Maxim #77: Women will screech louder the closer your words get to damaging or exposing vulnerabilities in their sexual market value.
Based on the above maxim (and as amply demonstrated by the recent histrionic howling of the jezguzzling automatards shrieking on cue when confronted with my disconcerting words of truth), the top three soulkilling disses, in descending order of female ego destruction:
- Being called ugly
- Being called old
- Being called a slut
Corollary to Maxim #77: Assuming your words aren’t too wide of the mark thus blunting the serrated edge of their slice, the worst insult you can call a woman is “hideously ugly old cougar cumfunneling whore”.*
This has been a public service announcement courtesy of The Hell Matrix From Which You Can Run, But Cannot Escape.
PS The male equivalents are:
- Being called a loser
- Being called a coward
- Being called a fag
*Note that some women, particularly those of the fat, slutty and spinstery variety, will co-opt these words and use them among themselves in a transparently feeble attempt to mute their power to psychologically wound. When you hear women doing this, know that their soft underbellies are turned up for the quick and easy evisceration. “Cunt” is an especially vicious insult that never fails to get under the skin.
Madonna.
LikeLike
“Being called a slut”
Most girls demand this one in the bedroom though.
– MPM
LikeLike
I think slut is thrown around so liberally it has lost some of it’s condemnation.
Coward is way worse than a loser.
LikeLike
“Slut” has lost its meaning, as has “loser.” “Whore” still packs a punch. For men, the worst insults are “failure,” “boring,” and “coward.”
LikeLike
Most girls demand this one in the bedroom though.
true. they also like being called bitch and whore and (sometimes) cunt in the bedroom. but that is because girls want to assume a position of submissiveness during hot sex, and being called these things work very well at putting them in their oh so pleasurable place.
I think slut is thrown around so liberally it has lost some of it’s condemnation.
nah, that’s just something sluts tell themselves to ease the burden of their sexual history.
and judging by the hysteria of the jezebel horde, i’d say my observation is spot on.
cum to think of it, being called a slut is more powerful when a man uses it, since men are less likely than backstabbing catty female friends to insidiously hurl the slut smear.
i mean, why kill the loose goose that lays the fertile eggs?
Coward is way worse than a loser.
no. coward is too context dependent.
loser works in every situation.
LikeLike
I couldn’t care less if someone calls me a coward. Usually the word is used by someone who wants you to get into a fight of some kind, whether physical or not, that you find it prudent to stay out of. Taking offense at “coward” is the equivalent of feeling like you have to fight a guy in a bar who says “What are you looking at?” – it’s just stupid.
LikeLike
For men, the worst insults are “failure,” “boring,” and “coward.”
“boring” and “failure” are functionally equivalent to “loser”.
as is “virgin”.
btw, “fat” is equivalent to “ugly” for women.
LikeLike
You forgot the absolutely hilarious “he probably has a small dick” comeback, the height of female wit.
LikeLike
they also like being called bitch and whore and (sometimes) cunt in the bedroom. but that is because girls want to assume a position of submissiveness during hot sex, and being called these things work very well at putting them in their oh so pleasurable place.
It’s that and more.
LikeLike
“Slut,” “ugly?” Pffft. You wanna see the sisterhood break out the mace, tell one of them in her late 30’s she’s too old to have kids.
LikeLike
“Cunt” is an especially vicious insult that NEVER fails to get under the skin.
In transactional analysis using “never” constitutes taking the child role in a transaction.
Within the overarching framework of transactional analysis, more recent transactional analysts have elaborated several different, if overlapping, “flavors:” cognitive, behavioral, relational, redecision, integrative, constructivist, narrative, body-work, positive psychological, personality adaptational, self-reparenting, psychodynamic, and neuroconstructivist[citation needed]. Some transactional analysts[who?] highlight the many things they have in common with cognitive-behavioral therapists: the use of contracts with clear goals, the attention to cognitive distortions (called “Adult decontamination” or “Child deconfusion”), the focus on the client’s conscious attitudes and behaviors and the use of “strokes”[citation needed]. Cognitive-based transactional analysts use ego state identification to identify communication distortions and teach different functional options in the dynamics of communication. Some have the competence[weasel words]to make additional contracts for more profound work involving life-plans or scripts or with unconscious processes, including those which manifest in the client-therapist relationship as transference and countertransference, and define themselves as psychodynamic or relational transactional analysts. Some[weasel words]highlight the study and promotion of subjective well-being and optimal human functioning rather than pathology and so identify with positive psychology[citation needed]. Many[weasel words]are increasingly influenced by current research in attachment, mother-infant interaction, and by the implications of interpersonal neurobiology, and non-linear dynamic systems.
Now wasn’t that fun??
LikeLike
Failure is, indeed, the functional equivalent of loser, but the phonetics of “failure” are more powerful. It’s the same reason I use “fuck” in nearly every spoken sentence. And ever since that Beck song, the meaning of loser has been diluted.
Wilson: Has a woman ever called you a coward? Because THAT has to hurt, especially if she a long-term partner. Not that it has ever happened to me, but I cringe to think about it. I think of Werner Herzog assessing one of his own perceived failures, and saying to himself, in that rich accent, “I was being a coward.” That’s a man looking into his own soul.
LikeLike
“he probably has a small dick”
And she probably has a limited imagination, vocabulary and friends dedicated to propping up her imaginary world built on the premise that “someday I’ll find the man I want…until then, lemme get some more shoes”
LikeLike
It’s easy to hurt a girl’s feelings, next you should do a blog post on how to fall off a log. This sort of childish sadism is really unpalatable.
LikeLike
Now wasn’t that fun??
sara, i am obama to the tingle up your leg.
now lay back, close your eyes, and slip into dreamlike pleasure as i plunge my wicked words into the soft wet undulating folds of your lubricated limbic system.
