-out, they tend to be pretty base evolutionary stuff: status, dominance, Stone Age hierarchy-type things. Game just says: if women choose sex partners based on whimsical preference, then here’s the most common preferences and how to mimic them. That they may be unhelpful preferences is not the fault of men or game – it is the fault of women and society.

    For example, if society was constructed so that promiscuity was shamed and harshly punished, so that women could not practically choose hypergamy, then game tactics would shift. Existing game, playing to “female whims,” would no longer be the best stratagem to get sex with the hottest women. That just means that game would look different. Game is a tactic, not an immutable code. If fathers, for example, had total discretion about how their daughters would be paired, and straying was harshly punished, then game would evolve tactics about how to make as good an impression as possible on a father. Existing game is what it is because women and society are what they are. If McArdle doesn’t like it, she should complain about women or society, not the men using the best available tactics to get laid.

    Like


  65. Roisy *IS* GBFM. Duh.

    You all didn’t realize this?

    He changed the name of the blog a while back in preparation for the new direction in content… and then realized he shouldn’t dilute the brand and instead started a seperate blog.

    Wasn’t this obvious to everyone? Didn’t fool me for a minute.

    Like


  66. “Wasn’t this obvious to everyone? Didn’t fool me for a minute.”

    I always kind of knew as well.

    The writing style is similar, even with all the lolulzzzz.

    Like


  67. @Editor–

    I assumed it was a tribute. GBFM is certainly ineffectious anyway.

    I hope the rest of your comment is an example and not a request.

    Like


  68. Please explain the construct of an alpha male? Besides the fact that all young and old women will lust after him. Is the alpha gene inherited? That leads to physical attributes such as healthy testosterone level, good masculine looks and personality? What are the attributes? Muscular symmetrical physique? Or can a beta transform into alpha via through money, power, experience and fame?

    Like


  69. “GBFM is certainly ineffectious

    Whoops, that was meant to be infectious.

    Like


  70. Off Topic: Female Czech Politicians Pose For Calendar

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepublic/7885809/Female-Czech-MPs-pose-for-calendar.html

    Most are smokeshows…

    …however it is to highlight how ‘progressive’ the country is becoming by including women in politics!

    Could this mean feminism is beginning to show its ugly head in Eastern Europe?

    Like


  71. ha ha Roissy,

    ” [a younger man is not a step up for women. usually, a man significantly younger than his blushing bride has crippling intrinsic beta flaws that prevent him from dating the younger hotter women he’d prefer. and women aren’t particularly impressed by male youth in and of itself.] ”

    But what would you say about Ashton Kutcher, I mean he could obviously slay anything under 25 ub Hwood if he wanted..

    thoughts?

    [editor: vk, i’ve got a theory about kutcher. this guy is a stone cold mercenary. first, i’d bet good money he’s getting some fine on the side. then look at his career. he jumped into the a-listers by riding demi’s star. he gets plum roles, she gets press and cock. quid pro quo. prediction: they don’t last another three years.]

    Like


  72. Megan’s piece wasn’t nearly as bad as the piece she was citing. Belknap would be a very good candidate for beta of the month:

    I am a passionate lover. You might be too. We might have been born that way, even. I was very, very young—prepubescent—the first time I was so captivated by a girl that I could not speak in her presence. When I was in college, I suffered a debilitating passion that frequently kept me in my darkened dorm room for an hour at a time, writhing in hope and despair. She and I once ended up trapped in a bathroom together when we were drunk at a party. She was clearly interested in making out; I wanted a declaration of love. As the knocking and complaining on the other side of the door became more and more distracting, she got fed up and left. When I told a friend how I was feeling, he said: “You mean you’re like a 12 year old girl?” I was as a matter of fact 22 at the time, and I was ashamed. I am not any longer. Stendhal turned 36 in the year that he succumbed to Métilde Dembowski, and Goethe seemed to spend an entire lifetime falling in love. These men do not have a special dispensation because they are uncommonly good at putting words next to each other; the Romantic temperament is available to the rest of us as well. If you are a passionate lover, then, know that you are not alone. And do not lament your condition.

    Yet you should also know that you are one of a dying breed. True, the reach of Romanticism is long and profound—it is undeniable that we in the West are still the descendants of Stendhal. But love is fading fast. Long ago, the world provided much of our eroticism for us, by leaving us few options other than restraint. Now we no longer have Madame de Rênal’s happy home, or Fabrizio’s prison walls, to do us the favor of getting in our way. Were Stendhal to visit us today, this would no doubt be one of his first observations: love has become too easy. Or, rather, love has become too difficult, because sex has become too easy. If you take up love today, then, you take on an extra burden: the burden of creating your own eroticism, of conjuring up walls and limits out of thin air to replace the ones we have lost. You have no choice in the matter. Love was hard enough already; it has only gotten harder. Your love will exhaust you. But it will be worth the trouble.

    Like


  73. The full context of the Chapelle joke, worth watching in full:

    I just happened to watch Killin Me Softly a few weeks ago, so I knew the reference exactly. One of the greatest stand up routines of all time.

    Like


  74. She is an average looking, rapidly aging, semi-famous cunt.. who care?

    Like


  75. on July 13, 2010 at 5:14 pm Rollo Tomassi

    Here’s a cold hard truth that this broad and her sycophants willfully ignore; Everyone has Game. Women and manginas get uncomfortable with the idea of Game as it’s defined in the community – PUA Game, Direct Game, Natural Game, etc. etc., but really every guy has A Game. Every guy has some idea, some inner, internalized concept of how best to approach, relate to and eventually arrive at sexual intercourse with a female they find attractive. Unanalyzed, unlearned and/or unconsidered this Game is subject to the varying forces of a man’s socialization and acculturation. Beta Game is almost universally the result of this. Due to men’s generally more linear, deductive natures, we tend to develop our Game based on the data available to us – what women TELL us they want.

    So the equation goes something like this: I need sex + women have the sex I want + women do not unconditionally give me sex + I must discover what women require in order to give me sex + I will poll them on what they require + I will adjust my behaviors to best fit these requirements = I will get sex. This is the basic formula that leads to an AFC, supplicative, beta game mindset.

    Again, everyone has a Game in some respect. We don’t live in a vacuum, our ideas about seduction (in whatever form) is influenced and / or learned externally. The validity of that Game may be more or less effective, but at some point a man is going to adapt to a methodology of seduction as per his conditions and environment warrant. Even master PUAs still need to adapt their Game for differing environments – different clubs, types of women, socio-economic levels, countries, etc. – there needs to be adaptation and improvisation. The same applies for Betas, but the disparity is that the Beta tends to think of a one size fits all approach. He adopts a script in exactly the same way as a PUA, but is less likely to variate or risk rejection by any attempt at experimenting away from what he’s ego-invested as the “best practice” to get laid.

    [editor: rollo you leave consistently good comments. i should set up a chateau commenter hall of fame and award gold stars. or labia locket piercings. it might encourage the lamer commenters to defer to their betters.]

    Like


  76. “But what would you say about Ashton Kutcher, I mean he could obviously slay anything under 25 ub Hwood if he wanted..

    thoughts?”

    Good question.

    I have seen him on Real Time with Bill Maher and he seemed like a wannabe intellectual.

    Maybe he is one of those guys that values personality over beauty?

    Like


  77. Good post Rollo Tomassi.

    Like


  78. on July 13, 2010 at 5:19 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””on July 13, 2010 at 4:23 pm K
    @devilmaycare

    “My question is with the continued exposure of game to the mainstream are women getting wiser about detecting mystery method style game?”

    No. Game is evolving.

    Mystery Method style game was state of the art when it first came out, but now not so much.

    There are now so many different styles, that you could pick and choose based on what type you like.

    Plus, the best type of game is the type that looks like a normal, well executed pick up. It is impossible to detect, unless women in droves start turning down charming men (never going to happen).

    Obviously, this takes a lot of practice to master, but nothing in life is easy.
    ””””””””’

    What game does and why the style might not matter is that it gets guys to approach. That is the key element. Otherwise those guys might not approach at all. Basically any guy that approaches a certain amount of woman will get laid. Some will be better than others and the techniques may help. End game though is that guys go from 0 to more than 0 so they get woman. Arpagus didn’t think he could get laid. Once he decided to approach he got laid. He was reading blog for a while. The approach is what got him laid though and ok he did use apocalypse opener he he he
    But yea when guys get experience they do tend to depedastalyze woman to an extent. As guys get serious experience they do realize that any woman that gives up the pussy will do what every other woman who gives up the pussy will do. They will also be able to critique pussy as better than other pussy because they have a frame of reference. They can then find the best pussy for them. Once you have aquired the best pussy you ever had and then after 5 years it gets old and you would like new pussy. You realize the current ruleset is not geared towards helping men be happy. So in your next best pussy you ever had event you include the prospect that you will not want to fuck that same pussy forever with the same lust. What you also realize after two of these processes is that the woman if she loved it when you fucked the shit out of her will still want you to fuck the shit out of her. It is the way it works for the magic pussies. So you still love the woman but don’t want to do it same number of times. You keep promise of staying with the woman but you allow yourself to have other woman and have the experience to have already talked about your need for fresh pussy with your magic pussy woman because you saw reality. Your woman will also try to act like she is the only one who can cook clean and go to work for you but after having mass pussy you realize that every woman you fuck will do what the fuck you want. Just that some woman you will fall in “love” with and will not mind spending times and allowing them to serve you for a long time. You just need some extra stimulation as well.

    Like


  79. on July 13, 2010 at 5:22 pm Gunslingergregi

    Game gives a man the opportunity to know himself before getting caught up in some scam system that is dead set against his interest.

    *****MARRIAGE*****

    Like


  80. on July 13, 2010 at 5:24 pm ahappinessexperiment

    “Roissy *IS* GBFM. Duh.

    You all didn’t realize this?

    He changed the name of the blog a while back in preparation for the new direction in content… and then realized he shouldn’t dilute the brand and instead started a seperate blog.

    Wasn’t this obvious to everyone? Didn’t fool me for a minute.”

    Does this mean Roissy is also Sexy Pterodactyl? He sure does get around.

    Interesting that McArdle didn’t even attempt an original take. Just one big block quote followed by a few common snarks.

    Like


  81. on July 13, 2010 at 5:24 pm whorefinder

    Roissy—well done.

    I did a minor take down of McArdle months ago on my blog, naming her whore of the week.

    She claims to be a libertarian and centrist on her blog, but, really, this is just a cover for her typical female left-wing agenda. She supports everything Obama does, hates Bush, and supports lefties over righties.

    Her take down of PUA culture is classic feminazi doublespeak—you’re a girl if you figure us out! Be our worshiping beta bitches instead!

    No surprise she works for the Atlantic, which has fallen since 2004 into a left-wing lying nutfest (see Sullivan, Andrew; Coates, Ta-Neisi) of low proportions. Now when someone quotes the Atlantic to me in support of their point, I say its an invalid source, along the same lines as Al Sharpton is not a valid source.

    Someone needs to punt this cunt into the sun.

    Like


  82. on July 13, 2010 at 5:24 pm whorefinder

    Sorry, link in my SN fixed.

    Like


  83. Mr. Suderman-McArdle is mute testimony to the maxim that men who can date younger women, do date younger women.

    Like


  84. on July 13, 2010 at 5:34 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””’HLS
    Megan McArdle’s problem is twofold. First, she is doing the opposite of empathic insight – she is imagining others in her shoes, rather than putting herself in others’ shoes. Male buddies often do this when one is going through a drought, and the other is in a relationship or in some other way getting laid with regularity. The satisfied friend should put himself in the drought friend’s shoes, and advise him on what he is doing wrong and what he needs to change, tactically, to get some (e.g. game). Instead, what the satisfied friend (especially if lazy) will often do is imagine the drought guy in his shoes (i.e. getting laid regularly) and give terrible advice like “Hey man, just let it happen. Don’t force it.” That’s good advice for the guy who knows he’s getting some, but bad for the guy in a slump. Similarly, McArdle is pretending that other women are in her shoes (older, past their prime, focused on career and alleged satisfaction with beta husband) instead of recognizing that the people she is “speaking” to – the ones getting gamed – are younger, singler, hotter. If she put herself in their shoes, she’d reach a different conclusion.

    ””””””’

    If your buddy is going through a drought and you got hos have your woman hook him up with a friend get the dude some pussy. What kind of friends are ya he he he
    I mean for real though anytime you got a woman in states or are interacting with mass females there are some extra bitches you could introduce to friends or when your hanging out and meet woman you know in passing pass the shit to your friend. Am I the only dude who has done this?
    Prettiest girl I ever dated in states was introduced to me by my friend when we saw her walking in mall with her mom. She then went through the effort of asking him to hook us up. I didn’t ask about her. but yea.
    I used this as a catalyst for always trying to pass some pussy down to my bros.

    Yea ok I probably still have onitis for that chick but the pussy fuckability would have still went down after 5 years. I think a law of nature. Ironclad although there may be rare exceptions.

    Like


  85. on July 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm Original JB

    @gorb:

    “This offends the fundamental premise of 3rd-wave feminism and all leftist thought: that we are “perfectable” through social or political change, if only we find the right social policy.”

    If you notice, McArdle is a “liberaltarian” type (she endorsed Obama for fuck’s sake.)

    That tells you two things:

    1) Her intellect is entirely worthless as far as serious, real-world judgements — she is waaaaay too naive to make good decisions.

    2) She is high on the “rationalist” axis on the political spectrum, which you aptly describe above. So of course she would be a game hater, as game is fundamentally evo-psych oriented (hence “irrationalist.”)

    Like


  86. It’s true that pedestalization is a stance adopted by many famous poets, but it also depends on the period they wrote. The Cavalier Poets, for instance, had a rather cynical and witty, sarcastic approach to women; perhaps one reason I thought they were given unfairly short shrift in the literary canon.

    Like


  87. She claims to be a libertarian and centrist on her blog, but, really, this is just a cover for her typical female left-wing agenda. She supports everything Obama does, hates Bush, and supports lefties over righties.

    She did vote for Bush in 2004, but I feel her move to the Atlantic moved her toward more establishment views.

    Like


  88. @Gunslingergregi: For sure, a good friend would definitely try to hook up a buddy in a drought. But you can only lead a horse to water, you can’t make him drink. Once the intro is made, it’s up to the guy to close the deal. And if he’s persistently doing the wrong things, then he won’t succeed. Believe me, I’ve been on both sides of that.

    Like


  89. if poetic pedestalization is such a obstacle to succeeding with women, why did men invent it and embrace it so soulfully

    Because most men are cowards. Most men are weak. Putting a woman on a pedestal is easy. Running game is hard.

    Game denialists are like fat people. It’s much easier to say, “I guess I’ll just never be good with women,” than to spend hours studying game; going out to bars; getting rejected; honing your skills; becoming a master.

    Similarly, it’s easier to blame “glands” or “hormones” for your fatness than to hit the gym and put down the Ho-Hos.

    Most people will choose whatever path is easiest. Not running game is easier than running game. Ergo…

    Like


  90. Shaming tactics abound in that article.

    Like


  91. Take arms, men!

    I’ve just found out that women have been using something called ‘Make-up’ to trick us into sleeping with them!

    It works by making women (especially ugly ones up to a certain point) look more attractive than they actually are.

    Other female tricks include wearing special bras to create the illusion of cleavage and heels to make their asses look better.

    Beware of these female cons!

    Like


  92. on July 13, 2010 at 5:49 pm Master Beta

    “But what would you say about Ashton Kutcher, I mean he could obviously slay anything under 25 ub Hwood if he wanted..

    thoughts?”

    My personal suspicion is that he’s in an open marriage but wants someone to talk to other than sycophantic sport-fuck 21-year-old girls. Basically, it’s a way for him to have sex with his “best friend”, i.e. someone that has enough status, personality and experience to stand toe-to-toe with him. That said, there are no absolutes – for every 100 guys that want younger, hotter tail, there’s going to be one guy out there who digs Demi Moore.

    Such is life.

    As for McArdle, she did reply:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/reader-thoughts-why-pickup-artists-are-lame/59627/

    I think that she has a point. If *all* you have is Game, you’re going to be in deep, deep trouble pretty quickly, just as you would be in trouble if you were a woman and all you had were perky breasts and a solid understanding of the fundamentals of make-up application. At some point, you will age, at which point you better bring something to the table beyond a well-worn set of pick-up routines and 10-o’clock “briefly hide behind the column” approaches. Roosh is a wonderful example of someone taking Game and adding life experience to it – he uses Game for the initial seduction, then uses his legitimately interesting life and travel experiences to seal the deal.

    [editor: game is for all stages of seduction. game is just shorthand for psychosocial dominance, which in a man is very attractive to women. in fact, as i have argued here before, psychosocial dominance is the most powerful male attractiveness trait, barring vast wealth or fame. so she’s still not correct in arguing that if all a man has is game he is screwed. if a man could only have ONE positive trait, i would say it’s a toss-up between very good looks and game. for the older man, game is even more important.]

    Cultivating mystery is good. However, women will uncover some of that mystery eventually, and, when they do, something other than “I work in data entry, drive an ’89 Hyundai Excel, and pose in front of a full-length mirror when I get home practicing ‘alpha’ poses” behind the curtain. I think even Roissy can get behind that.

    [who says women will uncover anything, or that it even matters if they do? if you have attracted her she will be less likely to care much about any perceived flaws you have that may be discovered during the course of an LTR. mcardle keeps harping on this beta provider stuff because that’s all she knows. men with options and game aren’t flirting with the likes of mcardle; they’re targeting hotter younger chicks. so all she can come up with to define the archetypical attractive man is the usual constricted liberdroid litany of “job, money, generosity”. but game trumps all those unless we are talking about extremely high status, which rules out 99% of men anyhow.]

    Like


  93. I feel her move to the Atlantic moved her toward more establishment views.

    Roissy is one of the most talented writers. He would never get a job at a mainstream publication.

    Writing for The Atlantic is a big deal. In exchange for that big deal, you agree to sell your soul.

    Yet selling your soul leads to cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, you actually become more mainstream. It’s not an act, anymore. As with game, you become what you do: You are your actions.

    Like


  94. “I work in data entry, drive an ’89 Hyundai Excel, and pose in front of a full-length mirror when I get home practicing ‘alpha’ poses”

    Get the fuck out of here with that pussy shit.

    If you had my name and yours, a cursory Google search would reveal someone with far greater accomplishments than yours.

    Most of us who learn game were very successful in other fields due to high IQ and drive. High IQ, rationality, and a future time orientation are all seduction killers. Thus, we turned to game.

    We use those same skills that make us professional successes to become successes with women.

    Also, your Roosh swipe if fucking weak. He’s a published author. Where can I buy your books?

    In a few years, he’ll be living (simply, but still living) off the residuals. Since when does being semi-retired before 40 make one a loser?

    Like


  95. on July 13, 2010 at 6:02 pm Gunslingergregi

    Well yea after a man in us is done fucking american woman and gets that experience. He needs to have saved money so that he can get the fuck out of us and marry a nice woman and have a family that if a breakup occurs he can suport as he sees resonably fit.

    Like


  96. @Master Beta,

    Who says all people have is Game?

    Game is a tool you can use in addition to other factors.

    I will agree with old McArdle on one thing though: game works better on younger women (IMHO).

    Older women become more set in their ways (and more cunty), and thus harder to game.

    That is why PUAs tend to advise men to go for younger women.

    Like


  97. on July 13, 2010 at 6:10 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””[editor: right. but a question arises. if poetic pedestalization is such a obstacle to succeeding with women, why did men invent it and embrace it so soulfully? maybe this was men’s way of avoiding taking a harsh look at female psychology?]”””””

    Right now I have no money. I have no property. My wife owns everything and has the bank account. She could say see ya nice knowing you thanks for the memories and the loot. Not a bad test it is endearing.
    Some woman ya can write stories about. Nice to know I have someone who has my back through basically anything. So yea I won’t mind keeping her around for the rest of my life and going back to work to make her rich as fuck.

    Like


  98. In response to Thursday and Roissy:

    Most of the poets adduced have never struck me as particularly devoted to the cause of pedestalization. Rather I think we can attribute a lot of their adoration of Beatrice, Laura, and so on to a particular Neoplatonic strain of mystical-perfectionist thought; really just the religious impulse poetically embodied in an ideal female. I do great violence to complex ideas in thus simplifying a frequently robust philosophical framework, but that’s a close approximation.

    I don’t think most of these poets truly desired or believed in the apotheosis of the feminine as embodied in the fickle women they knew. At least three of them (Shakespeare, Baudelaire, and the Leopardi of the Zibaldone) were some of the greatest expositors of human sinfulness known to the annals of literature, and none accord women an exception. In the cases of Baudelaire and Leopardi, they reveal a distinctly beta strain in their desire for ideal, chaste, kind women.

    I think, of course, the real problem is the Keatsian strain of pseudo-men, who find themselves unable to separate a certain mystical belief about some ideal female from their perception of the women in their lives. It’s worth pointing out the origin of this particular line of thought coincides fairly well with the first wide rejections of traditional beliefs in the Christian notion of original sin and with the corresponding acceptance of Romantic and pseudo-feminist political tripe.

    [editor: this sounds right to me.]

    Like


  99. “My question is with the continued exposure of game to the mainstream are women getting wiser about detecting mystery method style game?”

    “No. Game is evolving.

    Mystery Method style game was state of the art when it first came out, but now not so much.

    There are now so many different styles, that you could pick and choose based on what type you like.

    Plus, the best type of game is the type that looks like a normal, well executed pick up. It is impossible to detect, unless women in droves start turning down charming men (never going to happen).

    Obviously, this takes a lot of practice to master, but nothing in life is easy.”

    This is the most difficult part of learning game. I feel as though waaaaay too many betas have learned some of the theory and attitude of the Mystery Method game and women have adapted accordingly. I am quickly understanding that the more I depend on my own tested material, the better off I get. It is difficult and takes a lot of time and effort but I feel like I am turning the corner.

    Like


  100. I disagree with a lot of what McArdle says but still think she ranks among the better bloggers out there.

    She has reasonably strong opinions but genuinely accepts that equally smart people, with good motives, come to different conclusions. Unlike 95 percent of the world she is, in many cases, very interested in understanding how and why bright people reach differing conclusions so she writes in a way designed to elicit respectful debate. She actually tends to argue most of her opinions on facts and logic rather than cheap rhetorical tricks, personal attacks, etc.

    The anti-game post was a reasonably unusual example of cheap, thoughtless name calling made worse by being (for the most part) laughably wrong. (If you’re going to mock something as stupid, you’d better be right.)

    She’s actually like the exact opposite of Roissy in tone, which I mean as a compliment to her. Roissy has great insight into much human psychology but tends to support his insights with angry rants that just make him seem like sort of a dick.

    Mocking people who disagree with you, on a personal level, does not make more people agree with you

    [editor: no duh.]

    — and yes, you obviously do care about that or you would not write a blog.

    [that’s not why i write the blog. looking for a reason? hint: gom jabbar.]

    It’s particularly annoying to read a blogger who cowardly hides behind anonymity making mocking the lives of individuals who cannot mock them back.