LikeLike
“true. they also like being called bitch and whore and (sometimes) cunt in the bedroom. but that is because girls want to assume a position of submissiveness during hot sex, and being called these things work very well at putting them in their oh so pleasurable place.”
Good points!
LikeLike
It’s easy to hurt a girl’s feelings, next you should do a blog post on how to fall off a log.
oh, i don’t hurt just any person’s feelings. some of them deserve it.
This sort of childish sadism is really unpalatable.
is it sadistic to point out the truth?
yes, yes, i suppose it is.
LikeLike
It is both fascinating and pathetically sad to watch the casual throwing away of the prime years of feminine beauty, thinking that of course your great career status will keep the attractions coming…this ensuing emptiness is at some gut level very much understood, which is why the words can wound so much.
LikeLike
jonathanjones02, your comment was on point, but your pic looks like Aleksandr Solzhenytsin with a cock in his mouth.
LikeLike
Don’t be daft, the revelation of most truth is not sadistic: It is cold in the winter, birds fly through the sky. Most truth is banal, some truth is even beautiful. We are necessarily selective in what truths we speak because most truth is boring and not informative. It is not sadistic to point out the truth, it is sadistic to selectively seek out the worst truths about a girl about the things she’s most vulnerable about and say them with the desire to hurt her. Of course you already knew that, because while you are far from as smart as you seem to think you are, to miss the distinction would require being legitimately stupid.
LikeLike
Chicken and egg thing. Does it matter because it goes to the heart of what current society tells us is valuable in a woman? Or is it something innate? Does society tell us the worst thing for a man to be is a failure, but the same isn’t true of a woman. I’ve always heard the worst thing you could call a woman is a bad mother, while being a bad dad is almost inherent in the concept of “Dad”. Is this still true?
LikeLike
I dunno. As a man, “sweet” or “nice” would be more painful to hear than loser/coward/fag. But that’s just me.
LikeLike
Who uses the word “coward” anymore? That sounds like something out of an old Western movie. Loser is the be-all and end-all of male insults.
As for penis size, why doesn’t anyone think to retort to these online insults from women with: “You probably have a mile-wide snatch?”
LikeLike
Actually, the worst insults for men are “deadbeat,” “batterer,” “abusive,” etc.
These ones have real consequences, and are frequently used punitively in court, whether true or not.
I wrote about it here:
http://www.welmer.org/2008/08/31/sticks-and-stones/
Kind of puts the whining about how nasty it is to call women “sluts” in perspective, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Coward is much worse than loser. It is possible, or almost possible, for a man to take a perverse sort of pride in being a loser, as in being a slacker or a Bart Simpson-style deliberate underachiever. There is absolutely no way to put anything but the most negative possible spin on being a coward.
Peter
LikeLike
Gunner:
Clever riposte. I think you nailed that little morsel nicely, but you hung an even bigger hunk of sophistry out there in the process. I suspect you know it, too.
Of course most truths are banal. But the value of articulating and yes, reiterating, a particular truth goes up in proportion to the degree that it’s taboo. If everyone insisted that birds burrowed in the ground and it is hot in the winter, you’d be right to point out they were wrong, even if that meant hurting people who had been so blinded by the “hot-winter/ground-bird” school of thought that it was painful for their egos to hear it.
And while the particular truth in this particular post might be on the “cruel” side of the truth ledger, it’s of a piece with the rest of the truths about modern American women… that is, the underlying reasons why these words cut them so deeply, which I won’t bother to articulate here but which I’ve found roissy has done a pretty spot-on job of articulating in the archives.
LikeLike
“Being called a slut”
There are a faction of women (heavily concentrated in the “Sand States” – California, Nevada, Florida and Arizona) that have taken “Being called a slut” as a compliment.
Look at how girls dress these days and act.
Side note:
These girls do not exist in DC.
Historical side note:
This attitude can be traced to the early to mid nineties in Southern California. ie the Club Rubber, “Cum if you Can” and Pimp an Ho Extacy parties.
LikeLike
loser:
Don’t be daft, the revelation of most truth is not sadistic:
irrelevant.
the truth i speak here — the truth of the sexual market — is clearly sadistic as measured by the amount of pain it causes those who don’t wish to hear it. which is some men and nearly all women.
it just so happens that the most important truths about humanity are also the least joyfully accepted.
It is cold in the winter, birds fly through the sky. Most truth is banal, some truth is even beautiful. We are necessarily selective in what truths we speak because most truth is boring and not informative.
or impolite to discuss.
It is not sadistic to point out the truth, it is sadistic to selectively seek out the worst truths about a girl about the things she’s most vulnerable about and say them with the desire to hurt her.
before you carry yourself away attempting to reframe the argument such that your hazy non-point gains some traction, i will remind you and whoever is reading you hoping for a savior to topple the Great Roissy Bringer of Illimitable Tears that my original post about identifying sluts was not aimed at any one particular woman, and was in fact an incisive acknowledgement and analysis of the very real costs and benefits that accrue to women in the sexual market who sleep around. i discuss truths here that most are uncomfortable confronting, especially those who cocoon themselves in a padded chamber of soft pillowy lies as witnessed by the jezebel vajanx squealing like stuck pigs when i made an accurate observation about human nature that one ought not to.
that you misconstrue my illuminating of reality as a desire to hurt any one girl is a problem of incomprehension that is a peculiar affliction of those who cannot refrain from personalizing issues that strike at their tender cores.
i.e. betas.
Of course you already knew that, because while you are far from as smart as you seem to think you are, to miss the distinction would require being legitimately stupid.
it felt good to write this, didn’t it?
i will soon have you betray your deepest principles, just like i did to others here who tried to probe for a weak spot in your humble narrator.
hi nicole!
LikeLike
re: G Manifesto
I don’t get you. How did you learn about so many different areas of the usa, clothes, etc., whilst you were living in your grandmother’s basement?
Nobody believes you.
LikeLike
peter:
It is possible, or almost possible, for a man to take a perverse sort of pride in being a loser, as in being a slacker or a Bart Simpson-style deliberate underachiever.
not if a woman calls him that.
There is absolutely no way to put anything but the most negative possible spin on being a coward.
true, but loser is more generalizable, while the sting of the word coward depends on the specific context.
G:
There are a faction of women (heavily concentrated in the “Sand States” – California, Nevada, Florida and Arizona) that have taken “Being called a slut” as a compliment.
squid ink.
try going up to one of these self-professed sluts and calling them exactly what they call themselves, except without the smile and glib attitude, and tell me how they respond.
LikeLike
At Wounded Animal: “Slut,” “ugly?” Pffft. You wanna see the sisterhood break out the mace, tell one of them in her late 30’s she’s too old to have kids.
WA is right on target with this insult. I was at my local dog park last October, talking with a few of the regulars about the upcoming election, when a late fifties- early sixties woman injected herself into the conversation.
Old hag: I hate that Sarah Palin! [Referencing abortion] I won’t have anyone telling me what I can and can’t do with my body!
Me: (with a wry smirk on my face) I don’t think you have to worry too much about that any more.
The two other 20 something women and one guy there tried hard not to break out laughing, and as soon as the old hag grasped my meaning, she collected her dog and stormed off in a huff.
LikeLike
Roissy, you may be right in a general way about these insults being especially hard for women to take. I’d still caution any man against using them in an attempt at revenging himself on a woman who has injured him in some way. Somehow when a man in a fit of pique hurls insults at you, it’s hard to take him or his words seriously.
You might hate to be called a loser or coward, but if a date stormed out of your apartment shouting these words at you, I doubt that they’d have much impact. Just like the attempted insults of the Jezebel gang haven’t wounded you at all (so far as I can tell). You know they’re furious; therefore you know they’ll grasp whatever insult comes to mind, whether true or false.
LikeLike
Anonymous: Does it matter because it goes to the heart of what current society tells us is valuable in a woman? Or is it something innate?
Cultural or biological, you ask? These values might very well be cultural, but culture doesn’t develop in a vacuum either. There are biological reasons why culture is the way it is. In today’s age of protected sex and material prosperity, it no longer makes sense for women to be more sexually inhibited than men. Neither do values like monogamy or a range of emotions dealing with mating influence reproductive success either, for that matter. But natural selection lags. So you might continue to see promiscuity in the rise among women, but ultimately eggs are a scarce resource, so a woman will be biologically punished if her mating standards are too low when they do intend to have reproductive sex.
The sexual market is a hot topic in economics nowadays. I haven’t dig into an actual paper on that yet, though I hear Lena Edlund, 2005, Sex and the City to be a very interesting one.
(By the way, Roissy, are you an economist? Kudos from Portugal for the only interesting blog in the web.)
LikeLike
the G Manifesto would like to respond, but he’s too busy right now swoopin’ fly hoes on the daily and makin’ they panties drop.
honestly guys, we should all be honored that this international playboy spends so much of his precious jewel-heisting time commenting here.
LikeLike
Of course it felt good but not because I thought it would be cruel but because I think I got the better of you. You’re easy to peg, you rolled on your back and presented your soft tummy, you call yourself incisive and illuminating, the light bringer seems to protest to much.
You’re conflating two truths the first is the cruel truth of calling an ugly girl ugly. That is sadistic. The second is the more interesting (but still sort of inaccurate) “truth” of the effectiveness of an insult being tied up in the sexual market value of someone. That’s not sadistic and wasn’t what I was talking about.
I think you make a mistake of viewing the world through the keyhole of sexual dynamics. They don’t explain as much as you seem to think. Take calling a girl stupid. This probably will hurt a girl out of proportion with the influence of a females intelligence on her sexual market value. It doesn’t fit your world view so it is discounted. Suppose a girl writes poems, telling her that her poems aren’t any good will hurt her a great deal. But really a girl being a good poet has almost nothing to do with her sexual market value. I know it’s a specific case and it would have been silly for you address it but it illustrates the larger point that effective insults are those that strike at the core of a individuals self conception. Sexual market value is a big part of that but it is not necessarily the most important part (though it is one of the few games that we’re all playing). Some people’s self conception is very wrapped up in their sexual market value but I think this is a case where you’re projecting a bit.
I don’t hate you as much as you think I do.
LikeLike
clio, i agree. the worst moment to fling the savagery of darwinian insults is when your opponent most expects them. usually, this is right after he/she has stuck the shiv in you. the best time is when you are cool, calm, and cold as ice, and your foe is genuinely vulnerable to the targeting system of your insults.
You might hate to be called a loser or coward, but if a date stormed out of your apartment shouting these words at you, I doubt that they’d have much impact.
this has happened to me. and, yes, it didn’t much move me. if anything, i felt a tinge of pity for her.
Just like the attempted insults of the Jezebel gang haven’t wounded you at all (so far as I can tell).
the jezebel gang is an interesting “crisis and observation” test case.
LikeLike
There is a high degree of correlation between coward and loser. Yes, the context dependent distinction Roissy draws is valid. It’s possible for a brave soldier to be a coward about talking to women. But isn’t being cowardly inherent (though not necessarily sufficient) for being a loser? Have you ever heard of a cowardly winner?
LikeLike
I couldn’t care less if someone calls me a coward. Usually the word is used by someone who wants you to get into a fight of some kind, whether physical or not, that you find it prudent to stay out of.
That’s true if they’re clearly trying to bait you. But if there’s some truth to the claim or if you’re about to get a reputation for it (whether or not it’s true), being a coward is much worse than being a loser.