    [you are free to mock anything i write here. have at it!]

    Oddly, Roissy and McArdle are both wrong, and both wrong for the same reason — absurdly extreme positions.

    McArdle basically argued, absurdly, that it’s silly for men to concentrate on improving the single most important set of skills one can possess: good social skills. And then she added more silliness about it not working and about it being somehow phony to control your natural conversational impulses, as if all of civilization isn’t about us controlling our natural impulses to get what we want long term.

    Roissy, on the other hand, portrays himself as a caricature of what anti-Game people mock: an angry obsessive who has devoted his every waking hour to fulfilling one animal need to the near exclusion of all other things — and one who argues, absurdly, that every man has basically no motivation of any kind that does not involve sleeping with attractive women.

    [where did i say that? another hater putting words in my mouth. of course, men have motivations to succeed and gain status in careers, hobbies, or social interactions that aren’t directly related to getting pussy. but the underlying mechanism for those good feelings generated by success in non-pussy getting endeavors is a genetic algorithm that encourages us to raise our status so that we may attract more quality women, and thus become more reproductively fit.]

    Er, sorry, I usually like to adopt my lingo to mock — I mean connect with — the folks who comment here: Roissy portrays himself as an obsessive alpha who knows that life relies on bagging and spite-fucking as much dumb-but-tight young snatch as he can catch.

    Either way you put it, it’s dumb.

    [you might want to stop telling me what i’ve written when it’s clear you haven’t read a damn word of anything on this blog. or if you have, you absorbed none of the lessons.]

    Like


  101. it’s already been discussed here how in order to be successful at game, you aspiring PUAs want to embrace traits of metrosexual and gay men…

    nothing new here indeed

    unless perhaps you’d care to admit that the targeted male-snaring tactics of young girls are something to learn from and emulate in your manly man way

    Like


  102. Also, your Roosh swipe if fucking weak. He’s a published author. Where can I buy your books?

    Please, any one in 2010 who is willing to front the money can be “published” such as Roosh did with CreateSpace. Having a publisher who will promote your book is the real key.

    In a few years, he’ll be living (simply, but still living) off the residuals. Since when does being semi-retired before 40 make one a loser?

    You can’t live into your 70s off residuals of a pick-up guide you wrote in your 20s/30s. Your material becomes dated and new writers arrive on the scene.

    Like


  103. it’s already been discussed here how in order to be successful at game, you aspiring PUAs want to embrace traits of metrosexual and gay men…

    Actually, black guys.

    Pea cocking? Look at how black guys dress. Watch a Jay-Z video.

    Confidence? No one has the swagger of a young black male.

    Push-pull? Watch a black guy talk to a woman. It’s “love you baby” one minute, and “bitch” the next.

    Game comes naturally for blacks because of their higher testosterone levels; and because their evolutionary environment did not require deep parental involvement. Thus, it’s simply organically easier for a black man to walk away from/”cheat” on any given woman.

    [editor: these are interesting points and there is something to what you say. but black game tends toward the hardcore extreme, which can come off as threatening or even puerile to women, especially non-black women. the best bet is to smooth out the rough edges of black game and make it more palatable for the SWPL set.]

    Like


  104. on July 13, 2010 at 6:31 pm ahappinessexperiment

    [editor: right. but a question arises. if poetic pedestalization is such a obstacle to succeeding with women, why did men invent it and embrace it so soulfully? maybe this was men’s way of avoiding taking a harsh look at female psychology?]

    Good question. In antiquity beauty was pedestalled but, as in Plato, more likely to be personified in a young male than a young woman. Was that just because Plato and Socrates were fags? Maybe. A leading theory is that because women were property there was no free-for-all for young women but there was for young men. (Like the the modern Middle East) No free for all -> no want -> no pain to be expressed poetically.

    Romantic love between men and women wasn’t invented until the middle ages. Perhaps the cause was simply poetic losers. e.g, Goethe’s The Sorrows of Young Werther, which apparently launched a romantic suicide epidemic among young males.

    Like


  105. on July 13, 2010 at 6:32 pm Master Beta

    Mike – Swing an a *wild* miss. Since you apparently missed my point by a wide margin, I’ll use smaller words this time.

    Game is a good start.

    [editor: game is more than a good start. it is a way of life.]

    Living and being interesting is how you finish.

    [that’s good too. but it’s not a finish. it’s just another fun thing about living.]

    There. Simple enough? At any point did I say Game was bad? At any point did I “swipe” Roosh with that statement? I thought the point was fairly uncontroversial – if you’re boring, it doesn’t matter how you act in the first five minutes of a seduction, it’s going to come out sooner or later. Roosh has Game. He also leads an interesting life. Add the two together and you get a killer combo that you can’t get with one of those items alone. I really don’t think that’s a leap of logic, a damnation of Game, or a swipe at Roosh, Roissy, or anyone else here.

    In other words, IF you’re the wildly apocryphal example I listed above (i.e. a boring, zero-status cubicle drone), yes, having Game is better than not having Game, but all the Game in the world doesn’t change the fact that, outside of Game, you’re not bringing much to the table. Of course, if you grasp the philosophy behind Game, you won’t be a boring, zero status cubicle drone for long because you’ll adopt a no-nonsense, cavalier, achievement-oriented personality that will apply to all facets of your life. Similarly, traveling the world and having interesting stories about hostels in Slovakia or wherever is great, but, if you’re a natural wallflower and don’t take care of yourself, you’ll never get a chance to tell them.

    Lastly, put your epeen away. Seriously. I didn’t say you didn’t accomplish anything, nor did I claim that Game was orthogonal to accomplishment. Again – they’re complimentary.

    K: Who says all people have is Game?

    Game is a tool you can use in addition to other factors.

    I will agree with old McArdle on one thing though: game works better on younger women (IMHO).

    Older women become more set in their ways (and more cunty), and thus harder to game.

    That is why PUAs tend to advise men to go for younger women.

    Sounds like we’re on the same page – Game is a tool. That’s the point I was trying to make, nothing more, nothing less. Without that tool, it’s going to be much harder to accomplish a successful pickup, in much the same way that it’s harder to hammer a nail into a board without a hammer. Yes, it can still be done if you have other tools, patience, and a bit of fortitude, but none of them are quite as well suited to the task. On the other hand, it’s good to have other tools in your toolbox other than a trusty hammer, as well as the skill and experience to know when to deploy them.

    Like


  106. McArdle? That ought to be McAdler.

    Don’t let the surname fool you. This is yet another kosherc*nt. But then aren’t all feminists kosher c*nts?

    Like


  107. on July 13, 2010 at 6:34 pm Gunslingergregi

    ””””””Mike
    “I work in data entry, drive an ’89 Hyundai Excel, and pose in front of a full-length mirror when I get home practicing ‘alpha’ poses”

    Get the fuck out of here with that pussy shit.

    If you had my name and yours, a cursory Google search would reveal someone with far greater accomplishments than yours.

    Most of us who learn game were very successful in other fields due to high IQ and drive. High IQ, rationality, and a future time orientation are all seduction killers. Thus, we turned to game.

    We use those same skills that make us professional successes to become successes with women.

    Also, your Roosh swipe if fucking weak. He’s a published author. Where can I buy your books?

    In a few years, he’ll be living (simply, but still living) off the residuals. Since when does being semi-retired before 40 make one a loser?
    ”””””””””’

    Also therein lies the problem with stupid overeducated american bitches. It only takes a year and a half of solid work and saving for me to go from 0 money to making 2800 a month for doing jack shit. Now if my wife would be a short sited american bitch. She would fuck me over take my money and kick me to the curb baby. But since my wife is not she gets to partake of my later income which will be substantial. What if the dude did work data entry?
    What if the dude worked mcfucking donalds 80 hours a week he could still be making 2800 a month for not doing much if he didn’t spend money on american hos and put it in bank and invested it. If the american woman would be smart they would get with guys who had a fucking job and be able to provide the kind of incentive for a man to work himself to death. Except that all they seem to be able to do is take without any thought to making the guys life comfortable and maybe working so he could take a break for a while and let him have some chill time and maybe the woman works for a couple years and let the guy take a couple years to blog and play video games and fuck. he he he

    Like


  108. on July 13, 2010 at 6:44 pm ahappinessexperiment

    obviously Goethe came much later but just meant that as an example.

    Octavio Paz has a good book chronicling the invention of the modern concept of love.

    Like


  109. Mike It’s “love you baby” one minute, and “bitch” the next.

    Don’t mistake rap music for the real thing. Today’s rap music is largely putting on a show from bragging about things they don’t own to having gone to jail.

    Biggest example… Rick Ross. The guys raps about making major money as a dealer and having spent time in jail. Actually, he did spend time in jail… but it was when he was working as a correctional officer.

    Plies- an RN before he became a rapper.

    Don’t believe the hype.

    When I hear a blk man call a blk woman the b-work directly , it’s usually one of two things:

    1. He’s angry with her and they make break up.
    2. He’s her pimp.

    mike Pea cocking? Look at how black guys dress. Watch a Jay-Z video.

    Yup more of you should dress like these guys here

    http://www.swagger360.blogspot.com

    Like


  110. on July 13, 2010 at 7:04 pm ahappinessexperiment

    “Romantic love between men and women wasn’t invented until the middle ages.

    Wrong. See the love songs of ancient Egypt and the Hebrew Song of Songs.”

    There is no way I am able to do Paz’s thesis on romantic love justice, but here is the book I am taking my statement from:

    http://www.amazon.com/Double-Flame-Love-Eroticism/dp/0156003651

    Like


  111. “You can’t live into your 70s off residuals of a pick-up guide you wrote in your 20s/30s. Your material becomes dated and new writers arrive on the scene.”

    Yes Bang is my only book and I don’t plan on writing any more.

    Like


  112. on July 13, 2010 at 7:07 pm old dumb bitch

    Once again, who gives a flying fuck what some old dumb bitch thinks? I just google the dumb bitch’s picture. If she is uglier than horseshit, I don’t even bother reading the article. Why should I? I don’t give a shit what any girl says who is ugly and over 22.

    Like


  113. You can’t live into your 70s off residuals of a pick-up guide you wrote in your 20s/30s. Your material becomes dated and new writers arrive on the scene.

    Affiliate marketing + semi-retired + low monthly nut = life that is better than yours.

    It must kill you knowing that your 60-hour workweeks, climbing the corporate latter all to provide for one woman, still won’t stop her from fucking a “dead beat” like Roosh.

    I love it!

    To me, “dead beats” like Roosh are an inspiration. Why kill yourself for a career: What do you really get out of having all of this money, if some “loser” can then fuck your wife? Really…What’s the point?

    A bigger house? Better food? What does money really buy you? (You should have platinum health insurance, however, since being broke means dying of cancer, or not getting a bone properly set after an accident.)

    When guys much less (traditionally) successful pull ass, it’s a reminder that even losing my business – which I’ve been building for years – means nothing. I will still get all of the pussy I want.

    You could hate guys like Roosh. Or you could say, “Damn. If he can get that much sex earning $2,000-$4,000 a month, think of what I should be pulling.”

    Like


  114. “Due to men’s generally more linear, deductive natures, we tend to develop our Game based on the data available to us – what women TELL us they want.”

    The first lesson in dealing with women is to understand the massive discrepancy between their words and their actions.

    As a fellow firmly in the loving embrace of middle-age, I have spent decades trying to figure out women. I made the classic mistake of actually listening to them and believing them. It turns out they were spouting lies.

    And then, post divorce and after 40, I finally grasped that women lie. They lie consistently and constantly. They lie because of ignorance. They lie because of insecurity. They lie because of malice. Every lie is almost always about the nature of their own needs and behaviors in the context of dating and relationships.

    My own mother lied to me when I told her of my first crush on a girl. “Just be yourself” she told me as advice. I believed her and quickly entered the sad life of the average frustrated chump.

    So I tell all men now that the words of women are mostly useless, only follow the actions of the female species.

    Like


  115. on July 13, 2010 at 7:14 pm Blessent mon coeur

    caveat bettor: Her husband is pretty brilliant, too.

    Yes, Peter Suderman is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

    Seriously, can I see some evidence of ‘brilliance’ to disprove my first impression that he’s a somewhat connected ideological hack?

    Like


  116. I actually knew Megan when she was in her 20’s and even gamed her at one point. She was looking for a LTR even back then.

    We shouldn’t give her such a hard time. She’s very tall and it must be tough for a girl like that to meet a lot of guys who do it for her. This guy seems like a beta but he is probably quite tall and has a career that she respects (same as hers)

    Like


  117. McArdle I find it hilarious that the pick-up artists think of themselves as especially manly

    I could be wrong but I think this largely has to do with people associating game with Mystery and his “look”. The blk nail polish*, tall hat, goth clothing.

    *Tommy Lee wears blk nail polish and I think he wore eyeliner too but no one would call him girly. I guess some men just give off a more masculine demenor than others.

    Like


  118. @Thursday @ 7:13 pm

    Thanks for the link.
    “There’s a phase most women probably go through in high school or college, when they realize that they have extraordinary power to get men to do things, and they see how many people they can get to chase them at once. Most of us, though, I think quickly realize how pointless it is. There’s something terribly lonely about interacting with someone when you know what’s really going on, and they don’t.

    Like


  119. on July 13, 2010 at 7:27 pm Vincent Ignatius

    I will agree with old McArdle on one thing though: game works better on younger women (IMHO).

    Older women just become more like men. With young girls, tell them you don’t want them and they chase you. With older women, tell them you like them and the like you more. Picking up cougars isn’t hard.

    The first lesson in dealing with women is to understand the massive discrepancy between their words and their actions.

    I notice that even most close female friends won’t tell me the truth if it somehow lowers their own perceived value. They have to rationalize some way to keep believing they are more desirable than they really are.

    Like


  120. We shouldn’t give her such a hard time

    When I read her blog post yesterday, I thought, “Her sex life must be boring already.”

    She wrote that article because she wanted Roissy to ass-fuck her good-and-right.

    Although only a 6, her femme profile is the Amazonian Alpha.

    Do you think a guy who marries a woman 10 years his senior can give it to McArdle properly?

    Like


  121. @chicnoir
    I don’t think Mystery looks girly? But his super tallness probably helps.

    He does look a bit like Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean though (especially with the eyeliner) which makes him look ‘unthreatening’ (in a good way) despite his physique, especially to younger girls I’d imagine.

    Like


  122. Re: Why game works best on young women.

    Older women lose their sense of wonder. They become embittered. They don’t have fun.

    The idealism of the very young is annoying – as is the jadedness of the old.

    A 26-year-old girl still has some stars in her eyes. She’s had a couple of years in the “real world,” and thus isn’t an annoying Greenpeace chick. She hasn’t been pumped-and-dumped for over a decade, however, and thus lacks the brittleness of most-30’s-something chicks.

    Like


  123. What never cease to amaze me is how women don’t understand the pain they cause when they LJBF a guy. The closest equavalent would be telling a girl you are breaking up with her because she is fatter than her twin sister, and even that isn’t that bad comparatively.

    I also don’t understand why women get pissed that men learn game. If women didn’t reward men for acting that way, game wouldn’t get learned.

    A true story:
    When I was a young highschooler I moved from Europe to a small town in upstate NY. I wasn’t interested in anything with those chicks, beacuse I was obviously better than all of them. This thinking manifested in ungodly levels of aloof, and combined with my natural penchant for cocky/funny, ensured that I was the most desirable bachelor in the school. I moved on to college, where I continued this thinking, and attracting a stalker chick in the process. Before I decided to try the relationship thing. These were higher quality girls. I tried doing the whole romantic thing, just like women say they want, and have never been shot down faster. After that experience, I said, “Screw this, and went back to a tempered, more mature self that was cocky/funny, didn’t hesitate to neg and qualify women, and I never got more female attention. I literally dated multiple women while they were all aware of each other, and would take them on group dates where I would make out with all of the women on the date. GAME IS GOOD!

    Then a year or two later, I found this blog, and am an apostle of game, preaching to the beta, coaching to the aspirant alpha the wisdom of our Dark Lord.

    Women you are in self-denial. I tried doing what you suggest and advocate, and met failure. As has every other man I’ve ever seen try it. I returned to what Roissy suggested and returned to success. Just as any man who learns game will have success.

    Like


  124. To Thursday:

    I’ll leave aside the idea that La Divina Commedia is the greatest poem ever written (maybe greatest epic poem, but I’ll hold come what may that Dante was ultimately mediocre in the lyrical tradition). That said, the way I learned La Divina Commedia from my professors in Bologna was that for all the distinctly personal grudges that Dante manifests, Beatrice, much like Virgil, is an idealized figure apart from reality. Moreover, the fact Dante drew a number of figures from his own life and experience means little; he also drew deeply on historical figures with whom he had no personal connection and weaved them into the same symbolic fabric, frequently with little regard for reality. My professors certainly never encouraged me to view his placement of Beatrice so differently from how I viewed the unusual honors and encomium that Arnaut Daniel or Ripheus received.

    The Beatrice as manifested in La Vita Nuova, of course, exemplifies your point perfectly, and I certainly concur Dante had a terrible case of oneitis. Leopardi, too, had it, though it was really the single blind spot in an otherwise hyper-perceptive mind.

    But I don’t think this disproves my larger point, which is that the amount of real woman worship going on was fairly limited amongst poets.

    After all, what about the great metrical masters of the English tradition? Fulke Greville, Walter Raleigh, Ben Jonson, etc. In at least the cases of Greville and Raleigh, they were great womanizers in addition to writing some of the most accomplished and moving verses in the language. I’d even say they provide excellent role models for those with predilections for both literature and the arts of seduction.

    I’ll also point out many of the abominable though famous poems of the English tradition are those which advocate genuflecting before women. The Dark Lady sonnets are so bad even Wordsworth could see something wrong with them.

    I can apply this to the French tradition, too. Neither the troubadours nor du Bellay or Ronsard showed signs of Dantean oneitis, and I am disinclined to see their literary achievements as minor.

    I’m fine accepting Dante as an exception to a rule (well, really, many rules) that applies until we hit the Romantics. However, I think to claim that woman worship is particularly characteristic of the Western tradition of poetry does injustice to the intellectual traditions of verse, particularly the lyrical traditions.

    Like


  125. on July 13, 2010 at 8:00 pm namae nanka

    [editor: right. but a question arises. if poetic pedestalization is such a obstacle to succeeding with women, why did men invent it and embrace it so soulfully? maybe this was men’s way of avoiding taking a harsh look at female psychology?]

    Projection? If the woman doesn’t have the same flaws as a man does, and the flaws in her character are hidden from a man’s POV, then she is more perfect. A higher being.

    Also most of the authors who wrote truthfully are probably labelled misogynists now, with dangerous thinking, unless they diluted it with wit.

    Like


  126. A guy who spends his life obsessing over … to get more attention from women is a loser.

    Yes, exactly. If you’re not doing it for you, because you enjoy it, then you’re a loser, living a hollow and empty life.

    There are several different things I started doing in order to get chicks. The ones I continued doing, I continued because I like doing them. The fact that they’ve helped me to get laid is nice. But getting laid isn’t a good enough reason to continue doing something I don’t like doing.

    If the most fun you have in life is getting laid, and you’re over 30, then you’ve got a sad life.

    Like


  127. the fact that suderman is nearly 10 years younger than mcardle should tell you all you need to know about his ingrained betaness

    A woman marrying a man ten years her junior is telling the world she’s a loser. (except for the elites, like Demi Moore).

    editor: i don’t get these guys saying mcardle is attractive. she’s not ugly, but she’s no looker either.

    I saw the photo, and I concur with 5. Thin, wiry lips, rottweiler eyes, stubborn chin, manjaw. Structural breakdown has already begun; my guess is her ass is about as soft and firm as the cutting board I use to chop an onion. She also has a pale and wan hue to her skin; almost jaundiced.

    Like


  128. @lily- Tommy Lee looks to be over 6 feet. Mystery and Tommy Lee have the same coloring but pull up a picture and compare them side by side.

    Mike To me, “dead beats” like Roosh are an inspiration. Why kill yourself for a career: What do you really get out of having all of this money,

    Remember that Roosh and his lifestyle can survive only because of those guys out working 60 hour work weeks.

    ? “But what would you say about Ashton Kutcher, I mean he could obviously slay anything under 25 ub Hwood if he wanted..
    thoughts?”

    Actually Ashton Kutcher is over

    Like


  129. @yohami: “The article portraits men in a negative way for doing something all girls do. Think about that.”

    Win!

    I think a lot of dudes miss the point on why women hate game. They hate it because they know it’s bringing the feminine bag of tricks to bear on the problem, using the male technologies of logic and reason. H.L. Mencken wrote about this in his “In Defense of Women” back in 1919. McCardle pretty much SAYS that’s why she hates it. There are all kinds of rationalizations for it, but angry ladies are mad because, like, that’s their tricks. Yeah, they also hate it because of all the talk about older women’s market value, but I think that’s secondary. Really, they hate it because it’s their idea. I say, tough cookies: you don’t want to have to deal with game -back to the kitchens with you and fetch me a goddamned beer!

    Also: poor Mel Gibson. I knew the dude was nuts, but that shit is outa control. He’ll probably get mad pussy for them rants though.

    [editor: good point, lupo. btw, i have written before about what you say here, which i probably should have mentioned in this post, or linked to. game is essentially co-opting female seduction tactics and using it for a man’s purpose, with a man’s logic brought to bear on the problem. they find that threatening when it’s spelled out like i do here.]

    Like


  130. I’d rate that Megan McHardle as a 3, tops. Plain fucking ugly to me.
    You yanks got low standards in looks.
    I could have banged better looker sheep.
    In fact………

    Like


  131. on July 13, 2010 at 8:39 pm The Alchemist

    McCardle clearly hasn’t read much of game, other than the ridiculously incomplete article she posted on her blog. Her comments are uninformed and she makes no attempt to understand the game techniques what-so-ever. I guess that would be too much to ask from a “journalist” like her. The peice was written in haste and is obviously a knee jerk reaction to a something which probably hit too close to home for her.

    For a woman approaching 40 and who wasn’t too attractive to begin with, she took a great risk in marrying a man 28 years old. And make no mistake about it, McCardle is/was fully aware of this risk and there is no doubt that the betatude of her husband was in complete consideration when she said “yes”to him. The risk of him leaving her in the future for some younger peice of ass versus resigning herself to a lonely old maid existence was measured with sub-atomic accuracy. Whatever doubts that arose (and in this circumstance, there are many) must have been assuaged by the raging betaness of her boyfriend. He’s was assessed as no, or minimal threat to her – This guy must be a real specimen – so she went ahead, against cultural norms and married a man 12 yrs younger.

    The PUA material must strike deep into the heart of her surpressed insecurities. What if her boy toy learned the truth – that attracting women is a mechanistic process that can be learned and applied in real life…what then? What if her supplicative beta became self-aware and revolted? A steady supply of younger, tighter, hotter women who’s ovaries aren’t anywhere near expiration, could become a reality for him and nightmare scenario for her.

    It behooves her to not only to attack the techniques and the entire scene, but, to shame it. It’s “girly” not because it really is – how stupid is that, being socially savvy and attractive to women everywhere is about as manly as it gets – but because she fears what it could mean for her aging ass. She needs her boy toy to not just avoid the scene, she needs him to hate it. To despise it as the worst, most shameful thing a guy could do. The more distance between him and the knowledge, the better. Maybe that helps her sleep at night, but, i have my doubts.

    I don’t know why i’m surprised – i’ve read her site a bit, here and there, and her economic insights are nearly as vapid. Though they tend to be couched in language and particulars that indicates she at least has some background knowledge in what she is opining on. Quite unlike this freudian slip of a post. Her blog comments speak more to her own insecurities than they do to anything relevant to the social dynamic between men and women. She should give it a rest, lest the lady protest too much.

    [editor: brutal because it’s true.]

    Like


  132. I was tempted to read McArdle’s blog , but hell , hasn’t that woman heard of paragraphs for fucks sake ?!

    Like


  133. Maybe you should give McArdle’s handlers more credit. Perhaps they see that game is a threat to the feminist/socialist arc. One of the more unappreciated reasons that feminism has succeeded is that many men have been unduly feminized (particularly well-educated men with a future) and hence have been made unnaturally unattractive to women. Game if it goes mainstream will increase the supply of attractive males over time making women less dissatisfied with the status quo and less susceptible to feminist tripe.

    Eventually the SWPL/Herb/Mangina/Self-castrating high-status males that read the Atlantic and through their stupidity and self-hatred support the feminist/socialist project may have a “what am I doing here” moment when they realize, e.g., that republican males who have learned game are scoring with their che t-shirt wearing female peers. Thus, the real audience for this piece may be the SWPL/Herb/Manginas males out there and in essence is a proverbial shot across their bows reminding them to keep in line. If these SWPL/Herb/Manginas leave the plantation feminism is ovah! Women can’t keep the regime in place without male quislings.

    Like


  134. PA

    No doubt some women hate Game because they associate it with unsavory cliches like goofy peacocking and serial pump&dumping. If they internalized the fact that Game is essentially the male version of chicks not getting fat, they’d be for it.

    It seems that for some reason women don’t like men to be able to learn how to directly push their attractiveness buttons. They want life to raise or lower a mans status and confidence, and choose based on his standing.

    Having their sensory detectors of attraction directly manipulated fucks with their system.

    And knowing how females try to change social situations through gossip, we can expect them to try to shame men into not being able to thwart their detectors.

    Like


  135. Check out this graphic

    OKCupid – How many Messages a man gets, by Age & Income

    Like


  136. yohami

    The article portraits men in a negative way for doing something all girls do. Think about that.

    Ya, it’s calling men girly. With a sneer. “You do exactly what I do, therefore I can’t respect you”.

    Once you learn to detect the sneer of shame, it’s easy to ignore the cloud of words and see through the haze to whats at the core. Usually a very special kind of nothing. Just more haze.

    Like


  137. @xsplat: is it the regime that doesn’t like that a man can learn how to push a woman’s buttons, or is it the woman? McArdle is just a mouthpiece for the regime.

    Like


  138. @chic
    I tried what you said but I can’t see past his tattoos! He looks scary.

    Like


  139. PA

    On the other hand, women are more than comfortable with there being ample pool of betas/orbiters/niceguys around to take advantage of. Game shrinks thier numbers.

    Social reproach lowers a mans confidence and testosterone. Women deliberately create the beta class of men. Women love love love betas.

    More betas means more men willing to buy large diamond rings. It means a greater likelyhood of the women being the Matriarch of the house.

    Women, as a group, love love love to sneer at men, and to bring as many of them down as possible.

    Like


  140. @Timitz
    Sounds like in your case you didn’t need to learn game in order to get casual relationships as you had what it took anyway even as a teenager?

    “Before I decided to try the relationship thing. These were higher quality girls.”
    Out of interest, have you pursued the relationships with the ‘higher quality’ girls since then and has game helped you with that?

    Like


  141. Thumbs up. Enjoyed reading this post. Lotta truth in there, especially in regards to the various de facto forms of game that men have been running for years.

    Women get the men they vote (with their pussies) for. If being overly-polite and accomodating worked, men would have never stopping doing it. Desireable women generally shit on that though, and a few really smart guys (like Mystery) developed something else.

    Speaking of alpha males…………Erik Von Markovick. He has had an appreciable effect on this nation.

    [editor: he really has. he has left his legacy.]

    Like


  142. on July 13, 2010 at 9:17 pm Rant Casey - Brazil

    This artcle is probably the worst piece of journalism I ever read, in every language I speak.

    Come on… “bla bla bla girly”… “bla bla bla egg and chicken” (whos got power over who)”…

    Unless you are able to ignore every scientific discovery of the past 100 years, and actually believe that “atraction is a social construct” (like feminists do), then its clear who got power over who: the selfish gene has power over both men and women.

    Some premeditate the pickup line. Some premeditate the shoes, the hair, the makeup, the dress, etcetera.

    But I gotta give Megan the credit for being SMART: she figured out the only way a pickup artist would ever give her attention. Wich is… insulting them. Not very ellaborate, and not very mature too, but it was smart: middle aged women are definitely NOT the demographic that PUAs look for.

    [editor: and i gave her the very special attention she craved.]

    Why care? Its all raw contempt. If Pick Up Artists are to adress every single (and or *single* too) old lady who is too busy to write decent journalism, and so idle to find time to care about single men in the dating market…

    … there will be little spare time to cater to the actually interesting women. These old ladies are many.And they want attention!

    And OF COURSE, learning seduction techniques is SO GIRLY. Because everything a little girl wants, is to bed hot adult women. Yeah… I wonder how come nobody noticed yet. (sigh)

    Like


  143. on July 13, 2010 at 9:20 pm Badger Nation

    I read both McArdle pieces and lots of the comments, and both are pretty aimless. It’s like a random spraying from Roissy’s list of hate, followed up with some extra sanctimony. The comments were particularly hilarious from one AWD who claimed to be a recovering party girl, and an Asian guy who denigrated game because, in his view, game couldn’t get women who didn’t like Asians to sleep with him. (That brings up an interesting reality/fallacy of game – it is like hypnosis, you cannot seduce someone who has not at least subconsciously made themselves open to a seduction.)

    The biggest flaw, though, in McArdle’s piece is focusing on PUA for pump and dumps. She and commenters specifically claim game is useless for anything other that a ONS (somebody posted the link to Relationship Game Week in counterpoint). Very short-sighted, but understandable if all they’ve seen is The Pickup Artist and Neil Strauss.

    “My question is with the continued exposure of game to the mainstream are women getting wiser about detecting mystery method style game?”

    Without a doubt, this will become an issue in certain pools, although the overall numbers of gaming men is probably still small. It’s the way of technology – something groundbreaking becomes obsolete, and someone has to improve upon it to recharge the market.

    And since game is the ultimate open-source movement, no doubt the improvements will be swift and spread fast. They already have, there are so many credible schools of PUA

    I do wonder, though, if the spreading movement will spawn legions of transparently bad (loose?) gamers, giving more women stories to tell of some guy who tried a lame routine – game as the new bad pick-up line?

    Besides, if chicks try to call you on game, you have the innocence trump card – you should at least have enough game to deflect the accusation and chide her for being so presumptive. I also like to be meta about it, say “yeah I saw that trick on TV, I always wondered if it would work in reality.”

    “If they internalized the fact that Game is essentially the male version of chicks not getting fat, they’d be for it.”

    And if they’d realize that good game is just taking good regular guys and pumping up their alpha, they’d enjoy life a lot more. Women hating on game is like married women refusing to have sex to spite their husbands for some alleged misdeed – they’re cutting off their own clitorises in an invented power struggle,leaving themselves sexually destroyed but reveling in hollow victory.

    Like


  144. It exposes the mystery of female sexual preference in a way that, from the perspective of a staunch feminist, is generally not flattering to women. Rather than reexamine their own belief system, they choose to condemn that which challenges it.

    See ingrained unconscious dual mating strategy. Women are not CAPABLE of knowing that they have a dual mating strategy. Their brains shout out NA NA NA NA NA NA NA and plug shut down synapses leading to the ears at the very threat of hearing that news.

    Because women need to believe that they truly love their beta provider.

    After all, do anything romantic that a beta naturally does, while being socially proofed, and you’ll thrill her. Chick crack. Do it over and over and she’ll get bored, then cranky, then disgusted.

    But a women will NEVER know why. CAN’T know why. Will REFUSE to know why.

    Like


  145. me: why should i be nice to someone who has no interest and just wants a free dinner.

    her: cause it’s nice.

    me:Ya, well I’m not nice.

    Like


  146. I have to try this line sometime: I could, but I won’t.

    Like


  147. on July 13, 2010 at 9:28 pm Badger Nation

    Gorby –

    “You got the point, though.

    It’s nice – for *them*. Who wouldn’t want someone to buy them dinner in exchange for nothing?

    Sounds pretty damned good to me.”

    Entitlement is a beast ain’t it. As I said before on another thread, I’ve gone Chomsky on these “dating rituals.” I don’t even participate in this stuff. No one reading this should, either – you just freaking don’t have to. Unlike Marc Rudov, you don’t have to make a big show of it. Just don’t let yourself get into a position where you’ve let it become expected you’ll reach for your wallet when she does something that costs money.

    Although there is an exception – if she asks why you don’t buy her dinner/drinks/whatever, you can play disqualifier: “well if I pay for that, you might feel pressure that you have to do something in exchange, and I’m just not comfortable putting you in that position” [while you imagine which positions you’d like to put her in]

    Like


  148. J R

    is that necessarily settling or has their taste simply shifted to the right on the cad-to-dad continuum?

    I think you are both agreeing, and using different terms. R says that the woman is settling, and but it’s unconscious. You say her her tastes changed. Two ways of describing the same elephant.

    I agree with you that eating 3/4 of the bag of cookies by the time you are 35 is a reasonable strategy for women to take. Even if they risk having less cookies in older age.

    Like


  149. Michael Buble is pretty studly in this video. His real life model/actress fiancee from Argentina. Some guys get all the breaks…

    Like


  150. on July 13, 2010 at 9:29 pm The Specimen

    5.5? I’d put her at a solid 5 @ most if she has a decent body. Her hunsband looks beta to the core. I don’t see how she has any business commenting on game. It’s like a wino talking about astrophysics.

    And Demi Moore is an extreme outlier. The woman is not human. At 48, after several children, she still looks better than 99% of the women half her age. Demi Moore @ 65% is better than most women @ 100%. Stacey Dash is another one of those freaks of nature. They just can’t be compared to normal women.

    Like


  151. ” if poetic pedestalization is such a obstacle to succeeding with women, why did men invent it and embrace it so soulfully? maybe this was men’s way of avoiding taking a harsh look at female psychology?”

    I think a big part of this is a backward view of history. I disagree with Thursday that the Song of Solomon is anything remotely resembling romantic love; it’s more like Bronze Age porn. I mean, come on; the writer is describing jiggling boobies for Chrissakes. The Greeks and Romans had no illusions about the nature of women either; some of the best advice one can read on game comes from these guys -I’m particularly fond of Martial and the various Greek plays. Shakespeare? Pedestalizing? Not really. Didn’t you read “Taming of the Shrew?” His “romantic” poems can be read in a much different sense; what he was producing was mass entertainment for his era, like being a movie star. The knightly troubadors? These dudes did indeed pedestalize women: the married women they were boffing. They more or less did this as a test of their manliness; a sort of status game. Romantic poets? Byron fucked his sister for chrissakes: he was the shock rocker of his time. Incest caused more ladies to swoon than his saccharine stuff; not that it was all that saccharine.

    IMO, the notion of romantic love we have today is largely manufactured and back propagated onto the past for marketing purposes. I don’t know what the Octavio Paz book says, but it’s abundantly obvious beta pedestalization is ahistorical. Maybe it comes from Victorian times; a sort of necessary hypocrisy -but whatever it is, it doesn’t apply any more.

    [editor: i didn’t know that about byron. now that’s badboy.]

    Like


  152. Although there is an exception – if she asks why you don’t buy her dinner/drinks/whatever, you can play disqualifier: “well if I pay for that, you might feel pressure that you have to do something in exchange, and I’m just not comfortable putting you in that position”

    A rather chivalrous way to inject sexual innuendo, but it does get the point across. Why should we pay women for the right for an audience to see if she wants to fuck us or not?

    It’s not even a matter of flipping the script, and thinking of ourselves as the prize, and her doing the audition. It’s an audience, not an exchange.

    Like


  153. Paying for a date is paying a job application fee.

    Only fools pay application fees.

    Like


  154. on July 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm Badger Nation

    Not only is McArdle wrong, she’s dead wrong and dangerously wrong. For even an average guy, a concentrated bumpup in social skills is possibly the best investment he could ever make, generating huge rippling-tide payoffs in his business, family life, social life, personal happiness, artistic output, you get the picture. It’s actually a vastly undersold skill, thanks to fools like her who probably eat up the dozens of chick self-help books and “feminine side” crap for dudes but denigrate real, honest, effective self-improvement for guys.

    Much of the discussion has been of this bent:

    “It seems that for some reason women don’t like men to be able to learn how to directly push their attractiveness buttons. They want life to raise or lower a mans status and confidence, and choose based on his standing.”

    Spot on, but also there’s a simpler explanation that has been alluded to here: nobody of either gender doesn’t get defensive when someone else claims to have figured them out. People want to assert their rationality and individualism, and it threatens our very humanity to be told we’re just animals responding to group-identified instinctual and behaviorist programming.

    All the more reason I ignore this sort of criticism. And with the political fallout, you have to treat game like fight club – remember rules 1 and 2 in public.

    Like


  155. @Badger Nation,

    Although there is an exception – if she asks why you don’t buy her dinner/drinks/whatever, you can play disqualifier: “well if I pay for that, you might feel pressure that you have to do something in exchange, and I’m just not comfortable putting you in that position” [while you imagine which positions you’d like to put her in]

    This the best and my usual tactic. Does two things.

    1) Gets you off the hook for paying
    2) Makes it sound like you’re not trying to bed her (immediately) and are therefore not taking advantage of her.

    Mostly just helps you not have to pay.

    Even more alpha: Get her to pay. I’ve managed that on first dates more and more over the years, … though not all that often.

    Like


  156. 2) Makes it sound like you’re not trying to bed her (immediately) and are therefore not taking advantage of her.

    I’m pretty sure any girl I take out on a first date will realize that I want to fuck her. I’d feel a bit silly going out on a platonic date, as if I don’t usually wear my balls when I go out.

    I suppose you could say with your mouth the words that you have no ulterior motive, as long as you say with your demeanor that if you hit it off with the girl you intend to make her squeal.

    I dislike any hint of platonic intentions creeping into my dates.

    Like


  157. The speciman

    on Demi More and Stacy Dash- agreed.

    i bet a number of older women in hollywood have gone to Demi More’s plastic surgon looking for the same results.

    Like


  158. The current milieu of alpha thugs / betas was all there in The Brothers Karamazov: Dimitri going around squandering his fortune acting the thug and having the women for leagues around town show up to his trial when he is falsely accused of murdering his father. Herzenstube pedestalizing women and the women playing him by never giving him negative information that would change his world view. Prim Katerina Ivanovna becoming engaged to Dimitri even though he’s catting it up with the town slut Grushenka and initially can’t bring herself to love Ivan Karamazov who has about three times as much going for him as Dimitri. My favorite: Liza slamming the door on her finger for the masochistic thrill of it.

    Like


  159. Everyone who things R is GBFM is an idiot.

    A glaring example of why democracy will never work. Too many idiots.

    Like


  160. [editor: i don’t get these guys saying mcardle is attractive. she’s not ugly, but she’s no looker either.

    i’d give her a 5.]

    Come on, that is a bit too tough. The girl in that photo is definitely above average in looks. Not sure how she looks in real life. As far as the photo goes, she could be 6-8.

    [editor: i did later bump her up to a 5.5, pupu. more love, please!]

    Like


  161. I ducked over to McArdle’s article and checked out Thursday’s comments. Not bad.

    The best commenter however was justabil. I’m not sure the man knows game per se but he has his shit together and gets the fundamental concepts perfectly.

    Like


  162. on July 13, 2010 at 10:44 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””””””JamieMc 1 day ago in reply to JamieMc

    5 people liked this.

    On a more serious note, one of my own little agendas is that men need to work harder to define a grown up version of masculinity for themselves. Plenty of guys do okay at this, but our popular culture, and plenty of other guys, do not.

    Of course, “grow the fuck up” really isn’t thaaat difficult a concept. ”””””””

    Yea grown up version of men is paying woman for past use of pussy for hundreds of years.

    Funny shit.

    Like


  163. Jambavan

    really just the religious impulse poetically embodied in an ideal female.

    I think much religious thought has its underpinnings in parental devotion, devotion to the head tribe leader, and sexual devotion. Rather than the other way around. These urges of devotion are in us, and we feel around in the dark for something to grab that explains and expresses them. We need to love and respect and obey.

    Like


  164. on July 13, 2010 at 10:51 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””’ silentbeep 9 hours ago in reply to Rob Lyman

    Consider this: no man is entitled to a woman’s body. Period.

    “having to trick someone” is an amazing way to look at other people as the “problem” rather than look at one’s self and ask this question, examine it, and perhaps do the internal work to solve it this issue: “why do I think I have to trick women?” If you perceive people as being there to be conquered, just so you can get off, you will get people who are wiling to surrender their personhood, and be conquered. As I said before: if you don’t care about the quality of person you are with, and a lay is all you want, I suppose this will work. But actually being with a smart, sex-positive, self-assured woman that at the very least, can see through a con job is not what you will get. You get what you put out there. ”””””’

    No woman is entitled to a mans wallet.

    Oh wait no that is not true they are.

    Like


  165. on July 13, 2010 at 10:58 pm Gunslingergregi

    ”””’ silentbeep 9 hours ago in reply to Rob Lyman

    Consider this: no man is entitled to a woman’s body. Period.

    “having to trick someone” is an amazing way to look at other people as the “problem” rather than look at one’s self and ask this question, examine it, and perhaps do the internal work to solve it this issue: “why do I think I have to trick women?” If you perceive people as being there to be conquered, just so you can get off, you will get people who are wiling to surrender their personhood, and be conquered. As I said before: if you don’t care about the quality of person you are with, and a lay is all you want, I suppose this will work. But actually being with a smart, sex-positive, self-assured woman that at the very least, can see through a con job is not what you will get. You get what you put out there. ”””””’

    No woman is entitled to a mans wallet.

    Oh wait no that is not true they are.

    ””””’Ken Magalnik 1 day ago

    Spending all your time trying to figure out and memorize all these little tricks seems somewhat pitiful (Personally, I think they hate their mothers and womanhood in general and feel that they have to subjugate it, but whatever). But its nice to have an information medium that would allow people to share and refine these skills to that point. And the rest of us can pick up a pointer or two without having to put in all the work. I mean, apparently its best to approach a woman from 10oclock. Who knew? ””””’

    Subjugate?
    lol just like have of men married are subjugated and the other half are fearfull of becoming the subjugated.

    Like


  166. on July 13, 2010 at 10:59 pm Father Merrin

    Roissy, I’ve seriously no clue as to whether or not your theories on seducing women actually work, but they make enough sense for me to believe that they do on most women. It’s when you veer off into these repulsive tangents on women’s “declining market value” and gleefully rejoice in their supposed flaws that I find myself actively repulsed, and it ain’t because the thought of a woman over 30 is terrifying.

    While I still feel that this quote gives you more credit than you deserve, I’m compelled to post it anyway, in hopes that men might find a happy medium between attaining women and still having some semblance of respect for them.

    “Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. We may ask what is relevant but anything beyond that is dangerous. *He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us.* The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that – do not listen.”

    [editor: i admit i grinned with pride when i read this quote.]

    Like


  167. on July 13, 2010 at 11:00 pm Gunslingergregi

    This shit is gold because they are speaking in wow that is bad. Where if you took it and replaced it with the real world position all alll allllllllll
    men who are in married in us then it would be enough to make them literally blow there own heads off if woman got treated that way.

    Like


  168. Thursday–

    because of the massively unfavourable (to males) sex ratio

    What exactly are you talking about?

    Like


  169. We need to love and respect and obey. .. continued..

    The switch from Beta to Alpha is where we learn to make ourselves what is loved and respected and obeyed. And we learn to stop treating others with deference.

    Like


  170. xsplat

    “Women love love love betas.”

    Was under the assumption it was the other way around. The share an alpha rather than being with a beta mantra.

    Like


  171. Megan McArdle called you girly? She better know that she’s messin’ with the kind of manly man who says manly things like “Flaky McFlakester.”

    [editor: flaky mcflakester now knows me by 12incher mc12incher. i hope that didn’t chub you out.]

    Like


  172. “There’s something terribly lonely about interacting with someone when you know what’s really going on, and they don’t.“

    This loneliness is an indulgence.

    If you want to connect with someone, you do it in whatever ways you can. Not in whatever ways you want to.

    Like


  173. Timitz

    I also don’t understand why women get pissed that men learn game. If women didn’t reward men for acting that way, game wouldn’t get learned.

    You must be between the first few stages of grief:denial and anger.

    Eventually you’ll accept that women don’t think logically, even though they sometimes use logic in order to further their selfish and group-selfish agendas.

    And then it’s all good again.

    Like


  174. @xsplat

    me: why should i be nice to someone who has no interest and just wants a free dinner.

    her: cause it’s nice.

    me:Ya, well I’m not nice.

    Interesting….I’ve started using the “i’m not nice” line in respect to various situations when I’m gaming.

    It’s a real push-pull thing.

    The girl if remotely interested will actually rush to my defense saying “oh, you seem so nice….”

    In the Asian-context it doesn’t necessarily mean “beta”…it’s their way of expressing further interest.

    However, if a Chinese girl tells you about another guy or says “you’re a nice guy”…it’s different. Then it means you’re beta.

    Being “nice” and being a “nice guy”…are subtly but distinctly different.

    Like


  175. A guy who spends his life obsessing over … to get more attention from women is a loser.

    Yes, exactly. If you’re not doing it for you, because you enjoy it, then you’re a loser, living a hollow and empty life.

    This assumes that obsessing over attention for women isn’t what you truly enjoy doing.

    There are several different things I started doing in order to get chicks. The ones I continued doing, I continued because I like doing them. The fact that they’ve helped me to get laid is nice. But getting laid isn’t a good enough reason to continue doing something I don’t like doing.

    If the most fun you have in life is getting laid, and you’re over 30, then you’ve got a sad life.

    If getting laid isn’t the most fun you have in life, then you have a sad sex life.

    Like


  176. Don’t forget to passively-aggressively insult a girl’s footwear like a real man.

    [editor: real men get laid. what’s your excuse?]

    “me by 12incher mc12incher”

    Epic fail.

    [your chub? yes.]

    Like


  177. @Father Merrin: The RC Church educated a lot of women in my generation often giving them entree to higher social circles in aid of their hypergamous impulses. How has it worked out for the church? Was it a wise investment, do you think? Maybe the church should have kept in mind that the man is to be the head of the family, and recognize that it was a mistake to have adopted a Bismarckian educational formula that operationally equated men with women in catholic educational institutions?