A loser can always redeem himself – just stop smoking pot, go back to school and get a job. The only way to redeem a display of cowardice is a display of bravery in an unexpected situation and opportunities for that don’t show up all the time. Forcing danger by taking up mountain climbing or lion taming will only look like compensation.
LikeLike
Have you ever heard of a cowardly winner?
All the time. Cowardice wouldn’t have to be called cowardice if it weren’t often the smarter move. Let’s, for example, say that you’re walking deserted streets alone in the night and you spot a building that’s on fire. There’s an old, disabled lady screaming for help in the window. Do you
a) Keep walking, knowing that no one will ever know; everything in your life is sure to stay the same
b) Run inside to rescue the old lady, knowing that you’re risking your life for no likely benefit
Game theory would say that a) is the “best” option for the bystander. That’s exactly why we consider it the coward’s option and why such cowardice is considered a disgusting act. Cowardice is, by definition, excessively valuing your own safety above that of others. (When people call a man who’s afraid to talk to women a “coward”, it’s a joke – we’re implying that it’s as if he believes women to be actually dangerous. It’s friendly, not a serious accusation.)
LikeLike
Coward is much worse than loser. It is possible, or almost possible, for a man to take a perverse sort of pride in being a loser . . . There is absolutely no way to put anything but the most negative possible spin on being a coward.
I don’t get this at all. I’ve never heard a man called a “coward” in real life, and it has no visceral sting like “loser”. How many harpies over at Jezebel were calling roissy a “loser” compared to a “coward”? That insult is meaningless.
Also men spin “coward” into a positive trait all the time. Haven’t you ever watched black male comedians? There’s all kinds of variants on the joke about white people being too absurd to be prudently cowardly. Like white guys trying to reason with muggers, white people “Xtreme” sports like skiing, and so on. Chris Tucker is always acting out this same shtick on the big screen: you be white, brave, and dead, I’ll be black, alive, and cowardly.
LikeLike
I’ve always heard the worst thing you could call a woman is a bad mother…
I could see that being much worse than slut depending on the context. I had an affair with a mother several years ago and during one of our arguments I said “You could never be as good a wife or mother as her” referring to my then girlfriend. She instantly burst into tears and ran out of the room. Slut cuts to the core of a woman, but the core isn’t too deep in the shallow jizz buckets to whom this term applies. But for 99% of mothers, motherhood is the very essence of their existence.
LikeLike
“Have you ever heard of a cowardly winner?”
W? He won the 2004 election, and I think few would argue he’s the bravest guy to occupy the Oval Office.
LikeLike
You’re missing the supreme male insult:
creep
If a girl calls you this amidst a group of friends, your sexual value with all women in the vicinity drops to zero. You might as well pull out that anti-cockblocking move Roosh has been talking about.
LikeLike
The worst insult for either men or women in the US is to be called a racist.
LikeLike
I think too many people are hung up on the literal usage of the word “coward,” which I agree is no longer part of our everyday vernacular. But replace it with the word “wuss,” “pussy” or “punk bitch” which mean the same thing and I think most would agree that it’s a worse insult. Like jaakkeli says, it’s easier to redeem a “loser” rep than a rep as a “pussy.”
LikeLike
Please give specific evidence as to his cowardice.
LikeLike
Dom Dickers,
“I don’t get you. How did you learn about so many different areas of the usa, clothes, etc., ”
Its called “Travel”. You should look into it.
“whilst you were living in your grandmother’s basement?”
No grandmothers left.
“Nobody believes you.”
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
I suggest “Travel” though.
– MPM
LikeLike
Texas air national guard to avoid Vietnam service. Though I wouldn’t personally argue that W is particularly cowardly.
LikeLike
I only hear “pussy” used by guys among each other, and it’s never in a way that carries long-term stigma or genuine social penalty in the eyes of other men or women. I’ve only heard it used as a kind of faux motivational insult: “Go talk to that girl. Don’t be a fucking pussy, man. Puuussssy. Pussssy.” Usually this works, but when it doesn’t, bros still be bros. They didn’t really care, they were just trying to push you for your own good.
‘Loser’ and ‘creepy’ on the other hand are almost always used by male sexual rivals or female sexual rejectors who are trying to cut you down or write you out of the picture as quickly and thoroughly as possible. And that’s what really hurts.
Again, how many of those shrews were calling roissy a ‘pussy’ or any variant of that?
LikeLike
There’s something a woman can be called that’s far, far, worse than slut or skank or ho or even c**t:
“Shaved.”
Peter
LikeLike
jkc,
“the G Manifesto would like to respond, but he’s too busy right now swoopin’ fly hoes on the daily and makin’ they panties drop.”
Ha. Actually, I have been working on biz today. I never say “fly hoes”. I prefer “fly girls”. More respectful.
“honestly guys, we should all be honored that this international playboy spends so much of his precious jewel-heisting time commenting here.”
Roissy’s site is worth it.
– MPM
LikeLike
jkc,
Cool art by the way.
– MPM
LikeLike
“The worst insult for either men or women in the US is to be called a racist.”
Yes, but only among white people, who tend to have a pathological fear of it. To the point where unless you are marching in a Klan rally and screaming about white power, you couldn’t possibly be a racist. Racists being the ultimate emodiment of evil, who could never have any redeeming qualities, and yet still be a racist.
I think “rapist” is a pretty effective ultimate insult for a guy. Once a guy is called that out in a crowd, even if the allegations have never been proven, or he has never even been charged, his social status plummets like a rock.
LikeLike
Evidence that Bush isn’t cowardly is when he dodged that shoe like a pro, and immediately righted himself and looked that guy straight in the eyes. If I was Bush, who is hated by 95% of the world, I would be pissing my pants over the threat of assassination. Especially if I was in Iraq. If some deperate fanatic threw some mysterious object at me, I’d probably be jumpy as hell. Bush just ducked, smirked, and stared the guy down.
LikeLike
You’re a Finn, right? This “loser” slur seems to carry a lot more weight in the US than any other country I’ve observed. Also, don’t Finns have a reputation for bravery? Perhaps it’s a cultural thing.
Strangely, the term “loser” as it’s usually defined would probably apply to the overwhelming majority of American men. More so than coward, I’d say. This would seem to argue against its potency, but the sad truth is that American men are far more concerned about women’s perception of them than other societies’ men, and calling someone a loser is to state that they have low value in the sexual marketplace, which is Roissy’s focus here.
In a more patriarchal culture “coward” would carry more opprobium than “loser,” but America is anything but patriarchal.
Insults are a mirror image of social values. Interesting.
LikeLike
Just a question/caveat: is “fat” listed under “ugly”? Or is calling a woman fat not in the top three insults?
Calling someone slut by a girl is even more hurtful and insulting in some ways– but only if you don’t sugarcoat it or if you actually bring up her history in conversation. Girls know not to seriously call their friends sluts even if they’ve slept with every available male within a 25 mile radius unless they want to lose the friend.
LikeLike
loser:
You’re easy to peg, you rolled on your back and presented your soft tummy,
plagiarism is the sincerest form of betatude.
you call yourself incisive and illuminating, the light bringer seems to protest to much.
the dreary misapplication with which you fling the “protest too much” putdown permits you to use it for any old blog comment that effectively answers your accusations.
which, in essence, makes your use of it impotently silly.
You’re conflating two truths the first is the cruel truth of calling an ugly girl ugly. That is sadistic.
only if the accuser calls her ugly with the intention of deriving pleasure from tormenting his victim. if she instigated the insult with a lie, for example, by falsely claiming that she is not ugly because beauty is subjective, then correctly pointing out to her that her ugliness is objectively measurable would not necessarily be an exercise in sadism, despite her perception to the contrary.
now i happen to derive pleasure hunting the hunters, such as the jezebel harpy losers, so when i speak of the universal truths of human nature i’m well aware of the frothy reaction it will cause. this is part of the appeal for me. in the way that i tell general truths on my blog there is an element of personal sadistic fulfillment.
The second is the more interesting (but still sort of inaccurate) “truth” of the effectiveness of an insult being tied up in the sexual market value of someone. That’s not sadistic and wasn’t what I was talking about.
it is sadistic if your intention is to cause pain. and insults informed by the biological underpinnings of the sexual market are the ones that deliver the highest voltage. for very clear and present reasons: survival and replication.
I think you make a mistake of viewing the world through the keyhole of sexual dynamics.
the mistake is made by those who don’t.
They don’t explain as much as you seem to think.
you write like an equalist drone.
Take calling a girl stupid. This probably will hurt a girl out of proportion with the influence of a females intelligence on her sexual market value.
a girl’s intelligence has some value in the context of securing long term commitment from a high value man. so, yes, calling her stupid has peripheral connections to the sexual market.
now that i think about it, really hot chicks do seem to be less hurt being called stupid than do men. howard stern used to call the parade of playboy bunnies on his show all sorts of insulting things relating to their intelligence, and they just giggled and fronted with faux indignation as he marvelled at their ta tas and had them stand on hidden weight scales built into the floor.
there is also the even more generalizable survival market, where staying alive is a prerequisite of getting laid. stupidity tends to hamper that goal.
It doesn’t fit your world view so it is discounted.
where have i ever said that calling a girl stupid would have no effect?
do try to keep up, funboy. the underlying theme of my blog is that the refusal to grasp the functioning of the sexual market results in a worldview that is more removed from reality and is a bigger illustration of human weakness than the imagined “problem” of relying too much on gender psychosocial and sexual differences to explain human behavior.
based on the available evidence that is coming at us like a tsunami every day, the burden of proof to scaffold their assertions is not on the darwinists, but on the cultural conditioning blank slatists.
Suppose a girl writes poems, telling her that her poems aren’t any good will hurt her a great deal.
if she doesn’t know you, this won’t have as big an impact as if you were her BF. the reason for that is explainable quite well by sexual dynamic theory.
But really a girl being a good poet has almost nothing to do with her sexual market value. I know it’s a specific case and it would have been silly for you address it but it illustrates the larger point that effective insults are those that strike at the core of a individuals self conception.
writing poems is veneer upon the substructure of mate value. there are many kinds of insults, some more effective than others, but the best are those that plunge the bloody knife deep into the most fragile, and essential, parts of the ego.
Sexual market value is a big part of that but it is not necessarily the most important part (though it is one of the few games that we’re all playing).
you’ve gotta be kidding me.
Some people’s self conception is very wrapped up in their sexual market value but I think this is a case where you’re projecting a bit.
i merely say out loud and with stylish twist what most people feel in their bones. it does not follow that i’m projecting a false sense of ego gratification, except to those whose biases against yours truly and against the brutal darwinian market from which they recoil color their perceptions.
I don’t hate you as much as you think I do.
you will, soon.
LikeLike
Yes, and it the rate of false reports is quite high.
LikeLike
People use the word “loser” too loosely. It has become a way of saying you don’t like a dude, or that he is not Grade A material. That’s why an older word, like “coward,” still has heft…it hasn’t been corrupted by popular culture. Calling a man a “pussy” or a “wuss” (how about “chicken?”) does not have the sting of calling a man a coward. When you hear coward, it makes you feel like you’re in the Old West, defending your classically defined manhood and honor.
LikeLike
G Manifesto,
that’s what i’m sayin’ bro!
thanks for checkin out my site. the rest of y’all should too.