    Like


  178. Ronin

    xsplat

    “Women love love love betas.”

    Was under the assumption it was the other way around. The share an alpha rather than being with a beta mantra.

    Really? My meaning was not clear? Are you honestly that literal minded, or am I simply not effective at conveying a complex idea?

    Women deliberately create classes of men. They deliberately create the Alpha class, who they fuck, and they deliberately create the beta class, who are supplicants.

    Whiskey coined the term that women hate hate hate betas. This completely misses the point the women deliberately create the beta class. They love love love them.

    Like


  179. Fuck yes roissy.

    Like


  180. on July 13, 2010 at 11:36 pm Gunslingergregi

    Father Merrin are you a priest?

    What do you think about the transfer of wealth from men to woman over the last 200 years in the us?

    Or the fact that over the last 100 years darn close to 50 percent of marriages are known to fail.

    Is it the devil that made the law to enslave man or was it man that made the law to enslave man?

    Talking about woman getting paid for services no longer rendered after divorce.

    And you did nothing.

    Did the devil make you do nothing?

    Where there no good men to stand up?

    what happened?

    Shouldn’t men be free from bondage?

    Like


  181. The Alchemist

    is – how stupid is that, being socially savvy and attractive to women everywhere is about as manly as it gets – but because she fears what it could mean for her aging ass.

    The perfect example of this dynamic happened to me. I was dating an older woman, who visited my villa in Bali. She saw my super hot 20 year old house maid, and asked me if I was attracted to her. “Yes”. “But she’s just a kid!” I didn’t ask her if she’d ever opened up the covers of a Playboy. Didn’t want her head to explode on the spot.

    Like


  182. xsplat

    “Are you honestly that literal minded?”

    Fuck me for inquiring.

    Like


  183. on July 13, 2010 at 11:39 pm Badger Nation

    “Spending all your time trying to figure out and memorize all these little tricks seems somewhat pitiful (Personally, I think they hate their mothers and womanhood in general and feel that they have to subjugate it, but whatever).”

    It’s a familiar shaming refrain, but that guy is more right than he knows. Many men WILL grow to resent their mothers, sisters and other women in their lives for giving them wonderfully wrong advice wrt to winning a woman’s affections. Many betas are born, but some are made; they DO have to subjugate their feminine training.

    doug: ” because of the massively unfavourable (to males) sex ratio”

    I think Thursday is getting at the 80:20 rule. The gender ratio and the sex ratio are distinct: a woman has to do far less effort to get sex and male attention than vice versa. Of course, a woman has a chore ahead of her to win that alpha prize.

    “IMO, the notion of romantic love we have today is largely manufactured and back propagated onto the past for marketing purposes. I don’t know what the Octavio Paz book says, but it’s abundantly obvious beta pedestalization is ahistorical.”

    Amen. Chivalry used to be the code of the biggest, baddest special-ops soldiers the feudal system had to offer; they had rules to show they could move in polite society. Might for right. Very Arthurian. It was like, say, the mayor loaning you a buck at the store, or a senator helping your loan application get an extra boost. Today’s chivalry is just vagina entitlement.

    xsplat,

    “I’m pretty sure any girl I take out on a first date will realize that I want to fuck her. I’d feel a bit silly going out on a platonic date, as if I don’t usually wear my balls when I go out.”

    You may be unfamiliar with the young American girls of today, but they are seriously hung up on their “sexual freedom to say no” and “unwanted advances” hysteria, and fully expect a man to put out (cash) without any reciprocation anticipated. Some of these girls feel that sexual advances by a man are automatic de facto sexual assault. So this DQ has the added benefit of playing to her feminist sensibilities that a man shouldn’t expect sexual reward on a date.

    One other reason for game haters is that the peacocking, intentional disagreement, etc seems so standout-ish, so unfeminine (even though women are the ultimate attention whores). They can’t imagine they’ll be attracted to a guy going out of his way to not be a bobblehead agreement fetishist. Of course, once they are in the field the chicks eat it up, so it’s another case of saying one thing and doing another.

    Like


  184. Women can’t keep the regime in place without male quislings.

    I had the misfortune to meet the my ex-girlfriends sisters. They had been described accurately to me. Fat, dominant, a-sexual bullies.

    Two minutes in their company was enough to ingrain the archetype of the female matron clan into my skull.

    THAT is feminism.

    Like


  185. on July 13, 2010 at 11:44 pm Gunslingergregi

    I want the money back from 11 years of catholic school for not teaching me that divorce is a 50/50 chance and when it happens I get screwed.

    Lawyers can get the catholic church for deriliction of duty on that one maybe.

    Already making em pay for alter boys right?

    Might as well go for leading boys to the slaughter of marriage and pushing it like a drug.

    They said drugs were bad.

    They didn’t say marriage could be worse.

    You can quit drugs but lifetime alimony you can’t quit.

    And we were never told a dam thing about it.

    Just told over and over marriage before sex marriage before sex.

    Like


  186. Ronin

    xsplat

    “Are you honestly that literal minded?”

    Fuck me for inquiring.

    Well, I was serious. Not sure if there was an error of explication or of comprehension. I obviously failed in my aim, and was trying to find out why. Because I’d have assumed that saying that women love love love betas would be pretty damned obvious that I wasn’t saying that they love to fuck them.

    The implication was that they require them, socially, and so as a group create them.

    Othewise why would women have sexual power to gain material goods? Without betas, women are nothing.

    Like


  187. “This completely misses the point the women deliberately create the beta class. They love love love them.”

    They love what they provide- the diamond rings, the free dinners at fancy resteraunts, the bragging rights to their friends- all of if increases her social standing amonst her peers and anchors her self image as a woman of high social standing and worth. In that equation the man is simply a tool to facilitate her climbing the social heirarchy, she cares nothing for him- simply what he provides.

    In sharp contrast, exposure to the raw essence of alphaness causes the gina to instantly gush forth a copious bounty of prepatory lubrication in anticpation of base animal rutting whose sole purpose is the acquisition superior gentic material….

    Or…. women love alphas for being alphas- while they love betas for what they can use them for- the love is directed at the objects/status- not the person. The women simply delude themselves into thinking that they love the person while, in reality, they merely subconsciously associate all the things they love with the presence of the beta.

    Like


  188. The horror, the horror!

    Like


  189. Yes, NYC. But what is often missed – and am I the first person to notice this? – is that women require a percentage of the population to be the sexual underclass.

    Otherwise they would all have to put out for free, all the time.

    Like


  190. “You can quit drugs but lifetime alimony you can’t quit.”

    Real alphas don’t passively acquise when someone declares them a slave. Alphas stike back at their would be oppressors- they murder those who would deprive them of their life, liberty, and property. Would-be masters and overseers quake at the thought of errantly trying to deprive an unbroken Alpha male of what he sees as his natural birthright.

    Like


  191. xsplat

    “Othewise why would women have sexual power to gain material goods? Without betas, women are nothing.”

    I hear ya.
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/the-end-of-beta-providers/

    Like


  192. [editor: i did later bump her up to a 5.5, pupu. more love, please!]

    disagreements can make the heart grow fonder!

    Like


  193. About women loving betas, consider the zebrafish. A female zebrafish, if it sucessfully defends a large territory, will grow in size and become male. The more territory it defends, the bigger and more sexually agressive it will be. It’s a hormonal feedback loop.

    Women deliberately, though not consciously, try to keep men down. The ones that pass this shit test and are not kept down have their testosterone rise, and get laid.

    Women create betas. Socially and in one to one interactions. The deliberately create the beta class.

    Like


  194. xsplat

    The confusion is arising from the way you’re stating what you mean. Saying “Women love Betas” isn’t incorrect- its just causing confusion because it can be interpreted multiple ways.

    You mean “Women love Betas” In the sense that they love all the wonderful things that this object can do for them. You mean “Women love Betas” in the sense that “Men love Swiss Army Knives”- yes they do- they love all the amazing different USEFUL things that the knife can do. Yet if you took the “same” knife and replaced the useful objects, with useless ones- like say the ability to tease your eyebrows and curl your bangs; then the “same” knife would be useless to you- and you wouldn’t love it anymore. Which is prefectly anagous to betas- to take the ability to get in the VIP, fancy resteraunts, and social climbing- and replace with something useless to the women- like say the ability to get a character in World of Warcraft to a high level- and boom- suddenly the love of the beta is gone- just like the knife.

    You’re critics are confused- because they’re interpreting the statement “Women love Betas” to mean that women love Betas for their essence- for what they are- in the sense that people love cats, dogs and babies. These things merely need to exist and be what they are to be loved- which is not the case with betas- and what is causing the outrage.

    What you’re saying isn’t, strictly speaking, wrong- its just that most people lack the congitive skills to interpret the same sentence from multiple persepctives.

    Like


  195. Hey Roissy: Byron was def the PUA of his era. Favorite quote by him, which not coincidentally would also be an appropriate for Miz McTallStuff:
    “”Women hate everything which strips off the tinsel of sentiment, and they are right, or it would rob them of their weapons.” “

    [editor: perfect. i think that quote might be just long enough to get tattooed on my dick.]

    Like


  196. “disagreements can make the heart grow fonder!”

    Only when the man has the testicles not to back down when he knows he’s right.

    Aka

    My way or the Highway

    Like


  197. The confusion is arising from the way you’re stating what you mean. Saying “Women love Betas” isn’t incorrect- its just causing confusion because it can be interpreted multiple ways.

    Yes, NYC, this was a deliberate tactic, to spur thought. I had questioned whether it was effective. I has supposed it would be effective for at least 80% of readers.

    You see, I’m of the opinion that if a reader reads something that makes sense, he will gloss over it with no personal impact. But if you say something that requires some thought to figure out the writers intention, it will cause a greater number of far flung synapses to light up and create an AHA moment that will ultimately have a greater effect on the readers world view.

    By stating that women love betas, when the whole point of this blog and everything I’ve ever written is stating the direct opposite, was meant to spur a little personal thought process.

    If the reader is not capable of that, no point talking anyway.

    What do you think – was my tactic effective?

    Like


  198. “Yes, NYC. But what is often missed – and am I the first person to notice this? – is that women require a percentage of the population to be the sexual underclass.

    Otherwise they would all have to put out for free, all the time.”

    Social heirarchy, and relative genetic fitness are, by definition, a zero sum game. For someones to be the top 15%, someones else has to be the bottom 85%.

    The top 15% is used for animal rutting; women want the superior genetic material.

    That leaves the bottom 85%…. and its almost as if, on some sort of metaphysical level, the female metamind has stated “well… we can’t just let them go to waste!”

    Like


  199. That leaves the bottom 85%…. and its almost as if, on some sort of metaphysical level, the female metamind has stated “well… we can’t just let them go to waste!”

    I strongly disagree with you here.

    Women have an entire system set up whereby men pay for sex. They defend this system. Because they benefit from it.

    Yes, women have a dual mating strategy. They don’t merely fuck the betas because they have no other option. They fuck them for money.

    It’s part of what it means to be female – to be a whore.

    Like


  200. [editor: i didn’t know that about byron. now that’s badboy.]

    Well, half-sister actually, still…

    Like


  201. To restate my position – women want a percentage of males to pay for sex. If all males were of identical genetic fitness, they would still create a beta class of men.

    Like


  202. In case my position needs to be restated in as many different ways as possible, the female strategy for optimizing for successful offspring is highly tied together with money. She requires money, and going wayyy back into our genetic and cultural history, a main way she collected bananas was as offerings for sex.

    If women did not deliberately shame and cojole and demand money for sex, if they did not make men feel unworthy of their golden vaginas, they would not receive as many bananas.

    The woman snubs and sneers at the man in order to ultimately get more bananas.

    Like


  203. Fucking mostly the alphas creates an artificial scarcity. It isn’t merely about getting the best genes. It’s a supply and demand thing. You’ve got to keep the bulk of men starving and desparate. You’ve got to psychologically make them feel wanting and needy and unworthy.

    Like


  204. on July 14, 2010 at 1:05 am NYCBachelor

    “You see, I’m of the opinion that if a reader reads something that makes sense, he will gloss over it with no personal impact. But if you say something that requires some thought to figure out the writers intention, it will cause a greater number of far flung synapses to light up and create an AHA moment that will ultimately have a greater effect on the readers world view.”

    This certainly is a valid tactic…. if the person in question has some understanding of the situation in question and has the the ability to really think about what is being said.

    With the quantity of comments on this blog, and the amount of information on the internet in general, this really isn’t an effective strategy. Your clever statement, designed to produce introspection and understanding, is lost in the internet white noise being produced by everything else that is being said- there is simply too much being said to look at any one statement at more then a topical level.

    With the inability to view your statement at more then a topical level, due to the very nature of the internet, you cause even more confusion in your audience as to what you actually think and want them to learn because-

    1. People will begin disagreeing with you and stating why the errant interpretation of your statement is wrong- creating further internet white noise and futher obscuring what you really meant; and other audience members, also looking at a topical level will read and agree with said arguements.

    2. Your audience may not have the necessary conceptual base to actually decifier what you actually mean even if they looked and the statement and pondered about what you actually meant- for example, a straight up AFC/Beta who stumbled across this blog with no other exposures outside the MSM wouldn’t have a clue to your “inner meaning”.

    “By stating that women love betas, when the whole point of this blog and everything I’ve ever written is stating the direct opposite, was meant to spur a little personal thought process.”

    1. Not every reader of the blog will have this background information on you- and you’re losing out on a larger potential audience that could have otherwise been enlightened if you had been more explicit in what you meant.

    2. You’re assuming that, of the people that know your past thoughts and arguments, many of them have the intellectual capcity to look for at a given statement for past intellectual consistency- instead of looking at it a topical level and then responding to it, immediately, in whatever way their viscera dictate (emotions, are- at their base, the brain’s autonomas and instantaneous way of comparing a given piece of informtion with the sum total of information and values accepted by the the brain thus far).

    “If the reader is not capable of that, no point talking anyway.”

    When Morpheus explained the Matrix to Neo he didn’t do it by handing him a Rubrics cube, telling him it wasn’t real, and then walking away.

    ” I has supposed it would be effective for at least 80% of readers………What do you think – was my tactic effective?”

    How many other people agreed with you?

    aka

    The truth points to itself….

    Like


  205. How many other people agreed with you?

    aka

    The truth points to itself….

    I would prefer someone disagreed with me or asked for clarification than agreed with me.

    Again, if the idea is clearly explained, it loses impact. Yes, there must be a trade off between clarity and impact. I very often lean heavily towards impact, because without that ultimate goal, clarity would serve no purpose.

    Like


  206. on July 14, 2010 at 1:15 am NYCBachelor

    “In case my position needs to be restated in as many different ways as possible, the female strategy for optimizing for successful offspring is highly tied together with money. She requires money, and going wayyy back into our genetic and cultural history, a main way she collected bananas was as offerings for sex.

    If women did not deliberately shame and cojole and demand money for sex, if they did not make men feel unworthy of their golden vaginas, they would not receive as many bananas.

    The woman snubs and sneers at the man in order to ultimately get more bananas.”

    Setting up a system where you systematically exploit, to maximum beneift, an underclass of men that you have would otherwise have no sexual interest in is “not letting them go to waste”.

    I’m not disagreeing with you.

    A counter point to this, however, is that now that some women are capable of buying their own banannas they have absolutely no need, or desire for, any sort beta bananna (HA!). Thus one could argue that “not letting them go to waste” was driven more by necissity secondary to reasource shortages then out of any innate desire.

    Like


  207. GBFM,

    Come back.

    Like


  208. Being slightly troublesome and polemic is a tactic to further a deeper understanding. Yes, there is the risk of having ones words be taken at face value and then the deeper conversation never gets started. But – if you can pull off being interesting and engaging and thoughtful, the gambit can pay off. It’s a tight rope act.

    For instance I often call women devilish whores. I often say that I hate good people.

    I fully expect it to take months for the reader to eventually come around to even trying to understand what I mean.

    Because my aim is a wholesale renovation of the persons conception of reality.

    Like


  209. Thus one could argue that “not letting them go to waste” was driven more by necissity secondary to reasource shortages then out of any innate desire.

    Ya, that’s a good way to put it. And so modern men are really forced to adapt lately to a whole new set of rules.

    Like


  210. on July 14, 2010 at 1:22 am NYCBachelor

    “Again, if the idea is clearly explained, it loses impact. ”

    I’m sure that when the Matrix was explicitly explained to Neo it had quite the impact.

    “Yes, there must be a trade off between clarity and impact. ”

    Wrong. The truth has quite the impact on its own when explicitly and clearly explained when all one has known is falsehoods.

    ” I very often lean heavily towards impact, because without that ultimate goal, clarity would serve no purpose”

    The goal is enlightenment. See the byline- “Where pretty lies perish”. Clarity and impact should be working in unison, as partners, towards that goal. They are not antagonistic, mutually exclusive entities, by their very nature.

    Like


  211. Editor.

    McDardle is one smart dame and deserves a little more respect. She essentially wrote a credible piece about spivs.

    [editor: respect must be earned. having a high iq isn’t enough. and the post she wrote demanded nothing less than my total disrespect.]

    Like


  212. werewolf
    “GBFM,

    Come back.”

    Repeat three times.

    Like


  213. on July 14, 2010 at 1:31 am NYCBachelor

    “McDardle is one smart dame and deserves a little more respect”

    Das Kapital and Mein Kampf were both written by people with higher then average IQs.

    Like


  214. @Lupo

    Hey Roissy: Byron was def the PUA of his era. Favorite quote by him, which not coincidentally would also be an appropriate for Miz McTallStuff:
    “”Women hate everything which strips off the tinsel of sentiment, and they are right, or it would rob them of their weapons.” “

    Roissy: You’ve been bested and beaten to it by Byron.

    Like


  215. on July 14, 2010 at 1:43 am Gunslingergregi

    ””””NYCBachelor
    “You can quit drugs but lifetime alimony you can’t quit.”

    Real alphas don’t passively acquise when someone declares them a slave. Alphas stike back at their would be oppressors- they murder those who would deprive them of their life, liberty, and property. Would-be masters and overseers quake at the thought of errantly trying to deprive an unbroken Alpha male of what he sees as his natural birthright.
    ””””

    Well yea just shows how few alphas there really are.

    Like


  216. on July 14, 2010 at 1:46 am NYCBachelor

    xsplat

    “For instance I often call women devilish whores. I often say that I hate good people.

    I fully expect it to take months for the reader to eventually come around to even trying to understand what I mean.

    Because my aim is a wholesale renovation of the persons conception of reality.”

    Me: Most people lack the congitive skills to interpret the same sentence from multiple persepctives.

    I’ll futher add- people do not challenge the philosophic architecture of their minds based on vague indirect contradictory statements that have no conceptual links to any of the key philosophical components that make up said philosophic architecture.

    If your aim is a wholescale renovation of a person you need to renovate from top to bottom- and to that you need to be explicit and direct to tear down the existing architecture and replace it with the one that is to your liking.

    And how does one tear something down for rennovation? You do it with a sledgehemmer- not a fencing foil.

    Like


  217. on July 14, 2010 at 1:51 am greatbooksformen

    lozlzlozlzozollz zozozlzozolzozlzozolzlzozlzl

    hey you guys would laugh if you knew what i do for a living zlzolzlzlzozozlozlzolozlozlz lzozlzlzlzlzolzozzllz zozzlozlzzl

    hey how comz Megan McArdle never complains when priscilla painton editor in chief of simon and schuster publishes secretive tapings opf butthex without the girlths conthent sodmite tucker max ?

    womenz have all teh powerz now.

    so why does megan mccardle never complain about charlotte allen repeating tucker max’s lies about his heaight in teh weekly standardth?

    why does meghahan mccardle hate on men who are just trying to get some without 1) being buttraped in divorce court and 2) being the nice guy paying for dinner while chix text text text to some sodomite butthexer without teh girlths conthent who priscilla painton wires fiat advances cash advances too?

    fellas, rule #1

    watch what a women does not what she says.

    womens pwoerful weomns wire lotsa fiat cash to sodomites who tape sectretive tapings of butthex without the girlths conthent and they repeat his lies in teh pages of the weekly standrad while ignhorning the men dying on foreign shores in foreign wars lzozlzozzzozlzlzlzlzll

    and the megan mccardle cums along and says that men who watch what womenz do and don’t listn 2 what she says aren’t real men. lzozllzozlzlzozlzloozlozo

    women have all the power now.

    they could stop game if tehy wanted to, by marrying nice men and honorable soldiers instead of wiring fiat bernanke dollars to secretiev tapers of butthex withoutt the girlths conthent and repeatibng his lies about his heaight in the pages of teh weekly standadth.

    but when you leave moral deciscions up to womenz, 50,00,000 unborn fethuses end up dead by a owmen’s choice alone and homes are wrecked as 2/3 of divorces are intiatiad by womenz who get fiat bernake cash bonuthes as teh divo0rce rehgime lawyers get a cut zlozlzlzozlzl

    lzolzozozloolzozlzozlolozlzlozll

    roissy i luv you man

    i don’t know how u do it

    u have sooooooo much more patience tahn i to logiucally respond to ms. mcfartle

    lzozlzlozzllzl

    Like


  218. on July 14, 2010 at 1:51 am Gunslingergregi

    Except it is usually the police who end up in the shootout with the alpha and they get paid the 1200 a month to do it. Then the closest the wife gets killed. The hardest part is not knowing exactly who is the would be master.

    Like


  219. on July 14, 2010 at 1:55 am NYCBachelor

    “Except it is usually the police who end up in the shootout with the alpha and they get paid the 1200 a month to do it. Then the closest the wife gets killed. The hardest part is not knowing exactly who is the would be master.”

    I think most alphas would probably settle for the wife, the judge, and the divorce lawyers.

    Like


  220. on July 14, 2010 at 1:56 am greatbooksformen

    hey ms. mccfartle.

    riddle me this batwoman. why does womenz powerful woemnz promote douchebaggery and secretivetapers of butthex without a girlths conthent and wire them hundreds of thosuands of fioat bernanke cash so they can pick up sknakskkssk? lzozlzl

    community.feministing.com/2009/09/why-are-female-executives-publ.html

    Why are Female Executives Publishing Tucker Max?

    Saw this floating around. good question!