LikeLike
“Loser” comes up more frequently as an insult because its much easier to establish. I can tell if someone is a loser just by reading a few paragraphs of what they write. Take for example the betas who came over from Jezebel to comment. “Coward,” “pussy,” or “wimp” can’t be established until you are in a position of confrontation, which happens a lot less often. No one knows if you’re a coward or wimp for sure until the moment of truth comes in the form of a conflict. But if such a moment of truth comes, especially when it involves defending your woman’s honor or getting insulted in front of your woman, and your response is inadequate, being called a “coward” or “wuss” is pretty much one of the worst things you can hear from your woman. I’ve seen it happen to someone else and it crushed me even to see it happen to another guy, the emasculated look on his face was downright haunting.
It’s worse than loser because one can work hard and redeem a loser reputation. When branded a coward, you have to basically wait until another unsolicited confrontation pops up to redeem yourself, and who knows when that’ll happen? I’d much rather be called a “loser” than a “coward,” “pussy,” or “wuss.”
LikeLike
“But if such a moment of truth comes, especially when it involves defending your woman’s honor or getting insulted in front of your woman, and your response is inadequate, being called a “coward” or “wuss” is pretty much one of the worst things you can hear from your woman.”
Thanks T,
I’ve never encountered this, but I can see that you’re right. Unlike all the other insults this has much less to do with sexual market value, and more to do with masculine pride.
This is much more analogous to calling a women a “bad mother,” as mentioned above. It’s like saying you couldn’t protect your wife and child.
LikeLike
If it’s true that W escaped a draft when most were going to a war, then it definitely makes him a coward. Given the way it worked out, avoiding Vietnam isn’t really the most distasteful act of cowardice you could’ve pulled, but it should definitely disqualify a person from the presidency.
That’s why America has been so unpopular lately. Not because the left hated Bush, as the left will hate America anyway, but because us right-wingers around the world have been lost by this cadre of draft-dodging hawks.
LikeLike
G Manifesto seems pretty cool.
I guess hate really is the new love.
LikeLike
Ben,
“You’re missing the supreme male insult:
creep
If a girl calls you this amidst a group of friends, your sexual value with all women in the vicinity drops to zero.”
Your right.
That is my favorite one to knock a rival out the box. (So to speak.)
Especially effective if the guy really is a “creep”.
Side note:
“creeping” or “creeching” was and still is to some degree, Newport Beach/ Corona del Mar, CA slang. Meaning something similar to “lurking”.
– MPM
LikeLike
sam midhurst,
“G Manifesto seems pretty cool.”
Colder than a Pelican Bay ice pick in January. Just playing. Thanks.
“I guess hate really is the new love.”
Hate is the new Love.
– MPM
LikeLike
rain and:
Unlike all the other insults [being called cowardly] has much less to do with sexual market value, and more to do with masculine pride.
superficially true. men will not take kindly to being called a coward whether women are present to hear the insult or not, or to deliver it themselves. however, men instinctively know that cowards get less lovin’ than their braver counterparts, so yes, the coward insult is, like most attributes of humanity, a mirror held up to the underlying machinery of the sexual market.
LikeLike
Calling my paralleling the language of this post plagiarism is an uncharitable interpretation.
The projecting comment was about the fact that since you are obviously very wrapped up in your own sexual market value it would be an ordinary cognitive bias to assume that other people have a similar preoccupation. I hope that’s more clear.
Calling me a loser is pretty cute. But to test my theory of what’s insulting relative to yours I’ll hazard to guess that no one will publish your short stories because they really aren’t all that good.
LikeLike
Think Madonna would mind being called a slut? Hell, that is like calling Roissy a Playboy and expecting him to be hurt! Madonna has carefully marketed her slut image for maximum financial gain.
Now, as she just turned 50, she does hate being called old. Reportedly one of the items that got her pissed at her ex-husband was when he jokingly called her “granny”.
Anyway, using such shaming tactics is a very feminine form of manipulation. Not really sure if such tactics are worthy of an Alpha Male. I play a game called FemBot Bingo when I receive such shaming language:
If you REALLY want to piss off a woman, don’t call her names, just don’t call her. Women hate being ignored.
LikeLike
girlyman:
Calling my paralleling the language of this post plagiarism is an uncharitable interpretation.
are you a charity case?
The projecting comment was about the fact that since you are obviously very wrapped up in your own sexual market value it would be an ordinary cognitive bias to assume that other people have a similar preoccupation.
false premise. i don’t directly talk about my own mate value here on this blog (happy musings about the enormity of my cock to the contrary notwithstanding), i talk about the sexual market as it applies in general to everyone.
that the readers may deduce my market value based on cues from my posts on game is their prerogative, and one i don’t usually bother correcting or affirming.
but it’s very female of you to want to personalize the abstract. remote psychological diagnosis based on nonexistent evidence. you girls love that shit!
Calling me a loser is pretty cute.
it’s pretty hurtful.
But to test my theory of what’s insulting relative to yours I’ll hazard to guess that no one will publish your short stories because they really aren’t all that good.
another unbiased third party heard from.
LikeLike
clio, i agree. the worst moment to fling the savagery of darwinian insults is when your opponent most expects them.
It isn’t just timing that influences how effective an insult is. An insult won’t usually bruise anyone’s ego unless there is at least some truth to it. For example, girls can say all sorts of shit about how a man can’t get laid, but that will come off as totally pathetic if the man actually is doing very well with the ladies. The only effect such insults have is to soothe the egos of those that hurl them.
LikeLike
Think Madonna would mind being called a slut? Hell, that is like calling Roissy a Playboy and expecting him to be hurt!
paul, that is a good point. the sharpness of the slut cut declines with the age of the woman. after all, what washed up broad wouldn’t love to be known as someone who can still pull peen, no matter how far down the barrel she has to dredge?
it’s simple sexual economics, as rain and mentioned above. when a woman’s vaj is most valuable (years 15 -25) her desire to protect her reputation from the harmful effects of being labeled a slut is strongest. as she ages, so do her standards.
LikeLike
Pot. Kettle. Black.
LikeLike
Rain And:
Invariably when feminist blogs start insulting men for their “misogynistic” ideas they resort to the same primitive sociobiological values that they are supposedly disagreeing with:
“I’m gonna take a wild guess here and say he has never actually slept with anyone.”
“How small is this loser’s dick? I think you’d need negative numbers.”
“I can’t get too riled up, because honestly, does this sounds like someone who actually gets laid?”
“How To Identify Men Who Have Never Ever Known A Woman In Real Life”
And it goes on and on. The message is clear. They could very easily use insults like “mean”, “asshole”, “uncivilized”, and so on, if these were the qualities they truly believed men should be disdained for. And a few always do. But the predominate form of insult directed towards males on feminist blogs is “BETA”.
This is merely the inverse and complementary insult to “slut”. Men are deemed inferior if they can’t attract women or obtain female sexual favoritism. But why? Because female reproductive material is valuable, and valuable men are the ones who can access it. (which makes feminist insults about “small dicks” and “virginity” all the more meaningless and pathetic, when it isn’t true)
For the same reason, as I’ve stated before, higher value women have lower numbers of sex partners than lower value women. This is because higher value women can obtain more positive attention and emotional and financial investment from men without giving them easy sex. The more valuable the woman, the more men will work for the reward.
So a “slut” is merely a female “loser”. Someone who has to trade away their one worthwhile asset at bargain basement prices to get any male to give a shit about her at all.
If you don’t like the implicit message of “slut,” then don’t use insults like “loser”. Both spring from the same set of biologically-based value judgments. To use one is to reinforce the other. Either female sexual choice determines social worth or it doesn’t.
Quoted for truth.
(I’m feeling lazy these days)
LikeLike
Rain And, I’ll give you my personal story in more detail.
I was walking in Times Square with a friend, and on the street a tourist got into an argument with a vendor, not sure what it was about. The vendor berated the man, belittled his manhood, then topped it off by starting to insult the man’s wife. The man made a huge mistake by staying and arguing, he was better off cursing him out and leaving right away or just punching the guy out. But by staying and arguing, a crowd gathered and the abuse just got worse and worse. After having the vendor berate the guy, then his wife, etc., the man and his wife finally walked off. Even though it was her that pulled her husband away, she had a look on her face that just basically screamed “coward.” She might as well have vocalized it. The guy looked so emasculated, it was the sorriest I ever felt for a guy.
LikeLike
T. AKA Ricky Raw,
Ouch, that story is really depressing. For that guy.
“The man made a huge mistake by staying and arguing, he was better off cursing him out and leaving right away or just punching the guy out.”
True. Careful with the “punching the guy out” thing in this day and age.
An “associate” of mine recently dropped a guy over an argument over a cab or something equally stupid.
The guy got KO’ed, and his skull bounced off the concrete.
Coma.
My associate got charged with something like “assault with grievous bodily harm”.
Getting sent up.
Actually, I think he got sentenced yesterday.
I need to check on that.
– MPM
LikeLike
MPM, If you have time to comment here all day, you have time to write some blog posts.
LikeLike
I wish all the truth in this blog wasn’t buried under a torrent of misogyny and all the speaking in absolutes that goes on.
It saddens me to realize how much of what you say about the “game” is absolutely true, and only makes me realize more how much I hate playing it. Although by no means do I hate it enough to stop playing it.
Much of the advice you give will and undoubtedly has gotten a lot of men laid, mostly by the large majority of women who are susceptible to this kind of “gaming.” Be it naive or not, I’m going to continue to hold onto the belief that there are some women out there who are “ungameable” so to speak, ones who are truly worth being honest and kind with it. Until I find one of these almost mystical creatures, I’m forced to continue dealing with the inherit level of dishonesty and manipulation that comes hand in hand with playing the game.
Roissy, independent of a few of your ideas, I will complement your writing, and I’m not afraid to admit that this blog will probably become a guilty pleasure for me.
LikeLike
I’ve got to admit though, concerning the claim that no one brags about being a coward.
Fuck being a fighter. One of the most common ways for young men to die, is escalating violence to “save face” after one is insulted in front of some meaningless woman they are fighting over. I’m sure many young women get an ego-whore visceral thrill being dueled over to the death by macho lunk-heads. Fuck those women.
I’m going to abort any situation or woman that will lead to me having to engage in violence AQAP, and take my “shame” in stride. The exception is for a wife, children, family members, and some friends who are threatened. They will be “worth it” in the standard sense.
But no routine casual sex or courtship thrills are worth any amount of violence or potential bodily harm on my part, unless we are all stranded on a desert fucking island.
LikeLike
wtfitsjared:
Much of the advice you give will and undoubtedly has gotten a lot of men laid, mostly by the large majority of women who are susceptible to this kind of “gaming.” Be it naive or not, I’m going to continue to hold onto the belief that there are some women out there who are “ungameable” so to speak, ones who are truly worth being honest and kind with it.
There is but one tried and true method for release from the hellmatrix:
Lower. Your. Standards.
In other words, learn to love a fattie (if you can)
You will still need to keep your wits about you, but it’s the difference between wrestling a lion vs. scolding a puppy.
Roissy, independent of a few of your ideas, I will complement your writing, and I’m not afraid to admit that this blog will probably become a guilty pleasure for me.
We have such sights to show you…
LikeLike
Seeking Alpha,
“MPM, If you have time to comment here all day, you have time to write some blog posts.”
True. I have my reasons though.