    MCCOY MOUNTAIN
    ART, FILM, & LITERATURE GUILD OF AMERICA

    Ms. Priscilla Painton

    Simon & Schuster Editor in Chief

    RE: ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, Secretive Tapings of Anal Sex without The Girl’s Consent, Corporate Douchebaggery, and the Epic Failure of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell

    Despite the fact that teenagers nationwide are going to hear gem pick-up lines like “get away from me or I’m going to carve another fuck hole in your torso”, what truly crowns this film as an epic fail is its apologetic attempt to masquerade gratuity as an Apatovian bromance. http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/we-hope-you-can-still-get-alcohol-poisoning-in-hell/Content?oid=1291260

    “Little Italy is fighting back against Tucker Max ‘s controversial ad campaign . Yeah, that poster on the right says, “Blind Girls Never See You Coming.” Va fan culo, indeed.”gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php

    Dear Ms. Painton,

    I and my colleagues in the ART, FILM & LITERATURE GUILD have a couple questions regarding the direction you are taking Simon and Schuster in. Why are you guys/gals hating on art, literature, culture and America? It was recently brought to our attention that you are intent on publishing Tucker Max’s ASSHOLES FINISH FIRST, and that your company actually gave him a $300,000 advance for his fart art. As the editor in chief of Simon and Schuster, owned the CBS corporation, do you truly believe Assholes Finish First? It is oft said that girls like “bad boys.” Does Tucker’s fart art douchebag wit titillate and excite you? Is that why you are publishing and profiting from it? Did you laugh during Tucker’s recent film flop when what’s-his-name stated that overweight women aren’t real people? Do you smile smugly when your billion-dollar corporation profits from douchebaggery?
    gawker.com/5363233/tucker-maxs-campaign-of-hate-against-chicagos-transit-system “The ads were poetic ditties of white text on a black background . Like: “Blind girls never see you coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding).””

    “Over at the Washington, D.C., premiere, Max’s video minion ridicules both Vietnamese and African-American women, the former for being employed as a pedicurist, and the latter for having a name he finds funny.”
    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/10/spot-your-local-tucker-max-douchebag/

    Do you enjoy profiting from making fun of Asians and overweight women? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040

    tuckermaxdoucebag.blogspot.com

    tuckermaxlies.blogspot.com

    Does this make you laugh Ms. Painton? It is not too late to choose the right direction for Simon and Schuster and CBS and walk away from publishing Assholes Finish First . At most it will bring in a few pennies, which will lead everyone to conclude that you and CBS aren’t in it for the money, but just the debauchery and destruction of the culture. As Tucker Max pointed out, the feminist movement empowered women and gave them the right to choose the art they affiliated with and promote. So now, with all the power in your hands, what will you chose on behalf of women all over the world? Please do us proud and choose the right thing.

    “The ad campaign for the new flick “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” includes slogans like “Deaf Girls Can’t Hear You Coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding!).””

    –http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/New-Movie-Ads-Take-Offensive-to-the-Max-59695522.html

    Why is corporate America, under your direction Ms. Painton, forcing epic “Richard Kelly” fail fart art and film on the common public? Do you also find secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent to be entertaining and titillating art?
    gawker.com/5363233/tucker-maxs-campaign-of-hate-against-chicagos-transit-system

    Let’s talk for a sec about something Tucker glamorizes and pretends is funny in his ‘book’: filming a naked women in his bedroom without her consent. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that while he’s doing this he is coaxing the girl to have anal sex with him, an exploitative act that a guy like him probably especially enjoys.

    –http://www.bitchmagazine.org/post/douchebag-decree-marketing-tucker-max

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/11/the-rapiest-quotes-from-i-hope-they-serve-beer-in-hell/

    “OK, we can try anal sex , but I want it to be special and romantic. …. process: I was going to fuck her in the butt and film it without her consent ,” — http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/date/tucker_tries_buttsex_hilarity_does_not_ensue.phtml

    Do you and the CBS Corporation find this entertaining? As you know, sodomy is a sin in the Old Testament as is sex out of wedlock and fornication. What is your motivation in working with those who promote and profit from secretive tapings of anal sex?

    Do you find such “literature” and “art” to be representative of Simon and Schuster and CBS?

    “In one of his most notorious pieces, he convinces a girl to have anal sex and tapes it without her consent.” — http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/08/tucker_max/

    Despite the fact that teenagers nationwide are going to hear gem pick-up lines like “get away from me or I’m going to carve another fuck hole in your torso”, what truly crowns this film as an epic fail is its apologetic attempt to masquerade gratuity as an Apatovian bromance. http://www.thelmagazine.com/newyork/we-hope-you-can-still-get-alcohol-poisoning-in-hell/Content?oid=1291260

    Ms. Painton–do you find that entertaining? Is it good literature? Do you consider demeaning stories about having sex with midgets good literature? Do you consider it good business to make fun of Asians, overweight women, and minorities so as to bolster your bottom line?

    What is driving you to publish Assholes Finish First ? What are your motivations? Money? America does not want Tucker Max, as demonstrated this past weekend at the boxoffice. Do you find these signs to be entertaining/a good CBS investment?

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/15/tucker-max-fans-fight-rape-with-racism/

    Is Tucker Max’s fan base the group that Simon & Schuster is seeking to serve under your leadership?

    washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/14/tucker-max-too-sexist-for-ad-space/

    It seems that America believes otherwise as Richard Kelly and Tucker Max’s I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell has proven to be a colossal artistic and financial failure.

    “Not faring so well, however, was the Tucker Max adaptation I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, which took in $369,000 from 120 theaters with a well-below-average $3,075 per-screen average.” –movieweb.com/news/NEdXykfeBDXwhe

    So Priscilla, please tell us about your douchetastic love affair with Tucker Max and his fart art. Does it really titillate you as a woman and feminist? Say it isn’t so! Is this good Simon and Schuster/CBS branding? Why did your massive billion-dollar corporation reward Tucker with a $300,000 advance?

    “Little Italy is fighting back against Tucker Max ‘s controversial ad campaign . Yeah, that poster on the right says, “Blind Girls Never See You Coming.” Va fan culo, indeed.” gothamist.com/2009/09/21/tucker_max.php

    Does CBS and Simon & Schuster approve of registering fake email accounts to promote stories regarding secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent?

    ” The lack of traditional plugs forced Max to promote his web site and book via the internet. He would create fake e-mail accounts and then bombard entertainment sites and news aggregators with links to his material.” — theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/tucker_max_sxsw/

    For this, your billion-dollar corporation rewarded Tucker with a $300,000 advance.

    “Max may have to concentrate on his agent style business moving forward because he’s running out of material. He’s received a $300,000 advance for a second version of his drunken, sexual exploits – a tome that will contain the stories not ripe enough for the first cut.” — theregister.co.uk/2007/03/11/tucker_max_sxsw/

    Are you proud of Simon & Schuster and your corporation? Funding and encouraging hype, failure, douchebaggery, debauchery, lies, secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent, and making fun of Asians, overweight women, and minorities. Is that what attracts you to Tucker Max, or is it the epic artistic and financial failure of his film?
    rottentomatoes.com/m/i_hope_they_serve_beer_in_hell/

    “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell fails in its attempts at raunchy humor, and Tucker Max comes across so unlikable and outrageous that the film’s inevitable story arc feels forced.”

    It is not too late to choose the right direction for Simon and Schuster and walk away from publishing Assholes Finish First .

    Best,

    McCoy Mountain & The ART, FILM & LITERATURE GUILD

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040

    Will Priscilla Painton at Simon & Shuster still Publish *beep* Finish First?

    the title makes no sense. *beep* might finish first in some silly women’s eyes, but they epic fail in reality, as demonstrated by tucker’s epic fart art film fail, which priscilla painton is pretendning not to notice.

    What’s up with women these days?

    It seems the more they run things, the more they try to force douchebag fart art on everyone:

    Former ‘Time’ Exec. Relieves Venerable Editor Mayhew At Simon & Schuster
    gawker.com/5002333/former-time-exec-relieves-venerable-editor-mayhew-at-simon–schuster

    Anywho, does Priscilla Painton at Simon & Shuster have a personal vendetta against asians, minorities, overweight women, and little people?

    Does she think tucker’s ads are cute and humorous?
    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/New-Movie-Ads-Take-Offensive-to-the-Max-59695522.html

    Does she get off on this?

    “The ad campaign for the new flick “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” includes slogans like “Deaf Girls Can’t Hear You Coming” and “Strippers Will Not Tolerate Disrespect (Just Kidding!).”

    Is that supposed to be funny?” http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/New-Movie-Ads-Take-Offensive-to-the-Max-59695522.html

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/10/spot-your-local-tucker-max-douchebag/

    Is this the new face and culture of simon and schuster?
    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/09/15/tucker-max-fans-fight-rape-with-racism/

    Does Priscilla Painton at Simon and Schuster giggle at secretive tapings of anal sex without the girl’s consent and also this:
    http://www.penguinblogs.ca/davidson/archives/00000079.html
    tuckermaxlies.blogspot.com/2008/08/sillylittlefreak.html
    http://www.tuckermax.com/archives/entries/date/the_absinthe_donuts_story.phtml

    “11:17: The girl starts saying something about what a horrible person I am. I stare at her, but I am not listening. I am preparing myself. I am B-Rabbit. This is the final battle rap. I will win the hostile crowd:

    [I interrupt the fat girl] “Ward, I think you’re being a little hard on the Beaver, [as I point to each in turn] so is Eddie Haskell, Wally, and Miss Cleaver.”

    [To the fat guy with greasy hair in the camo vest] “Look out everyone! It’s the Pillsbury Commando! Hey Chunk, when was the last time you washed your hair? Does it give you more hit points to have that grease helmet? I hate to break the news, but +5 defense only counts in Dungeons and Dragons.”

    [To the ugly Asian girl] “Why you no rike me? You want me frip over? You no piss me off! ME FIND YOU IN POCKING ROT!! YOU NO TAKE MING ARIVE!!”

    [To the small frail dork–I notice he has a lazy eye] “Dude–Look at me when I’m talking to you–BOTH EYES AT ONCE. Are you really this ugly or are you just playing? EVERYONE, BE CAREFUL, THIS GUY LURKS UNDER THE STAIRS AND TRIES TO LICK YOUR SHOES WHEN YOU PASS BY!”

    [To the original fatty, pause for effect] “Why do you do this to yourself? WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO YOURSELF? Look, I’m gonna give you some advice-leave the party, take the geek squad with you, go to Denny’s, order about 10 Grand Slam Breakfasts, and eat your pain away. Won’t be the first time will it?”

    11:19: I am finished. The kitchen is quiet, except for Eddie and Rich laughing. The four freaks are completely speechless. Everyone is staring at me. I blurt out, “WHAT? I’m pretty sure it’s what Jesus would’ve done.” Eddie and Rich promptly remove me from the kitchen.”

    Is Priscilla Painton publishing tucker’s next book for the love of literature, art, or money?

    ‘Cause it seems that those who work with tucker generally hate and lose literature, art, and money.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Painton

    http://www.theladyfinger.com/2009/09/tucker-max-brings-his-misogyny-to-big.html

    “What ensues, according the film’s trailer, is alcohol-fueled misogynistic mayhem. Max has sex with several women, including, to his smug satisfaction, a dwarf.”

    See? That is the clever banker ruse.

    Have women such as Priscilla fund and promote it, while others protest it, enriching the bankers as marriage is destroyed and the state is grown.
    http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/

    “A Site about the Divorce Regime, Family Court Corruption,
    and Government’s War on Fathers”

    “The divorce regime is the most totalitarian institution ever to arise in the United States. Its operatives in the family courts and the social service agencies recognize no private sphere of life. “The power of family court judges is almost unlimited,” according to Judge Robert Page of the New Jersey family court. “Social workers are perceived to have nearly unlimited power,” a San Diego Grand Jury concludes. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total immunity [enjoyed by social workers] is absolute power.”

    The divorce regime is responsible for much more than “ugly divorces,” “nasty custody battles,” and other clichés. It is the most serious perpetrator of human and constitutional rights violations in America today. Because it strikes the most basic institution of any civilization – the family – the divorce regime is a threat not only to social order but to civil freedom. It is also almost completely unopposed. No political party and no politicians question it. No journalists investigate it in any depth. A few attorneys have spoken out, but they are eventually suspended or disbarred. Some academics have written about it, but they soon stop. No human rights or civil liberties groups challenge it, and some positively support it. Very few “pro-family” lobbies question it. This is because the divorce regime operates through money, political power, and fear.” — http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040

    Have you seen/read END THE FED by Ron Paul? “Everyone must read this book–Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans–all Americans.”
    –Vince Vaughn

    When you think about it, Tucker Max was the Fed’s ultimate creation–a soulless, debased douchebag:

    “My name is Tucker Max, and I am an *beep*

    Think about it–Tucker’s motto @ http://tuckermax.com could be the Fed’s motto:
    “I get excessively drunk via inflating the currency at inappropriate times, disregard social norms (funding feminism/debauchery & debasement of the family/currency/culture/tucker max(educated at the Fed’s University of Chicago’s School of Economics (school of freakanomics) and Duke scholarship)), indulge every whim/war, ignore the consequences of my actions/bubbles/bailouts, fund idiots and posers and tucker-max-like CEOs, sleep with more women than is safe or reasonable/luring them with fiat currency & a fiat-funded bus, and just generally act like a raging darko/douchebag/dickhead.”

    What do you think of Ron Paul’s new book–End the Fed?

    http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/0446549193/

    Review for End The Fed
    “Rarely has a single book not only challenged, but decisively changed my mind. ”
    –Arlo Guthrie

    “Everyone must read this book–Congressmen and college students, Democrats and Republicans–all Americans.”
    –Vince Vaughn

    Vince Vaughn is a far, far better actor/director/writer than Tucker Max, so it makes sense that Tucker and his jealous friends at the Fed detest Arlo Guthrie and Vince Vaughan as well as art, film, and literature.

    The book has much better reviews and is far-higher ranked than Tucker’s douchey books/film/trailer–Five solid stars!

    Why do you donnie darko douchos/cbs haterz hate on art, the Constitution, morality, goodness, sound money, peace, prosperity, love, the family, kindness, and Ron Paul so much?

    And like the Fed, tucker privatizes all the profits of his private jet while sharing all the risk with his volunteer employees, who work for free.

    “Feminism which espoused “women’s rights” actually has driven femininity underground, torn the sexes asunder, and stripped woman of recognition for being wives and mothers, roles essential to their own fulfillment, to men, and to children and society.” http://www.savethemales.ca/

    http://www.amazon.com/Save-Males-Matter-Women-Should/dp/1400065798

    Like


  221. NYC, Edward De Bono has a theory of mind that states that you should teach backwards. He thinks a teacher can start from the conclusion, and then work backwards.

    Many Buddhist concepts are also taught this way.

    I do believe that jumping to the conclusion, even and especially a counter intuitive conclusion, can work as a general orienting device, as well as a way to shake up the whole cognitive system.

    Consider the joke. At first it doesn’t make sense. Then it does. If it made sense from the beginning, it would not have impact.

    Of course one needs to follow up with logic and connecting the dots. But I truly do believe that connecting all the dots does the reader a disservice. They have to be involved in figuring things out.

    Consider the Zen Koan.

    Like


  222. Historically, women were much more explicit about choosing a husband who was Beta (reliable, money, status), but what was celebrated was the dilemma: Good Husband and then the Lover. The Lover was always bad news; angry, slightly wild, a bit of a rake; a Healthcliff for every lady.

    That was an explicit and very conscious distinction in all “romantic” period literature. Also previously, too; there was a reason bards were looked at with suspicion by the men of the town and with an eager eye by the ladies.

    In Japan, in many small villages, there was a shortage of men: the women wanted both sperm (outbreeding) and labor. There was a Japanese movie made in the 60’s about this, but it was not an uncommon phenomenon. The chartered Lumbermen (the forests were strictly controlled) were allowed to travel relatively freely. They served duties as sperm and gene variety carriers. This was often done with the
    full complicity of poor farmer-parents with a daughter in an area where there were no marriageable young men, or by husbands who for whatever reason (several wives, rich man is gay, man is old and wants a kid to carry on the name but has no interest in wife, etc.) had no interest in their wives.

    Often, the man was *PAID* to spend, oh, a few weeks with a woman – until she was pregnant. And then: His job was to fucking disappear as quickly as possible, and to shut his mouth.

    Every culture had all kinds of weird little arrangements. The Wild Crazy Lover was just the literary figure of choice in the West.

    How this got forgotten, I don’t know.

    Like


  223. [editor: right. but a question arises. if poetic pedestalization is such a obstacle to succeeding with women, why did men invent it and embrace it so soulfully? maybe this was men’s way of avoiding taking a harsh look at female psychology?]

    Could be explained by projection? Men want women to be devoted to them and they mistakenly think that women find devoted men attractive (projecting their own traits on to women).

    Like


  224. Virginia Woolf asked “what does the brain matter compared with the heart?”

    Pupu suspects the battle of the sexes can only be fought individually, and ultimately by heart. In the end, win or lose no longer matters.

    No matter how brilliant Megan’s brain maybe, it perhaps would not help much in this case.

    Like


  225. Point of order: Megan is definitely not a liberal. Yeah, she endorsed Obama, but she also endorsed Bush in 2004. Like a lot of people, she was sick of the way things had been going the last eight years.

    God forbid we return to those awful Clinton years of balanced budgets, higher taxes and a raging stock market. Boy that would suck.

    Like


  226. @coyote
    Could be explained by projection? Men want women to be devoted to them and they mistakenly think that women find devoted men attractive (projecting their own traits on to women).

    This has potential as an explanation, but it misses something critical.

    Premise: We extrapolate from ourselves to see what the opposite sex wants.

    1) Women do this all the time. What does the cherished alpha want? Well, I want him to be strong, tough, decisive, successful, … so I should be strong, manly, tough, decisive, successful, …

    2) Men see the beautiful woman and they want to attract her. They think: If I devote myself to her, dote on her, take care of her and think of her: She will love me and give me the same.

    But 2 is very different from 1. It’s progressive projection. Men are projecting something in *advance* because this is what they want in return.

    They’re operating from a position of “fairness”: Exchange. If I give her this, she will give me something similar back. That’s fair. It’s much the same way men build alliances with each other to topple the top dog or to ease tensions between them.

    But women don’t operate from the principle of “fairness”. They operate from the principle of More For Me: How Can I Get As Much As Possible / But Not Look Like This Is What I Want?

    Much of the problem with the modern PC/Liberal state can be traced to this method of thinking, and the wrenching cognitive dissonance it causes.

    It’s why men think women cheat. “I gave you my heart. The moment I did, you took yours back. Not fair!”

    The woman says, “I only wanted your heart when I didn’t have it.”

    Like


  227. on July 14, 2010 at 2:19 am unlearning genius ...

    xsplat,

    as full of shit as ever ….

    xsplat game: Be a big fish in a tiny pond .. grossly exaggerate your “achievements” ..

    a real achievement would be for a third worlder to go the states and swoop white chicks .. it is always easy for a man to mate with women way lower than him on the socio-economic ladder .. thats like a boat going downstream .. doesn’t prove anything .. FOOL..

    Like


  228. “God forbid we return to those awful Clinton years of balanced budgets, higher taxes and a raging stock market. Boy that would suck.”

    I can’t believe you put higher taxes in that sentence. Jeez. I’ve yet to figure out why the government even needs a record of my existence, so I’m not even going to touch the tax issue. I suppose you’re “patriotic.”

    Like


  229. Or consider the Socratic method of teaching through dialectic.

    Sometimes you have to make statements that are initially disagreed with, in order to spur questions and thinking.

    Otherwise we could simply communicate through thouroughly thought out essays. If essays worked, kids would not need to go to school.

    Polemic spurs dialectic.

    Like


  230. on July 14, 2010 at 2:34 am The Rational Male

    My girl is going to school for communications. She told me tonight that she wants to write, produce, and star in a t.v. show with my help. I told her that the demographic she needs to concentrate on is the shoe-obsessed, martini swilling 30 something career women who are rapidly approaching genetic obsolescence (actually I used the term “cougar”. no need for semantics).

    I seriously believe that there is a TON of money to be made off of this growing demographic of never married’s and divorcee’s who are getting to the age that their income and alimony checks are allowing them to spend a good chunk of change in an attempt to stave off the impending doom.

    Like


  231. on July 14, 2010 at 2:43 am unlearning genius ...

    All you commenter here are basically being “yes” men to roissy .. See if you just engage 10 chicks .. you will get laid .. as you keep doing this your efficiency will increase .. end of story .. you don’t need elaborate bullshit or feathers up your ass .. short term mating in the modern world is just a numbers game .all this so called tactics is pure placebo.

    if you are not great looking or possess inherently chick appealing qualities (optimal muscle/fat ratio, some edgy dress style, some pretty boy ..mostly genetic determinism ) then your odds may be so low as to make this endeavor a poor one .. . point is if your genetic makeup is inherently one of a high parental investment persuasion, your success in the short term mating arena and your lifetime partner count will be likely limited .. and will require lots of effort .. maybe even making you somewhat bitter about the whole thing .. a lot of yall are suffering from this bitterness but unfortunately you don;t see it from where you are …

    The lifelong cad ideal is really a chimera of sorts .. totally inaccesible to many men whose high parental investment genes get signalled within a few seconds .. it is harsh but it is their truth .. and it is mighty silly of them to think that they can beat it ..

    If you are a young man of the high parentla investment genes, you are better served with investing yourself wholly in increasing your societal status and bide your time until you get older .. rather than competing with other bozos in a tournament ..

    [editor: the miserable man wishes to spread his affliction to anyone who will hear him.]

    Like


  232. Me: Most people lack the congitive skills to interpret the same sentence from multiple persepctives.

    I’ll futher add- people do not challenge the philosophic architecture of their minds based on vague indirect contradictory statements that have no conceptual links to any of the key philosophical components that make up said philosophic architecture.

    You can’t be all things to all audiences – you have to choose a voice, and choose an audience. As soon as you try to reach the whole crowd through the common denominator, you lose all depth.

    I’m not interested in the audiences who can’t think. I get them emotionally, in other ways. For discussion, I’m on this forum. Where people are way smarter than average. No accident. I want to influence the elites, and have that trickle down.

    As for having vague indirect contradictory statements with no conceptual links, sure, you are right, if one reader reads only one of my blog comments and none of the blog or the rest of my comments, my message won’t be communicated. Why would I choose a voice to aim towards that reader?

    Like


  233. on July 14, 2010 at 3:03 am unlearning genius ...

    This is also why i disagree with roissy on the time value of “game” .. and its so called carryover effect. This is just morons self rationalizing their lifestyle choices. The primary reason why “sarging” is so addictive and “fun” is because it is random-reinforcement setup. If you honestly assess your “lays” .. you will see that it is very hard to conclusively pinpoint a cause-effect ..(if you can see it very easily, you are most likely fooling yourself by seeing patterns that don’t exist). Read taleb’s “Fooled by randomness” ..

    Game is simply ..
    1) Look presentable
    2) Go to venues with women present
    3) Determine which women are actually interested .. (obvious within a few minutes ..)
    4) Do a push pull like play, some teasing some compliments ..
    5) Enjoy said target
    6) Cut her off sharp and move on to next target .. (can be done simultaneously).

    #3 above is a totally random factor.. you cannot choose who will mate with you.

    [editor: yes you can. i have gone up to girls giving me zero signals to approach and totally cold opened them. they went from surprise, to patience, to interest, to attraction. that this hasn’t happened for you is your own failing.]

    The sooner you give up attempting to exert control on #3 the sooner you will start cruising. This problem simply cannot be addressed. You can ask what happens in an entire population .. but you can never really answer it for your particular case. Sure you will see patterns, but it is simply too difficult to honestly solve.

    Also, If you read the steps above, you see that they do not require much experimentation or effort or study or seminars or anything else … So when a normal human being sees a bunch of guys analyzing this to death .. they conclude ..”losers” ..

    Like


  234. @unlearning genius

    Haters are like cockroaches. Stomp one, and while the goo is still oozing, four more burrow out of the cracks in the cement and scurry around in the naked light.

    This guy’s a a few kinds of hater rolled into one disbelieving package.

    This is also why i disagree with roissy on the time value of “game” .. and its so called carryover effect. This is just morons self rationalizing their lifestyle choices. The primary reason why “sarging” is so addictive and “fun” is because it is random-reinforcement setup. If you honestly assess your “lays” .. you will see that it is very hard to conclusively pinpoint a cause-effect ..(if you can see it very easily, you are most likely fooling yourself by seeing patterns that don’t exist).]

    Also, If you read the steps above, you see that they do not require much experimentation or effort or study or seminars or anything else … So when a normal human being sees a bunch of guys analyzing this to death .. they conclude ..”losers” ..

    Um.

    We analyze it because we do the same shit when we’re trying to fix our cars or ponder the nature of the universe or plotting devious strategies to defeat Germans in North Africa.

    We, like, um, you know, … think about stuff. And shit.

    PS: And clubs and bars are the least of it, dude. There are guys who prefer day game. You know, housewives, girlfriends, cute girls working in offices that cause wet dreams in the hapless manbots manning the cubicles.

    Experimenting is fun. Its like having your own high-energy collider. Sometimes we discover new particles, like the ever popular TGGs (That Guy’s Girlfriend) or CYTs (Cute Young Thing), and even sub-particles, with interesting qualities like Tingle and Flavor and Taste (largely delicious).

    We all have our interests, right?

    Some of them are women.

    Like


  235. on July 14, 2010 at 3:39 am unlearning genius ...

    @Roissy,
    yes you can. i have gone up to girls giving me zero signals to approach and totally cold opened them. they went from surprise, to patience, to interest, to attraction. that this hasn’t happened for you is your own failing.

    “this hasn’t happened for you is your own failing”… who said this hasn;t happened to me .. that is not my point.

    You are in fact proving my point .. If you just walk up to chicks .. you will hit it sometimes ..Just a numbers game .. nothing else needed. “Game” is just a placebo. By trying to imitate “alpha” behavior.. you are only fooling the dumb ones.. your genetic quality is signalled way before you even open your mouth .. End of the day, you cannot control the market.. but you can learn to move in a way that maxmizes your odds .. game is just that.

    Like


  236. on July 14, 2010 at 3:46 am unlearning genius ...

    “We, like, um, you know, … think about stuff. And shit. ”

    Can you even think calmly without having to signal your tribal loyalty? Moron.

    What i am saying is that it is difficult to establish a cause and effect relationship. That all the elaborate techniques are only peripheral. That you have to play the numbers game (which is experimentation). That this kind of multi parameter problems are difficult to analyze because of the inherent randomness. That it is easy to fool yourself.

    All i am arguing for is free-style gaming .. where you throw out all the theory and techniques and the crap and just approach.

    Like


  237. @unlearning genius
    “We, like, um, you know, … think about stuff. And shit. ”

    Can you even think calmly without having to signal your tribal loyalty? Moron.

    No. Especially when it engenders that kind of response.

    What i am saying is that it is difficult to establish a cause and effect relationship.

    Not for me. I do X: I get X result. I do Y: I don’t get X result. I want X result. Trial and error: Therefore do X.

    What kind of X? Think and examine.

    That all the elaborate techniques are only peripheral. That you have to play the numbers game (which is experimentation). That this kind of multi parameter problems are difficult to analyze because of the inherent randomness. That it is easy to fool yourself.

    Hey, no one loves experiment more than me. Trust me. I’ll do crazy shit just to say I did it. I’ve humiliated myself just to see what effect it has on a room. I’ll dance to any drum.

    You can use experience and intuition (read: instinct and social skills) to suss out why X or Y factor worked and what overall effect it had on the dynamic of the situation.

    Sure, there’s randomness. But your response is not random. That’s the whole point: How we set situations up and how we respond.

    Those things are absolutely debatable, right down to the details. It’s almost necessary.

    All i am arguing for is free-style gaming .. where you throw out all the theory and techniques and the crap and just approach.

    Um, dude, this is great.

    Two possibilities.

    – You’re a douche and want to send little soldiers into battle without ammunition.

    – You advocate for self-experimentation and flexibility in game in which case, I say: D’uh.

    Like


  238. Her whole article is one big Display of LOWER value.

    Like


  239. on July 14, 2010 at 4:17 am unlearning genius ...

    @Gorbachev,
    “You’re a douche and want to send little soldiers into battle without ammunition. ”

    dude, i make the little buggers run 20 laps every day .. keep em hungry, keep em busy .. that’s how this “douche” does it.

    Like


  240. @unlearning genius

    “See if you just engage 10 chicks .. you will get laid .. as you keep doing this your efficiency will increase .. end of story .. you don’t need elaborate bullshit or feathers up your ass .. short term mating in the modern world is just a numbers game .all this so called tactics is pure placebo.”

    Let’s break this down:

    1. Play the numbers game and you’ll get laid
    2. As you do approaches, you’ll start to get better at it and your “efficiency” will increase
    3. Despite the fact that men who practice approaches get better at approaching, it’s still just a random numbers game

    Nice argument. I can see why you’re a fan of pop fiction like Nassim Taleb.

    The whole point of analyzing game is to figure out what worked, what didn’t work, and (hopefully) why, so that a guy can fix his approach as quickly as possible. Otherwise, you’re just playing minesweeper without looking at any of the numbers, clicking the mouse all over the place and hoping you hit just the right combination to get laid.

    Like


  241. @Badger Nation

    “”One other reason for game haters is that the peacocking, intentional disagreement, etc seems so standout-ish, so unfeminine (even though women are the ultimate attention whores). They can’t imagine they’ll be attracted to a guy going out of his way to not be a bobblehead agreement fetishist. Of course, once they are in the field the chicks eat it up, so it’s another case of saying one thing and doing another.””

    This is interesting and slowly helping me to get my head around game.

    The more I game chicks, very often I’m met with reactions that vary from surprise, shock, resentment.

    I’m getting better at managing these.

    In some cases, the chick just disappears. But in enough cases that make it worthwhile, the chick not only responds positively, but I get either laid, or some other tangible benefits: gifts, attention, etc etc.

    There is a whole deeper level to this. Many girls at least in Hong Kong have an over-inflated sense of entitlement that makes them act like attention whores to scores of supplicating betas.

    So I game them: neg, push-pull, eye-contact, walk away, go direct…they get weirded out….it’s never happened.

    But it’s a reaction.

    I think what newbies to game don’t realize is that these negative reactions are important to enlist.

    You will be memorable. If you can maintain your frame and not suddenly collapse into hers, you stand a better chance at having a better relationship than if you were one of the pack of supplicating betas.

    It’s a way for guys to do what chicks do: separate the men from the boys….separate the attention whores from the cool ones you really want to be with.

    Like


  242. To come back to the idea one last time, NYC, I believe that learning does not always happen through viewing logical and consistent arguments. Especially where a world view that underpins the sense of self is involved, the reader must be forced to atively engage ideas, such that through their use of creative imagination they come up with your implied solutions themself.

    Laying it all out in perfect detail will not always affect the change.

    How many betas simply refuse to learn?

    There are times when you have to put two concepts just barely out of reach. And let the reader make the connection.

    If you deprive the reader the aha moment, they will just assume that they agreed with you all along, but the next day have the same discussion with them and it will be as if you had never talked about the issue.

    Nothing will have changed INTERNALLY for them.

    This is the power of poetry. This is the power of humor. You keep the concepts just barely close enough together that they COULD be put together, but not so close that they are AUTOMATICALLY put together.

    Like


  243. on July 14, 2010 at 4:50 am unlearning genius ...

    @Cauthon
    “efficiency” will increase …

    or is it that “efficiency” will saturate .. It is that saturation that I am talking about.

    All this .. get the feminist programming out of your head .. don’t treat chicks like glassware .. don’t take rejection personally .. take a shower .. stuff is like first grade shit .. most initial “improvement” usually comes from such shit ..But its not like you are massively getting better ..

    This is like saying that if you practice basketball you will get better .. course you will to some extent. but still you will never perform as well as a natural .. and furthermore, you will expend a lot more effort than the natural guy .. You could achieve better lifetime performance by focusing on things you are naturally good at .. instead of trying to mimic a “player” ..

    But of course go on .. call me a moron .. because i don’t agree with the lord and his priests …

    Like


  244. Reading is an active process, and if you aren’t making your reader do some work, chances are you have not had much impact.

    Like


  245. Roissy and Megan McArdle both rank among my top ten most-frequented blogs, and it’s obvious that I’m far from the only guy who regularly reads both. I’m kind of disappointed by this fracas… though I suppose it was sort of predictable given each blogger’s flaws:

    – Megan has lived a highly insulated life, and this makes her unreasonably idealistic at times despite her far-above-average attempts at fair-mindedness.
    – Roissy basically has a single-dimensional model of human motivation. He chose the correct principal component vector for such a model, and understands his model about as well as anyone on Earth, but he doesn’t understand women like Megan who deviate significantly from the norm along other dimensions. I don’t really blame him: he has little to gain from greater understanding here, since he doesn’t want to bang such women. Certainly, knowing nothing more about her than the content of her first post on the subject and “pro open borders nutjob”, he was correct to unload.

    However, Megan’s second post on the subject is a lot better than her first, even though it starts off on the wrong foot. She’s right that “conspiracy to keep the Beta Man down” is not a persuasive way to present our point of view, and it’s not like she’s wrong about “this whole thing sounds like what girls used to do”, either; she just hasn’t grasped the full meaning behind that yet. I think this deserves a more reasonable response from Roissy.

    (Possibly also relevant: I don’t think it’s fair to characterize her as a pro open borders nutjob. Quite a bit more liberal than she should be on the issue thanks to her sheltered life, yes, but she’s able and willing to honestly discuss the issue. It’s Timothy B. Lee, one of the bloggers who filled in for her while she was on her honeymoon, who was a nutjob.)

    Like


  246. Completely off-topic but a while ago people mentioned how China was taking over the world. This article is from a Taiwanese newspaper, and the author. Paul Lin, is a well-known pro-Taiwan journalist.

    I’d heard all of this on both sides before. I’ve seen it within China. For those of you who didn’t believe the stories of the rot inside China, here’s the very iddy-biddy tip of the continent-sized iceberg.

    I’ve put commentary inline for those who care enough.

    http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2010/07/14/2003477871

    Capital grab exposes China’s risk

    By Paul Lin 林保華
    Wednesday, Jul 14, 2010, Page 8
    The Foxconn Technology Group affair shows that China’s economic growth model, which is focused on low wages to promote exports, has reached a turning point. This, however, is not the only worry for China’s economic development. Chinese-investment banks have been actively raising capital in Hong Kong recently, and this shows the hidden risk of the Chinese financial sector.

    On April 14, the European edition of the Financial Times ran a report — “Big four China banks in ‘$70bn gap’” — saying Beijing’s method for surviving last year’s financial crisis in fact laid the groundwork for the nation’s next economic bubble.

    * Privately, many bankers say the Chinese productivity-maintenance model is a globe-sized time bomb, set to implode at any moment. It’s fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants economics, and only works because all of the details are kept private. Virtually nothing of the reality of finance in China gets printed in the English-language press. You need to go to HK and Taiwan for that.

    The conclusion came from a domestic Chinese source: Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) president Yang Kaisheng (楊凱生) who published an article in the 21st Century Business Herald in which he expressed his concern for capital shortfalls and bad loans facing the Chinese banking sector in the next five years. According to Yang, as part of a state-led response to last year’s financial crisis, Chinese banks were pressured by the Chinese government to issue NT$3.9 trillion (US$121 billion) worth of essentially bad loans to individuals, businesses and national infrastructure projects. This figure is double the amount of bad loans in 2008.

    * Chinese banks are essentially political tools for the Chinese government(s). They often loan money to those with connections, usually in the form of loans that are never expected to be repaid. This problem, far from getting better with reforms, has become much worse, because it’s one of the last levers of control the government still has left. It papers over the problems by giving the banks more leeway to make profits elsewhere; but this doesn’t really help the situation.

    Following the financial storm that broke in the fall of 2008, China spent 4 trillion yuan (about NT$19 trillion)

    * !!! This is a gross underestimate, because it doesn’t count many social transfer money, new social program funds (rural health care, etc.) and literally countless small-scale infrastructure projects that largely remain incomplete due to corruption and inefficiency.

    to save the market. Its stock markets took the lead in a rebound, and real estate prices repeatedly set new highs. China acted like the savior of the global economy, behaving like the nouveau-riche wanting to buy the whole world.

    Suddenly, however, its financial situation took a turn for the worse.

    * They only had cash on paper. It’s why the US never worried about China owning its debt. If the US dollar collapses, China is screwed several ways to Tuesday.

    Originally, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said the money aimed at saving the market would be used mostly for infrastructure projects, while in fact most of the money went into the central government’s state-owned enterprises or local governments’ financing platforms and was used to shore up the stock and real estate markets.

    * IE, pissed away to maintain the illusion of security. All gone now – nothing to show for it, old problem still remains, but now the cupboard is bare.

    The Chinese State Council’s control measures were not effective until it issued its 10-point statement in mid-April.

    The central government and its government owned enterprises are still wrestling with local governments.

    * Some people have told me local governments have, in most respects, assumed authority over areas they’re not supposed to touch; they’re in a state of permanent administrative warfare with largely ineffective central administrations, and most money just disappears.

    Real estate dealers warn that if housing prices drop by more than 30 percent, it is very possible that many people will default on their housing mortgages and that would hurt the banking sector.

    * IE, total collapse: The only reason there’s any security is that the government owns the banks, and the Chinese are convinced the government will just Pop the money into existence somehow.

    In response to this situation, the four biggest state-owned Chinese banks, ICBC, Bank of China (BOC), China Construction Bank (CCB) and Agricultural Bank of China (AgBank), all decided that they would be raising capital by issuing A shares on the Shanghai stock exchange and H shares on the Hong Kong stock exchange.

    * Sound familiar as a tactic to Americans?

    In late March, the State Council approved the fundraising project, requiring that most of the capital be raised through H shares.

    The part of the fundraising that has caught the most attention is the initial public offering (IPO) of AgBank, which is scheduled for the middle of this month in Shanghai and Hong Kong. At about NT$880 billion, it is the world’s largest IPO.

    * Before you rush to pad out your portfolio, look at the bank’s bottom line. They’re all way beyond bankrupt.

    The reason AgBank has not been listed on the stock exchange yet is that it is the worst of China’s four big banks and has the most bad loans. Maybe its listing will be “the last tango.”

    The other banks will also raise capital, by selling shares and bonds. Their A+H fundraising goals are NT$332 billion for ICBC, NT$475 billion for BOC, NT$356 billion for CCB and almost NT$200 billion for the Bank of Communications. It is very unusual for all these big banks to raise capital at the same time.

    * The government needs the cash for the banking sector because it’s near the point of complete bankruptcy. Want to bet lots of institutional investors are going to rush in without looking? The magic of Chinaglam.

    In order to raise capital, the stock price must be stimulated to attract investors, but the Chinese stock market is performing poorly and the government has lost control, and this is affecting Hong Kong too. Although patriotic businessmen, such as tycoon Li Ka-shing (李嘉誠), showed their support by becoming shareholders of AgBank, the market has reacted coldly, forcing the bank to repeatedly lower the initial share price. The initial price of the Hong Kong H shares is now even higher than the price of the Shanghai A shares. Some Chinese banks have even rushed to raise capital before AgBank. When ICBC listed its shares in Hong Kong in 2006, its IPO was over-subscribed 76 times, whereas AgBank’s IPO only is over-subscribed 14 times.

    China’s state-owned enterprises bought many private companies last year,

    * Oops.

    causing an increase in the number of state-owned enterprises and a drop in the number of private companies. The State Council, however, issued a “new 36-point statement” in mid-May to encourage private investment in certain industries. This to a certain extent reflects the government’s capital shortfall.

    * One fellow who works for the economic development branch of the Guangdong provincial government privately told me that the “capital shortfall” is so vast it’s almost impossible to pull together from any collective foreign source of capital, let alone domestic. And that was a year ago.

    Facing the possibility of another global financial crisis, both Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and Wen have stopped bragging about themselves while asking foreign governments not to withdraw from the market because this would affect China’s foreign trade.

    * ALARM. Translation: “Please don’t act like rational investors now – or our ponzi scheme is going to come crashing down on our heads and the people will eat us alive.” Get ready. It’s been 25 years now, and it’s about to pop. Give it 1-2 more years.

    We should also pay attention to changes in the Chinese economy after this year’s World Expo in Shanghai ends on Oct. 31. The Ma administration must not let the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China obscure its view of these issues.

    Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taipei.

    TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG

    Like


  247. on July 14, 2010 at 7:54 am Gunslingergregi

    ”””””””’The divorce regime is responsible for much more than “ugly divorces,” “nasty custody battles,” and other clichés. It is the most serious perpetrator of human and constitutional rights violations in America today. Because it strikes the most basic institution of any civilization – the family – the divorce regime is a threat not only to social order but to civil freedom. It is also almost completely unopposed. No political party and no politicians question it. No journalists investigate it in any depth. A few attorneys have spoken out, but they are eventually suspended or disbarred. Some academics have written about it, but they soon stop. No human rights or civil liberties groups challenge it, and some positively support it. Very few “pro-family” lobbies question it. This is because the divorce regime operates through money, political power, and fear.” — http://www.stephenbaskerville.net/
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220628/board/thread/148314040”””””

    And the social workers operate from behind bullet proof glass. Wonder why?
    Also operating inside a police station.
    I wonder why?

    Like


  248. on July 14, 2010 at 8:05 am namae nanka

    http://endingmaleviolence.blogspot.com/2010/02/playboy-interview-may-1995-camille.html

    Even Paglia could’ve used some game instead of having thoughts of rape.

    Like


  249. Lupo Leboucher knows his shit.

    Whenever you read soppy romantic medievel poetry stop and remember this was the middle ages. This was a time of ultra badboys with ballsacks of steel. Men acted like men and women like women. Men back then could get away with romantic poetry because they were so masculine that it was a form of handicap game and vulnerability game. And that stuff works if you are a MAN.

    However, all you simpering betas and bitch boys are too feminised to write poetry or sappy love songs. You need to become masculine, to grow a set of fucken balls first.

    By the way, Rosseau was responsible for pedalising women and starting the beta revolution.

    Shakespeare was no little bitch. Remember, he had the preselection and status of a then George Clooney. He could handicap himself with no problems.
    Do not be fooled by idiot teachers, Romeo and Juliet is a condemnation of betas. Both Juliet’s nurse and the Preacher tell Romeo to grow a set of balls and be a man. It is Romeo’s fault that Juliet dies. If he had been a man and taken responsibility for his actions none of the tragedy would have happened.

    Like


  250. on July 14, 2010 at 8:06 am namae nanka

    PLAYBOY: You once said that you look through the eyes of a rapist. What did you mean?

    PAGLIA: I have lesbian impulses, so I understand how a man looks at a woman.

    PLAYBOY: Why did you say a rapist rather than a man?

    PAGLIA: Men do look at women as rapists. When I was growing up, it wasn’t possible for me to do anything about my attraction to women. Lesbianism didn’t exist in that time, as far as I knew. If I were young today, when everyone is experimenting-bisexuality is in with a lot of young women–it would have been different. But I always felt frustrated and excluded, looking in from a distance. As a woman, I couldn’t rape–it’s not possible–but if I had been a man with similar feelings, who knows? I developed a stalking thing.

    PLAYBOY: When does that kind of lust become rape?

    PAGLIA: There may have been cases when I would have gone over the line. I understand when men complain about women giving mixed messages, because women have given me a lot of mixed messages. I understand the rage that this can cause.

    PLAYBOY: Give us an example.

    PAGLIA: A woman I’m talking with at some event says, “Let’s leave here and go to this bar,” which is a lesbian bar. We go to the bar and we’re talking and then she says, “Let’s go have coffee,” and we go to this coffee shop and end up, at three in the morning, half a block from her apartment. Finally, she says, “All right, well, goodnight.” She’s ready to go home alone and I look at her, like, “What do you mean? Aren’t we going to go back to your apartment?” “No.” “What?” And she says, “Do you think I was leading you on?” Un-fucking-believable. I can’t tell you the rage. I am, at that point, looking at her and…. All I can say is, if I had been an 18-year-old street kid instead of a 45-year-old woman, I would have stabbed her. I was completely humiliated and furious. If I had been a guy with a hard-on, I would have hit her.

    PLAYBOY: Would you have been justified in hitting her?

    PAGLIA: That’s not the point. The point is that I would have. Women must be aware of the signals they send out, aware that, at three in the morning, with that flirting, they have created expectations. If they fail to fulfill those expectations, they can be in trouble. They could be out with a Ted Bundy or a Jeffrey Dahmer. A woman cannot go on a date, have a bunch of drinks and go back to some guy’s dorm room or apartment and then, when he jumps on her, cry date rape. Most people aren’t sure what’s going to happen on a first date. Given that ambiguity, every woman must be totally aware at every moment that she is responsible for every choice she makes.

    Like


  251. on July 14, 2010 at 8:14 am Badger Nation

    Gunslinger,

    “I want the money back from 11 years of catholic school for not teaching me that divorce is a 50/50 chance and when it happens I get screwed.

    Lawyers can get the catholic church for deriliction of duty on that one maybe.

    Already making em pay for alter boys right?

    Might as well go for leading boys to the slaughter of marriage and pushing it like a drug.”

    The Roman Catholic Church in America has gotten really weird since it decided to stick its neck into politics – embracing puritanical sex theology and at the same time illegal immigration and the welfare state. Depending on which diocese you are in, misandry and class warfare can be as strong as any feminism coffee klatch. (This is the process by which the left and the right unite in misandry, but that’s a topic for another comment.)

    For a faith based around the idea that God himself came to earth in male form, the RCC doesn’t seem to want to give a real view of men and women. All their riffing about sex differences is grounded in “traditional” family ideas – which is fine as far as it goes, but the RCC in America is profoundly unserious about addressing the modern society we live in and how it has unleashed primal hypergamous fortunes. Its sexual shaming has really just driven Catholic sexual license underground, to the point where hordes of Catholics live a split life ignoring their church’s sexual teachings as hopelessly backward and reactionary.

    The RCC also gives horrific advice for marriage – the premarital counseling is fine, but I’ve never heard the church condone prenups. A priest was just quoted in a WSJ article about prenups advising against them. Apparently the thought of divorce itself is sinful, so to consider a prenup, to protect oneself in the event of the unthinkable, is a breach of the marriage before it’s even started. (Lots of chicks make this argument, and get away with it, when they are clearly just protecting their interests in the slanted divorce system.)

    To everyone who makes that claim, I’ve got news for you – it really only takes one to tango in divorce. No matter what God thinks, divorce exists in this country so anyone can become ensnared, against their will. They say prenups show a lack of faith…I hereby dub the term sucker shaming. You aren’t planning for future failure, you’re planning against events you can’t control.

    The church wants people to be suckers, waiting to get blindsided so they can say they never offended the Lord by thinking of the big D.

    They are giving advice to the betrothed that is just as bad as feminist nuts who tell women to go to frat parties, drink, wear slutty clothing, go up to guys’ rooms, and feel safe about it, because if he doesn’t stop the instant you say so on the way from third to home, you won’t be held accountable for poor risk management because it’s “blaming the victim.”

    Like


  252. on July 14, 2010 at 8:25 am Badger Nation

    namae,

    I checked out that blog you linked to – it’s a DUDE’s blog! What a f*&%ing mangina!

    He has a link to the “U.S. National Organization for Men Against Sexism.” Of course they mean anti-female sexism. We need a national organization against misandry.

    Meanwhile Camille breathes some sense into the world:

    “PAGLIA: Too bad. You must develop the verbal tools to counter offensive language. That s life. Feminism has created a privileged, white middle class of girls who claim they’re victims because they want to preserve their bourgeois decorum and passivity.”

    “I also learned something from the men at the garage. At Bennington, I would go to a faculty meeting and be aware that everyone hated me. The men were appalled by a strong, loud woman. But I went to this auto shop and the men there thought I was cute. “Oh, there’s that Professor Paglia from the college.” The real men, men who work on cars, find me cute. They are not frightened by me, no matter how loud I am. But the men at the college were terrified because they are eunuchs, and I threatened every goddamned one of them.”

    “PAGLIA: The problem with America is that there’s too little sex, not too much. The more our instincts are repressed, the more we need sex, pornography and all that. The problem is that feminists have taken over with their attempts to inhibit sex. We have a serious testosterone problem in this country.

    PLAYBOY: Caused by what?

    PAGLIA: It’s a mess out there. Men are suspicious of women’s intentions. Feminism has crippled them. They don’t know when to make a pass. If they do make a pass, they don’t know if they’re going to end up in court.”

    Roissy could write an entire post on this 1995 Playboy interview – it’s like an oracle, call it A Voice From The Past.

    Like


  253. on July 14, 2010 at 8:26 am Original JB

    “What i am saying is that it is difficult to establish a cause and effect relationship. ”

    It’s difficult to establish a cause and effect relationship for pretty much everything social science looks into. “Correlation, not causation!” they cry – when its convenient.

    Today social science is largely a cudgel to beat anti-PC ideas: to be trotted out to assasinate them, to be quite when when “PC” studies prove what “needs to be” proven.

    Like


  254. on July 14, 2010 at 8:27 am Original JB

    quite=quiet

    Like


  255. Great sketch that illustrates why men need game and how alpha trumps beta every time…it’s a weird exchange but close to home

    Like


  256. Don’t forget to stand helplessly by like a manly man while people stop an Asian lady from going down the Metro escalator.

    [editor: thanks for the tip, obsessive fanboy.]

    Like


  257. on July 14, 2010 at 8:38 am Original JB

    “This is like saying that if you practice basketball you will get better .. course you will to some extent. but still you will never perform as well as a natural .. and furthermore, you will expend a lot more effort than the natural guy ”

    OK…as the prime test subject for this theory (I started seriously practicing basketball in my 20s), several points:

    1) Performing as well as a natural – I dare say at this point there’s little difference between the two. What the natural started with, I ended up with.

    2) Yes, I expended a lot of energy and effort, but it was a joyful process. I was motivated to do it. It had a ton of ancillary benefits.

    This is basically an argument at never improving at anything you aren’t already good at (that I suppose doesn’t pass the commenter’s highly tendentious supposition of “what matters.”)

    I find the notion completely horrifying. Some people (myself included, IMO) are born with so few natural talents that work and time are the only ways to improve on what nature has failed to bestow on us. The kind of attitude I’m reading into this is a most retrograde kind of pseudoreligious hereditarianism.

    Like


  258. […] delightfully impious Roissy in DC is going after blogging superstar Megan McCardle, who evidently isn’t impressed by the so-called […]

    Like


  259. on July 14, 2010 at 8:44 am Gunslingergregi

    ”””””unlearning genius …
    xsplat,

    as full of shit as ever ….

    xsplat game: Be a big fish in a tiny pond .. grossly exaggerate your “achievements” ..

    a real achievement would be for a third worlder to go the states and swoop white chicks .. it is always easy for a man to mate with women way lower than him on the socio-economic ladder .. thats like a boat going downstream .. doesn’t prove anything
    ””””

    It proves that if you gave some people the opportunity to live in heaven on earth they wouldn’t take it.

    It proves the theories of the matrix are correct that people would keep trying to wake up from the perfect world.

    It proves xplat is smart and can just look at reality and not just complain about a reality but change the circumstances and reality around him to achieve a desired effect.

    If you had a cure to cancer you wouldn’t take it because all you had to do was take a red pill and not go through chemo?

    Not that you still don’t feel bad for people caught in the matrix lol
    Ya just need to grow up like woman want I guess and become like them.
    I got mine fuck the people in the matrix.
    For someone with a soul though it is very dificult to do that.

    ””a real achievement would be for a third worlder to go the states and swoop white chicks””””
    Yea I hooked my philipino buddy up with a tall hot blond big tits good shape. He had two kids with her. Didn’t really turn out to be achievment or maybe it was. Not like people can’t come from second third world but why would a man want to subject himself to those conditions.
    Try this for a pick up throw stacks of ones at chicks in regular club in us. What you find is that they care about just what every other woman cares about money. he he he
    They will pick up every last dollar off the floor. Good to build your state of mind like wtf have they no shame?

    Like


  260. Society tells us- As men there are only a few worthless skills that one can acquire through time and energy. Video gaming is one.

    Almost all Women agree- Learning to be good at video games is only for losers.

    Now it would seem they are painting the seduction game in the same way. Learning to be good with women is a waste of time. Only losers do it. Video and seduction gaming skills are not popular in polite society.

    Like


  261. on July 14, 2010 at 8:53 am Badger Nation

    I’d like to address one subtext of game that is danced around in McTall’s post: game is often oversold, and usually by people arguing against it. The image of a shy Neil Strauss becoming a sexual God makes regular people think game is some kind if hypnosis a man can use to get any woman into the sack on the first night. The point is not to get any chick into bed, it’s to up your odds to the point where the game is worth playing.

    Likewise, some gamers have a “no true Scotsman” approach to guys’ troubles with specific women. The answer seems to always be “you’re not alpha enough if your woman is [complaining about money]/[whining about chorse]/[fucking the poolboy][etc].” Sometimes, though, you’re dealing with a stuck-up bitch you wouldn’t want to spend any time around even if you were alpha enough, and you should cut your losses and get out. I understand why guys learning how to stop the rejections don’t want to volunteer for what feels like yet ANOTHER rejection, but we all really do need to learn when to fold ’em – and to learn that folding is YOU doing the rejection.

    AFCs by definition do all the pursuing and thus associate not getting the chick with soul-crushing rejection, so it can take us a LONG time to get used to the idea that we are in the driver’s seat, and that we can walk away without damage.

    For guys in marriages, upping the alpha is really their only choice sans divorce rape. But for most other guys learning game, calibrating your shit-meter is important – many girls have massively overinflated their values, and some chicks are just not worth the extra game effort.

    Like


  262. on July 14, 2010 at 8:56 am Original JB

    “Point of order: Megan is definitely not a liberal. Yeah, she endorsed Obama, but she also endorsed Bush in 2004. Like a lot of people, she was sick of the way things had been going the last eight years. ”

    Wait…I remember her being heartened by Obama’s economic advisors during the campaign. She was looking for reasons to fool herself into thinking this guy wasn’t who all the 100 IQ rubes recognized he was.

    Sorry…I have a very low opinion of this clever silly.

    Like


  263. on July 14, 2010 at 9:09 am Gunslingergregi

    ””””””To everyone who makes that claim, I’ve got news for you – it really only takes one to tango in divorce. No matter what God thinks, divorce exists in this country so anyone can become ensnared, against their will. They say prenups show a lack of faith…I hereby dub the term sucker shaming. You aren’t planning for future failure, you’re planning against events you can’t control.

    The church wants people to be suckers, waiting to get blindsided so they can say they never offended the Lord by thinking of the big D.

    They are giving advice to the betrothed that is just as bad as feminist nuts who tell women to go to frat parties, drink, wear slutty clothing, go up to guys’ rooms, and feel safe about it, because if he doesn’t stop the instant you say so on the way from third to home, you won’t be held accountable for poor risk management because it’s “blaming the victim.”

    ”””””””””””””

    Yea catholic raised men are at an extreme disadvantage if they actually follow what they have been taught. The other side of the coin is they blame themselves for the divorce as well no matter what the reason not knowing that historically 50 percent end in failure. So marriage is normal to fail. That is the statistic that blew my mind because the catholic church with all its scholars has to know that statistic and yet they push push push marriage and know they are sending young men as lambs to the slaughter. They think they are some kind of special case and alone for having failed at marriage when in reality just another day in life except there is a punishment that nowhere fits the crime for failing at marriage. But catholacism more readily prepares a man to accept that punishment for his failure because you know woman are pure and all that. Not that after 5 years or less you get tired of the pussy anyways and nobody tells you that either. Although you do hear it occasionally but it is the reality. So of course marriage is gonna fail. Just like the church has the law about a marriage able to be annulled with the reason of the guy not fucking his wife but yet after a certain amount of time I think it is natural to not want to. Why I think the muslims have it right. In catholicism when you get tired of the pussy but still love the woman you have to get rid of her to get another. Muslims can take another wife but don’t have to throw away the one they spent so much time and experiences with. It makes more sense to me. You become more friends and business partners at some point than lovers but hey good to have someone you can trust in the world with a history. Sure you may still fuck every once in a while as time goes on. This is the more realistic way I think to look at life and sex in the first place rather than expecting a guy to only fuck one woman his whole life. It doesn’t work and historically it hasen’t worked but guys are still paying in droves like they are an anomoly.

    Like


  264. on July 14, 2010 at 9:10 am Badger Nation

    Is it me or does this pic of McCardle look like Nosferatu? In the closeup shot she looks like a hag.

    I’m not normally in the business of photo analysis but the photo of her in what I assume was her mis-20’s shows she is attractive enough to get decent male attention in her youth…in which case she’s probably of the following sort of sorority-girl mindset:

    [think feminine Eric Cartman voice] “I can’t believe all these dudes want to hit on me at this party, they’re so creepy…let’s go get another Bud Light from the keg tap. You mean guys STUDY how to hit on women? That’s soooo, like, pathetic, man, oh my gooodddd….”

    Talk chicks can also get a little bit of extra princess complex, since women like to date taller men their target product is scarce and they get in the habit of rejecting most men out of hand, which quickly gets out of hand.

    As noted in her article and here, women who were even moderately attractive in their youth have literally no idea what it’s like to be a man and have to fight for the attention of women. I consider them non-credible in the game debate.

    Like


  265. “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

    – Arthur Schopenhauer

    Like


  266. on July 14, 2010 at 9:16 am Badger Nation

    Gunslinger –

    I like your analysis. Socon preaching is invested in a bygone ideal and is thus alienating itself from the modern male experience. I don’t fault any man who walks away from a conservative American church. They are preaching themselves out of a male audience.

    The trouble is that the softie churches, who are pro-gay and all that, are infested with manginas and beta males.

    A strong dude can’t go to any church and get affirmation,
    except for some “work hard, provide for family” support which is really wage-slave shaming.

    Like


  267. “Not that after 5 years or less you get tired of the pussy anyways and nobody tells you that either.”

    Yeah, unless, of course, you’re dating for greater than 5 yrs prior to getting married. Then you know full well what you’re getting into.

    How about don’t rush into marriage so quickly? The only people who really need to do that are mid 30s, clock-pounding women. Certainly not males, unless they’re convinced they’re going to die

    Like


  268. I think my earlier comment got cut off. I was attempting to say: (and what’s below won’t make complete sense if my earlier comment doesn’t end up posting…)

    Males don’t need to rush into marriage, unless, of course, they’re convinced they’re going to die prematurely from coronary problems, etc. Of course, if they choose the marriage route, that could possibly be the cause of those problems 🙂

    Like


  269. ooh goody, it’s all there. both posts.

    Like


  270. on July 14, 2010 at 9:38 am Badger Nation

    “How about don’t rush into marriage so quickly? The only people who really need to do that are mid 30s, clock-pounding women. Certainly not males, unless they’re convinced they’re going to die”

    Some guys are rushed into marriage by ultimatums by the girl – “it’s that time when I need to get married so if you don’t propose I’m going to leave you!”

    This should be seen as the high-stakes shit test it is, and consider if a woman ballsy enough to make that move is someone you want on the other side of your marital contract. Even if you DO want to get married, a move like that should be seen as a caution flag that ends the relationship.

    A friend of mine told me that happened to him, his girl said it “was time to decide” and he swallowed and proposed. From noises he makes I don’t think he’s entirely happy with his marriage (gee d’ya think?). Guys are so damn prone to putting the pussy on a pedestal. They’ll let a woman climb into the driver’s seat of their lives, sacrificing their own dreams, because they think she’s the last piece of taco they’ll ever see.

    His friend was sitting next to us, and he said his brother got the same ultimatum and said “see ya.”

    Like


  271. on July 14, 2010 at 9:41 am Gunslingergregi

    ”””’A strong dude can’t go to any church and get affirmation,
    except for some “work hard, provide for family” support which is really wage-slave shaming.””””

    You could probably go to the muslim church where I am at and get afirmation. I haven’t been yet but probably will when I speak more of the language. Muslim just seems to fit me. It is the mans religion as long as practiced in a place that lets men be free.

    Like


  272. on July 14, 2010 at 9:47 am Gunslingergregi

    Or put it this way why are muslim men more free than western men?
    Why are muslim woman more free than western woman?

    At least in indonesia from what I have seen.

    I also like the way they deal with crime. I think it is manly.

    Sometimes you hear horror stories of people being falsely accused of dealing drugs. Well in the country I am in you would be sentenced and if convicted taken out and shot.

    Simple whether guilty or innocent I think they actually might believe there is a god. He will be the judge of you and meat out any punishment needed.

    Think about all the men rotting for years and years in jail in the states suffering until they are finally executed or not just in jail for natural life. Imagine being an innocent guy doing that shit. Torture every day.

    Muslim country they actually have mercy which is a concept foreign to western ears.

    Westerners think they show mercy by putting someone in a cage for years and years.

    Muslims show mercy by swift execution of justice and even if they catch an innocent well they will go to heaven won’t they not live in hell on earth.

    To me a lot of manly fucking concepts.

    Like


  273. j r
    me: i don’t buy any girl dinner until things have reached a certain point.

    ok, this makes sense for dinner, but know that “spending = chump” is only a first-order approximation. and it’s a tangent line that drifts farther and farther from the actual curve as a relationship proceeds.

    specifically, if a man is dropping coin, there’s a world of difference between doing so in an aloof, casual, unconcerned way, such that he is obviously calling the shots and her role as the beneficiary is almost incidental, and doing so in a conscious effort to please her or buy her affection. when men spend money on women, it should be mostly in the former way: she should not be the primary focus — even, ironically, when he’s buying things for her. if this sounds like a contradiction in terms — and i know it will, to any of you PUA types out there who follow ironclad rules and firm spending ceilings — consider the way in which a successful pimp or drug lord might pay for breast implants for one of his women. even though she’s clearly the recipient, she’s not the focus. he’s the focus, and she’s well aware that, if she weren’t there, he’d do the same for another, equally desirable woman without a second thought.

    in a pickup scenario it’d be extremely hard to pull off a dinner bill this way, hence the general PUA dissing of dinner dates. (note that flipping the bill if you eat at a joint that is your spot — say, your favorite filipino joint where you get seafood pansit every friday anyway — is not chump status)

    note also that other forms of spending cash on early dates (e.g. paying 2 amusement park admissions because you like rides, and, implicitly, because adrenaline = seduction) are also totally chill and exempt from the chump rule, for the same reason.

    being able to spend casually, by YOUR standards, is much better than being a tightwad, particularly if you’re over, say, 25.

    Like


  274. on July 14, 2010 at 9:55 am Vincent Ignatius

    Westerners think they show mercy by putting someone in a cage for years and years.

    I’m with Gunslingergregi on this one. Life in a cage is worse than death. Anything longer than 15 years and I’d never let them take me alive. I don’t see how anyone would prefer life in prison over merciful death.

    Like


  275. on July 14, 2010 at 9:59 am Badger Nation

    narciso,

    It’s pretty simple – once the woman has proved herself to not be a chump-baiter, you can break out the wallet. It’s Solomonian wisdom…he who would rather see the baby given away than spit in half deserves the prize.

    Like


  276. on July 14, 2010 at 10:06 am Gunslingergregi

    ””’I don’t see how anyone would prefer life in prison over merciful death.
    ”””

    Consciously people will fight for life no matter what punishment awaits for the normal person. Why you don’t see mass suicide in prison.

    Why it is mercy to end it for them because you know locking a human being in a cage forever is more wrong than killing them for grievious miscarriages of the law.

    Like


  277. on July 14, 2010 at 10:09 am Gunslingergregi

    And that is why I say that the torture of men through alimony is so fucked up because if ya look at the stats people will just take it. But that doesn’t make it right does it?

    People didn’t commit mass suicide in concentration camps either or forced labor camps but does that make it right to do?

    Like


  278. I don’t see how anyone would prefer life in prison over merciful death.

    I’d likely have drugs smuggled in and off myself.

    Like


  279. on July 14, 2010 at 10:14 am Gunslingergregi

    The good thing for men is they can work and earn their freedom from that system.

    Like


  280. thursday
    The key seems to be releasing your flood of devotion at exactly the right time.

    timing has to do with it, sure, but in a sufficiently long-term relationship it’s more a function of the 3:5 ratio of beta to alpha traits.

    it’s pretty simple, actually, but this crowd has a way of ignoring the importance of ostensibly “beta” behavior in general, just because such behavior is admittedly less important in short PU timeframes.

    Like


  281. “It’s particularly annoying to read a blogger who cowardly hides behind anonymity making mocking the lives of individuals who cannot mock them back.

    [you are free to mock anything i write here. have at it!]”

    We are obviously free to mock anything you write here — as you are indeed courageous enough to post comments that disagree with you, which is a credit to you.

    But you mocked McArdle on more than what she wrote on her blog. You mocked her looks, her husband and all other bits of personal information. No one can mock your personal life because you don’t share it.

    I can understand why you don’t share it given that you write controversial things but clearly need to maintain a day job to put food on the table. But given that you make it impossible for others to mock your looks, your fashion sense, your job — or even to verify that you do sleep with lots of attractive women — you should not get personal with those you disagree with.

    Actually, even if you provided all your personal info, you still should avoid personal attacks. They’re just mean and you can make your case just as well by attacking the absurd arguments that McArdle made in her post. Actually, you will make your case better because personal attacks are often off putting to people who are undecided and they smack of desperation, even when you’re not actually desperate because you have facts on your side.

    Like


  282. Zammo
    “Just be yourself” she told me as advice.

    “just be yourself” is not bad advice, if it’s correctly interpreted: it’s just a way of saying “just be congruent” in woman speak.
    given that women have no way of ascertaining what “yourself” is, independently of your externally perceptible conduct, this is the only thing “just be yourself” could mean. it’s one of the most honest statements possible, actually.

    i’ve broken it down into three parts, the first of which is here.

    Like


  283. j r–

    is that necessarily settling or has their taste simply shifted to the right on the cad-to-dad continuum?

    You have a point. It’s both for a marriage clock is ticking, late 20s and 30s girl I think.

    Further to your having a point, it’s not just about age. Good girls who only want sex when there are committed love feelings tend to be shifted towards the dad side too, compared to slutty girls who know they’re just partying.

    However there are a lot of sorta good girls, who tell themselves they only want long term relationship sex, but are really quite happy to go with the month or two or several fling w/an edgie, a little dangerous, emotionally thrilling kind of alpha cad.

    Like


  284. i’ve been posting at mcardle’s on this topic for shits and giggles. it’s slow at work and it’s fun debating people with such strong opinions and such little actual knowledge. at the end of the day, though, i have to say, “who cares what anyone else thinks?”

    the efficacy of game is not that you can convince someone that it works. it doesn’t matter how many women swear up and down that such things would never work on them. and it doesn’t matter how many sensitive and “mature” men swear up and down that they respect women too much to manipulate them. the only measure of the effectiveness of game is “did your penis enter her vagina?” and “was she happy about that afterwards?” that’s it.

    there’s only one important question to ask regarding game: does learning and practicing a specific set of behaviors increase the incedence of women finding you attractive? if the answer is yes, then everything else is superfluous.

    Like


  285. Long time fan of Roissy I agree with most of his theories.

    However I do tend to find the most useful part of game to be gaining (or in some men’s case re-gaining) their power over relationships. Re-gaining their masculinity and finding their nitch with women, becoming comfortable in their natural role ..ie becoming a “balsy” braniac, or a more well educated “meat head” in other words harnessing what we naturally have as men.

    I see learning game as an overall philosophy and to add an “aura” to the man’s natural state if you will. As such the rought memorazation of lines and typical game some of these guys see or read about just shows their lack of real natural game, which is what the end goal should be when taking advice from guys like Roissy…natural game. Developing your real persona and your own original approach to game. If it becomes obvious that you are copying someone else or that it has been learned out of necessity to find help getting laid, then you’ve lost already.

    As much as I hate to admit it, one thing I do agree with the original Feminazi about, is that some of the “peacocking” that some PUA’s do is a bit on the gay side. Esp. when some guys who need game the most are directly copying what their mentors are saying…it ends up bieng very obvious and it is one thing I see in the newer PUA’s.

    Like


  286. there’s only one important question to ask regarding game: does learning and practicing a specific set of behaviors increase the incedence of women finding you attractive? if the answer is yes, then everything else is superfluous.

    Not quite. There are a reasonable number of men, myself included, who only care about game because it’s practically necessary for a nerd to attract a decent long-term partner. Any game technique that raises overall success rate by targeting “normal” girls and filtering out the more nerdy girls we really want is worse than useless to us.

    Like


  287. “thanks for the tip”

    Your welcome. Here’s another: Don’t forget to desperately try to make your helpless impotence on the Metro sound like heroism on your blog, while real heroes are dying for their country every day. That’ll really show us how girly you’re not.

    [editor: tsk tsk, selective editing won’t do. once more for the studio audience:

    you are an obsessed fanboy who recalls old posts from years ago.

    btw, kweef, how much dying have you done for your country lately?]

    Like


  288. I think a lot of women are perplexed by game because from a young age they think about ‘improving themselves’ in terms of both looks and social skills. Even the nerdy ones. Even though they know boys don’t mature as fast, girls expect them to by say age 19 realise that the good looking guys who wear cool clothes and have confidence and charisma (though obviously you don’t call it that at that age) get the girls, so they think they’ll notice it and sort themselves out. Most women have this sorted by the age of 21 (but working on improving yourself is an ongoing thing) and then get on with their lives.

    So they just don’t get why guys only realise at say 25 or 30 and again instead of just wearing cool clothes (GQ has some nice spreads) and having confidence and charisma (only of course by this age other stuff comes into play), the men feel the need to take a coloured pill and have reading material with chapters titled things like ‘how to hypnotise a girl into having anal sex’
    Or when the women are looking up PUA, they find forums populated by guys bragging about their conquests or come to a blog like this and see comments like ‘There are no good girls with good personalities. A good personality consists of a hard body, who will satisfy every sexual demands without being too slutty about things and knows how to keep her dumb fucking mouth shut.”

    I’m sure many (the majority?) of guys using game are using it in a way that many women would if they understood it actually appreciate it but the more visible face of it is not that.

    *emphasis on the word hypnotise mine to illustrate why many women find game disturbing on an emotional level and why they these women are not likely to be persuaded by a ‘PUA isn’t any different to make up’ argument.

    Like


  289. on July 14, 2010 at 2:58 pm namae nanka

    Badger Nation

    “I checked out that blog you linked to – it’s a DUDE’s blog! What a f*&%ing mangina!

    He has a link to the “U.S. National Organization for Men Against Sexism.” Of course they mean anti-female sexism. We need a national organization against misandry.”

    haha yeah, I looked around for a better source but didn’t find one. I was surprised that the site had her interview.

    “Meanwhile Camille breathes some sense into the world”

    but she had some ambiguous things to say too, especially at the end. Very interesting nevertheless.

    Like


  290. @Lily: The sexes are complementary. Women recognize the shortcomings of men, particularly young men. But instead of helping them out with the finer points of interpersonal skills, they metaphorically throw 85% of them under the bus. I had a discussion about this with a younger woman one time and asked her why she didn’t pick out a young man with prospects and help him get somewhere in life. She acted like I had just admitted to being Jack the Ripper!. Her voovoo was so valuable she didn’t deserve just any loser (note I even qualified my suggestion – a promising young man – but she ignored that) – she deserved it all NOW. Since many young women feel this way, lets see just what they bring to the table. Are they ready to make a house a home? Have they learned the finer points of managing a household budget? Are they suitable mothers?

    Oh, sorry, its impolite to ask these questions.

    If young women aren’t helping to socialize young men, how can you criticize young men for trying to figure it out on their own?

    Like


  291. Here’s how I explain game to women these days (or some iteration thereof):

    “Imagine you’re giving a speech in front of a crowded room. That anxiety you feel, that stage fright, that’s what men feel when they approach women they find attractive. Talking to women is in fact just another version of public speaking. Fortunately it’s something you can get better at.

    By learning how to be a better communicator with women through learning Game men can be more themselves. In fact Game merely lets a man’s true self shine through instead of being the nervous mess you usually see when they first aproach. This allows men to be fun, at ease, and more natural. Why anyone would have a problem with that is beyond me, don’t you agree?”

    Like


  292. Scoop: “You should not get personal with those you disagree with.”

    So, some douchebag walks up to me, pokes me in the chest and says, “girlie man,” and I’m not supposed to notice she has a big giant nose, hatchet chin and boyfriend who looks like he takes it up the poop chute? Screw you, white knight!

    If you want to be a public figure, sharing your personal information (do I need to know who this McTallBroad’s husband is, or what she looks like? no), and reap all the benefits and glories thereof, you need to grow some thick skin. Or shut up and be private. Those are your two options.

    Like


  293. @Dave

    Agreed.

    But when I first came to this blog a few weeks ago, I mentioned about helping guys with clothes etc and I was flamed as that must mean I didn’t accept them for who they were, must be a controlling harpie etc etc. So it works both ways.

    This young woman you spoke to sounds like she was very self-centred and entitled. But she’s young, she’ll grow out of it (hopefully). And assuming she’s around 21, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt she may be willing to help a male her age who is a friend improve himself to score hot chicks of his own (maybe LJBF by her but on the route to for better things). People, even women, shock horror, have many facets.

    Like


  294. Lily,
    Would game work on you? What do you think of it?

    Like


  295. @Laura
    “Would game work on you?”
    Depends. I don’t think some dude wearing a fuzzy hat running the cube would work on me (though that Mystery does look quite cute so as long as he didn’t do the cube and I had no idea who he was the fuzzy hat may not bother me).
    But am I drawn to high status men who have charisma and personality? Yes. And if I don’t know them already, I won’t know if they’ve always been like that or if it’s learnt relatively recently. Does it matter? Not really. Though I am finding out now I know what game is therefore who I know personally using it, that a lot of them have quite a few insecurities so that would be one way to tell.

    “What do you think of it”
    I think on the whole, it’s a good thing for women. (though not necessarily unachievable in other ways, there is plenty of male focused media and dating advice these days). But there is a Sith side to it which I still find disturbing.

    Like


  296. on July 14, 2010 at 7:00 pm Steve Johnson

    Lily

    “@Laura
    “Would game work on you?”
    Depends. I don’t think some dude wearing a fuzzy hat running the cube would work on me (though that Mystery does look quite cute so as long as he didn’t do the cube and I had no idea who he was the fuzzy hat may not bother me).”

    So let’s take your theoretical, long term friend Bill.

    You know how Bill is so funny when he talks about that one topic?

    You know how you feel close to Bill because he knows about you and you know about him? Memories of emotional reactions to things you’ve experienced together.

    How about all those funny stories you’ve heard from Bill? Hilarious, right?

    Now, this guy over here Joe is just meeting Bill at an office party.

    “So Bill, what do you do?”

    “Well, I’m an accountant”

    “Really, you have a head for numbers?”

    “Guess so”

    [How do I get out of here?]

    [How do I get out of here?]

    Would he have gotten closer to knowing the real Bill if he played some silly game that engaged his imagination?

    How about if he asked him some off the wall questions that surprised him out of his rote “Name / Job / Bye” answers?

    That’s what the cube is about. It’s not hypnosis.

    Like


  297. @Steve Johnson

    I don’t think the cube is hypnosis.

    I have only had one person try and do it on me (at the time I had no idea of game and only relatively recently realised that was what they were doing) , at the time I thought it was silly imagining what colour my horses would be and changed the topic. But I have nothing against that sort of game, it’s common in management away days etc, it breaks the ice.

    My only reference to hypnosis was in reference to a chapter heading of a book. Although just out of curiosity I’ve just googled PUA + hypnosis and got 58,200 results.

    Like


  298. @Steve Johnson
    And Mystery would not need to run the cube on me, if I had no idea on who he was (guy who’s had lots and lots of women which to me is not preselection but more risk of passing on a disease as well as emotional disengagement), he seems like he would be an interesting and fun to be with, so I think I would be attracted to him without any need for any icebreaking games.
    Caveat I had a major crush on Johnny Depp as a teenager.

    Like


  299. “Would game work on you?”

    Lily,

    Yeah, forget the namby-pamby gay-boy palm-reading/astrology bullshiters (‘Mystery’ was a case in pussy-point) and come to bed to a REAL BADASS like me. Same goes for you Laura. Will do a three-some with the two of you if you want.

    Like


  300. @coyote

    Well, depends what Laura looks like.
    And more importantly, what you look like? Do you look like Johnny Depp? If you do, and you have game but leave out the astrology and the cube and don’t feel the need to slap me in the face, it doesn’t really matter what Laura looks like 😉

    “REAL BADASS”
    As women, I do like a bad boy but it’s all relative. I suspect my definition and yours are pretty different 😉

    Like


  301. Thanks coyote, that’s a nice offer. The reason I asked is because Lily is a little older than a lot of the women these guys are trying to meet, although she is younger than me. I think your perception changes somewhat as you get older, but I guess being a girl you still respond to the same things.

    Like


  302. @Laura
    I actually think older women who have not been on the dating scene for a while may be more vulnerable to game (albeit not the fuzzy hats and palm reading) than early twenties girls who are exposed to it on a regular basis. And perhaps the ‘good girls’ in their twenties who don’t hang out in bars and clubs on a regular basis.

    I put good girls in inverted commas as I don’t like the whole madonna/whore thing. That’s what i find frustrating about the coloured pill thing, most women never claimed to be what some of the PUAs claim they thought they were when they were growing up (and therefore bitter that women werent who they thought they were).

    Like


  303. on July 14, 2010 at 8:59 pm Steve Johnson

    Lily,

    “I put good girls in inverted commas”

    Pretty sick. I’ll have to try that.

    Like


  304. wrong thread.

    Like


  305. “Just be yourself”

    Translation: You’ll never be an Alpha male so don’t bother trying.

    Like


  306. McArdle is a horse-faced 37 year old who was dumped by her first husband. She got her revenge by hooking up with her latest husband, a 28 year old kid from Niceville, GA (for real) who is also a libertarian and loves her for her mind.

    He is a bit weak willed, and his family (according to some locals) sees the marriage as a mistake and wishes she would pick on someone her own age, since her shrivelled up womb and mannish attitude makes it likely his line is now extinct.

    Then again, he could grow a pair, realize he doesn’t have to be her handmaiden for the rest of his life, and dump her.

    Given McArdle’s history, her screed seems more calculated to reassure her boytoy that it is HE who is the real man and.not you. I give it 3 years before he either fights free or is a total doormat.

    Like


  307. Aside from being 20 years past her prime, and being 6’2″, McArdle seems pretty hot to me.

    Of course, if I ordered a $300/hour call girl, I would expect a lot more.

    It still amazes me that I can have sex with such hot women for such a paltry sum, when far inferior “real” women won’t give me the time of day.

    Like


  308. Roissy (and commentators),

    Part of the problem with this blog is that you’re very fond of putting people into little boxes… and those boxes may fit very well with your particular experiences, but they don’t fit well with reality.

    And no, the irony of using the term box is not lost on me. 😉

    Now, granted, for your purposes here, the boxes are useful. Going to bars and trying to sleep with the women that are commonly there means that the sides you see of women are limited. You see women that game works on, and you see women that it doesn’t work on. One box for each. You see your male friends go for the same beautiful women over and over again, because those women are “universally” the most attractive in the room. This leads you to conclude that game works because of evolutionary psychology… because certain characteristics were necessary for survival and procreation once.

    The reality that I see every day does not fit that model. I have no doubt that evolutionary psychology is real, but our study of it now is extremely tenuous and flawed at best. It doesn’t explain outliers… and saying that a majority of men want to sleep with Scarlet or Megan ignores the real fact that different men have different preferences in women. You all make up these fantastic theories as to why Ashton is with Demi, but why couldn’t the truth be more simple… that he is attracted to hot older women? Just look at porn… it shouldn’t take more than 2 seconds to find the huge piles of MILF porn, teacher porn etc. This is obviously a real preference and fantasy that some men have. What about chubby chasers? There’s porn for that too, and lots of it. It’s a poor explanation to dismiss those men as betas simply on their preferences… once, back when food was much more scarce, large women were the physical ideal.

    It goes beyond that, too. Some men genuinely get tired of banging different women all the time and enjoy settling down. That doesn’t mean they’re betas… it means that their priorities in life have shifted (and usually that they found someone with whom the sex is fucking fantastic). I’ve met a few of those… even dated one once.

    I have no problem with men trying to learn some social skills… and you do get a lot right here. Desperation is the best way to turn most women away, and many behaviors that you consider “beta” smack of desperation. Many men DO need to learn not to put the pussy on a pedestal.

    The problem is when you swing the pendulum in the other direction. The way many of you are speaking here, you seem to consider pussy to be something you have a RIGHT to. You don’t. It doesn’t belong to you. If pussy is a right, then women do not own their own bodies… and if they don’t own their own bodies, they are necessarily inferior to men. In one swing of the pendulum, you have gone from wimpy to misogynistic. It’s like people who read Atlas Shrugged and become obsessive objectivists… then find a few flaws in the philosophy and reject the entire thing altogether, calling it adolescent trash. “I liked Ayn Rand once… then I grew up.” Many men idealized women once, put them on a pedestal… then knocked them off the pedestal and decided that women are inferior after all.

    Let’s meet in the middle, okay? If all you want to do is get laid by the hottest chick in the room, fine. I have no issue with that, so long as she consents. If there are social skills you can learn that will help you do that, by all means. But don’t think that just because all the women you meet in bars and are willing to sleep with you appear to fit into your little boxes that all of us women do. Some women don’t like power games, whether they’re wielded by men OR women… and I can tell you that of all the women I know in relationships (all with what you would describe as betas), none of them are in love with their men because their men pay for things or do things for them or are subjigated. They love their men because their men make them laugh… they have fun with them… they make each other feel like better people… and their sex lives are fucking fantastic.

    Like


  309. Oh fuck, I just looked at more photos of McArdle. Uggh. More a 4 or 5 than hot.

    Like


  310. >I have no doubt that evolutionary psychology is real, but our study of it now is extremely tenuous and flawed at best.

    What is this? Nerd school or seduction school?

    >It doesn’t explain outliers

    Outliers are by definition rare. There’s always going to be outliers but heuristics that work ‘well enough’ don’t need to explain them do they? Are you an outlier…nerd girl?

    >Some men genuinely get tired of banging different women all the time

    Impossible

    >Let’s meet in the middle, okay?

    Why ‘in the middle’? I would rather we meet at your place.

    >If all you want to do is get laid by the hottest chick in the room, fine.

    Great! No problem then. Provided you fit in this box.

    >… and their sex lives are fucking fantastic.

    Not as good as they’d be if all your friends were banging an Alpha like me.

    Like


  311. Game works so powerfully and dangerously that it can fuck up your life: incurable STDs, psycho bitches, stalkers, drama, violence from jealous males.

    It needs to come with a warning. It’s amazing how mechanistic it all is, how it can be codified and mastered.

    Like


  312. Yeah, outlier is probably the wrong term for what I meant… because really, while there may be more men in the group who like socially-accepted beauty than not, the majority of men have slightly or wildly different preferences. Like I mentioned, all you have to do is look at the huge variety of porn out there to see just a sampling of those preferences.

    And yeah, proud & happy nerd girl here. One that your game wouldn’t work on simply because I’m not attracted to people I don’t know very well. But I wouldn’t be your target market anyway, so it’s a win-win.

    Like


  313. Game is a good start.

    Living and being interesting is how you finish. — Master Beta

    If you’ve got game, they’ll convince themselves you lead an interesting life.

    When I was about 28, I was in pretty good shape, had a nice car and enough money to buy rounds of drinks, and spent a lot of time doing manly activities like golf. On paper, I was a great catch, but I couldn’t get dates because I was a stammering beta. One time in a bar, when I was drunk enough to lose some of my shyness, two bisexual girls were sitting on my lap talking about how much they liked ‘performing’ for guys, but I was such a clueless perfect gentleman that they soon gave up and moved on.

    When I started learning about Game at about 32, I was fatter and balder, living in cheap rentals, driving an old truck that didn’t even have a radio or air conditioning, and so broke that dates had to come to my place and watch a movie on my 13-inch TV. And come they did, although I hid none of this from them. I pulled more women in one year of online chatting than I had in my entire life previously. I don’t know exactly how they explained away my objective deadbeat status, but they did somehow. One girl’s sister told me after our breakup that her sis was convinced I had money and was just hiding it, because a guy as smart and talented as me couldn’t really be broke.

    Now, of course the ideal is to have the interesting life and project it with Game. And I do think the ideal Game is developing true inner confidence and swagger, because if it’s just a play you put on in public, it’s going to fail once you’re with a woman for a while, and your inner beta will emerge and ruin things. (If you’re just looking for one-nighters, it doesn’t matter.) But if you have to choose between Game or money/looks/life-activities, Game will get you much farther for a lot less work — and it can give you a level of success (more than zero, at least) that can kick-start the rest.

    Like


  314. […] Telling Girls You Were Once Engaged, Aging Urban Broads: The Manliest Of Women, Feminists Still Not Getting It, Never Will, Why You Should Leave […]

    Like


  315. […] Telling Girls You Were Once Engaged, Aging Urban Broads: The Manliest Of Women, Feminists Still Not Getting It, Never Will, She’s A Superflirt, and Why You Should Leave […]

    Like


  316. “”According to McArdle’s impeccable logic, I suppose the billions of women who studiously do their hair, dress in the latest fashions, wear makeup, tone their glutes, play hard to get, and consume everything from herbal elixirs to plastic surgery in order to turn back the hands of time are acting manly. “”

    In Hong Kong a recent “hobby” for women is pole dancing. The girls learning it are not strippers or sluts. They’re women who often are kind of shlubs who through learning this suddenly increase their value on the dating market and sexuality.

    I banged one of these pole dancing girls recently. She was a 6, but had a hot body and through learning pole dancing was able to get me interested enough that she completely opened up and was doing things she’d never consider doing—like blowing me in a back alley.

    So…are feminists writing long wooly opinion pieces on how pole dancing is turning nice girls into sluts? Far from it.

    So again the more I learn about game and read about “game-haters”, the more I wonder what their motivations are.

    It’s essentially to keep the sexual power balance in check.

    If some 5 or 6 through discovering pole dancing can suddenly increase her confidence and find guys drooling over themselves to bang her, then why shouldn’t men be learning and improving game?

    Like


  317. […] – “Aging Urban Broads: The Manliest of Women“, “Feminists Still Not Getting It, Never Will“, “Why You Should Leave After […]

    Like


  318. on July 18, 2010 at 7:21 pm Arise Awake!

    I disagree that men climb the corporate ladder or invent stuff or work hard SOLELY to attract women. I think the real movers, shakers, builders and inventors do it because they are driven to. Especially with scientists and inventors – they have a passion for and fascination with what they are doing.

    I also agree with the middle aged woman here that obsessing over attracting the opposite sex is immature and unhealthy – something that once you are past your teens or early twenties should make way for other aspects of living.

    I personally find talks about relationships and male-female dynamics to be boring. I imagine a lot of people do.

    Like


  319. on July 18, 2010 at 7:28 pm A Man's Man

    I disagree that men climb the corporate ladder or invent stuff or work hard SOLELY to attract women. I think the real movers, shakers, builders and inventors do it because they are driven to. Especially with scientists and inventors – they have a passion for and fascination with what they are doing.

    I also agree with the middle aged woman here that obsessing over attracting the opposite sex is immature and unhealthy – something that once you are past your teens or early twenties should make way for other aspects of living.

    I personally find talks about relationships and male-female dynamics to be boring. I imagine a lot of people do.

    SINcerely,
    ARISE AWAKE!

    Like


  320. Are you GBFM?

    One by one, they step forward.

    “I’m GBFM.”
    “No, I’m GBFM.”
    “No, I’m Spart … that is, GBFM.”
    “I’m GBFM.”
    “Cockas!”
    etc

    Ask not whom GBFM may be. He is thee.

    Like


  321. If you’re into pedestalization, keep her on the pedestal. Disappointment lurks at its steps, and by now you should know it.

    Like


  322. My girl is going to school for communications. She told me tonight that she wants to write, produce, and star in a t.v. show with my help.

    Heh heh heh, nah too easy.

    Like


  323. But given that you make it impossible for others to mock your looks, your fashion sense, your job — or even to verify that you do sleep with lots of attractive women — you should not get personal with those you disagree with.

    Hey Scoop, it’s an unfair world.

    Like


  324. […] Roissy In DC: Yet another churlish, resentful SWPL broad is on the warpath against game, armed with the same primitive stone tools all the other anti-game broads wield. […]

    Like


  325. Aweful lot of attention to this “aging broad”.

    She appears to have done quite well actually. They are both average looking. The fact that she’s been able to snatch an ok looking and university educated man almost 10 years her junior is also commendable – guys in their late 20s tend to be the pickiest and hardest to get as they are the most sought after (given that they look alright and have a career) and have a multitude of choices. It appears that their chemistry is based on intellectual compatibility and interest. That happens sometimes with intellectuals if the dynamic is right. And, naturally, she has chosen a “dad” over a “cad”, since she is smart and knows what’s better for her at this age. Women who tend to fall for alpha players in their early youth (not assuming that she is one of those, she most likely must have been a “nerd”), move out of that preference as they get into their late 20s and move into their 30s. The priorities change. The playing is over and they opt for stability. And there are plenty of relatively ok looking, faithful and kind men who can offer that.

    And Ashton doesn’t get anything on the side. It would have been discovered by the paparazzi (such things are impossible to hide in those high profile relationships). He genuinly loves her. She’s really lucky, he’s so hot. Of course, it benefited him too in terms of exposure. They’ve actually been together for quite some time now, it seems they’re over the 5 year mark (which is rare in Hollywood, many of those aging male actors don’t get past that mark with their young girlfriends).

    Like


  326. Ashton is hypergamous lol

    [editor: ashton is an extreme exception to the rule. and despite the expertise of the paparazzi, i’ve no doubt he’s got young mistresses on the side, and probably with demi’s blessing as well.]

    Like


  327. @editor

    You’re right, he is an extreme exception. Demi did well for herself. I don’t see why anyone would criticise her for that (like I don’t see why anyone would criticise the woman journalist whose name I’ve forgotten, it seems so long ago now 🙂 Sure people may think the guy could have done better for himself but you know, well done to her, at least she wont have 20+ years on her own in old age after marrying an older man).

    I also wouldn’t be surprised if Ashton does have young women on the side and Demi knows (or casts a blind eye), it’s no different to a young woman marrying a super alpha (HSV as well as HMV) and having a blind eye to side things French-style. It’s just par of the course.

    Like


  328. Ashton is not an extreme exception.

    [editor: yes, he is, particularly among his hollywood set. the great majority of famous men date considerably younger, hotter, tighter women.]

    There have always been such couples, they just haven’t been publicized.

    [and there will be pie in the sky by and by.]

    If he had anything on the side, it would have been discovered, photographed. The paparazzi inspect their lives with a microscope and they literally have to run away from them. It would have been uncovered, just like many other celebrity affairs have been. Yet, in their case, there are none. Simply by the way he talks about her, you can tell that he truly loves her.

    And Demi wouldn’t have a problem getting another man, even younger.

    [demi moore is another example of an extreme outlier. she looks better than 99.9999% of women her age. but even she will have to contend with the wall, and sooner rather than later. the hour is late for demi. i predict their relationship won’t last another couple of years. you heard it here first.]

    Like


  329. Btw.. does Megan know Roissy exists?

    [editor: she does now. heheheh.]

    Like


  330. “Yes, he is, particularly among his hollywood set. the great majority of famous men date considerably younger, hotter, tighter women.”

    Yea, like Mel Gibson. LOL

    Like


  331. His hips are fuckin’ amazing.

    Like


  332. Ashton’s hips, of course.

    Like


  333. […] her, she had no idea what she was talking about and her off-the-cuff remarks ended up serving as fodder for some of the most popular game theorists in the blogosphere. She wrote a follow-up post in an attempt to explain herself but that turned out to be an epic fail […]

    Like


  334. The author seems to say that learning PU is not manly. If not, so what? If getting laid by a bunch of attractive women isn’t manly, then I don’t need to be manly, thanks very much.

    Like