Actually, I have been on the phone all day and puffing cigarettes. Big schemes for ’09.
And working out. At night: swooping girls.
Not conducive to creative writing.
– MPM
LikeLike
Good luck. Just stay out of neighborhood on business.
LikeLike
G:
Actually, I have been on the phone all day and puffing cigarettes.
Word to the wise: I’ve decided to kick the habit with these new e-cigarettes:
Seems to be working so far.
Also makes for a great peacocking tool. I get opened constantly. You can smoke on planes too.
I use the black ones with blue LED’s so I don’t get hassled by assholes who think I’ve lit up a square.
LikeLike
Tupac Chopra:
If you could explain what exactly the “hellmatrix” is. I could probably better decipher what the hell that comment meant, because from here it just kinda sounded like you were quoting out of some kind of cult-esque guide for how to respond to posts such as mine.
LikeLike
Tupac Chopra,
I have heard of those, I remember some girl pitching me on those in Las Vegas.
Do they give you nic?
What do they taste like?
– MPM
LikeLike
wtfitsjared:
If you could explain what exactly the “hellmatrix” is.
You know that sinking feeling you get in your gut when you read Roissy and all the pretty lies decay like dying roses in your mind as you contemplate a future bereft of the comforting hope that life is fair?
It’s like that.
I could probably better decipher what the hell that comment meant, because from here it just kinda sounded like you were quoting out of some kind of cult-esque guide for how to respond to posts such as mine.
I learned from the best that ever was.
LikeLike
Roissy, does it have any correlation with the girl you talked about yesterday?
LikeLike
G:
Do they give you nic?
Yes. Not as strong on a hit-per-hit basis, but they sell the cartridges and liquids in different nicotine strengths, all the way up to 36mg.
What do they taste like?
Not as good as a real ciggie, but they sell liquids that come in all sorts of flavors: coffee, menthol, coca-cola, french vanilla. You name it.
They also make e-cigars and e-pipes if you want more vapor.
There’s a lot of crap products out there. If you want more info on who makes the best shit, go here
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/
LikeLike
Tupac:
Oh. That’s probably why I didn’t get it. I’m not one for comforting delusions about how life is fair. It’s been pretty clear to me beforehand that life is full of disappointment after disappointment and putting absolute faith in people will only result in more disappointment.
No, the overwhelming majority of the points Roissy is making are true. I’d have to nitpick to find something that was based in falsehood. Stripping away all the politically correct idealist babble is definitely refreshing to read. I have no delusions that being the submissive “beta” will get me anywhere I want to go in life. I used to be that guy, but less so now.
Maybe I just think it’s possible to not be a complete asshole to the opposite gender and still get what I want, from a relationship/sexual standpoint. I don’t think misogyny is the only way to go, in a nutshell. No question that it works tho. I doubt anyone will disagree with that.
Roissy seems to have some exceedingly devoted followers, maybe he should start a cult O.o
LikeLike
Tupac Chopra,
Cool, thanks for the tip. I am a traditionalist though. This stuff seems to render the lighter useless.
“all the way up to 36mg”
I wonder if they will custom make me a 100mg.
“hey sell liquids that come in all sorts of flavors: coffee, menthol, coca-cola, french vanilla.”‘
Hopefully they have “cigarette” flavor.
– MPM
LikeLike
when i was a kid, i once called a girl a 500pound fuck. (probably not realizing it’s severity at the time) although it’s effectiveness was instant
LikeLike
In my lifetime, I’ve heard women use this term towards other women… 1000x more than I’ve ever heard a guy toss it about… Also when guys usually say it, it is usually interpreted as a POSITIVE thing… that is my experience at least…. Kind of how a child would say… OMGPONIES! I love them!
LikeLike
Yep, women shame “sluts” to keep the Poon Cartel strong.
Men love sluts, but sluts threaten the single strongest source of power women have in the Battle of the Sexes. They realize the day sex is freely and easily available to every man is the day women’s interests are subjugated before the interests of men like never before.
(like a 70-30 gender ratio college campus writ large; anal sex will be an obvious precondition for any woman that actually wants a committed relationship)
LikeLike
I go to medical school to get tortured, literally. We recently had an experiment where everyone had to go through a pain trial and as part of the psychological preperation for it, our sadistic neurologist called anyone who finished it prematurely wusses and wimps, saying that some were SURE to withdraw. I found myself
a) DETERMINED to go through the whole thing
b) speculating that the girls would be less motivated by the insults and this male versus female competition he introduced (hypothesis: do females have higher pain tolerance than males? Untrue according to this rather biased experiment, by the way)
c) losing a bit more respect for males who didn’t go through with it, especially one who insisted the pain stimulus was worse than getting his shoulder dislocated (rubbish!)
I hate that I do actually think like this. I’m glad I’m aware of it, though.
LikeLike
OK, but aren’t a lot of women, especially in big coastal cities, absolute shameless sluts with alphas, but relative prudes when it comes to betas?
And remember, betas (and lesser varieties of males) constitute about 75-80% of men.
LikeLike
My problem with women isn’t that they think like this, but that they lie about thinking like this. There are many modern women who publicly go on and on about how much more advanced they are than women of yesteryear and how they don’t care about such things and have actually evolved to the point where they like a sensitive, emotional nonconfrontational wuss guy than a guy who is macho. Ever since female sensibilities have overrun Hollywood, macho is portrayed as a bad thing and avoiding conflict and taking the high road all the time is portrayed as superior, and the type of behavior to win over a girl. So I think a lot of guys get these messages and internalize them and adopt these beta stances thinking they are making themselves more attractive to today’s woman. Then when they see women dating badasses they are confused and feel betrayed. Hence a lot of the beta bitterness I see popping up everywhere. Like they got sold a bad bag of goods.
I really think the betaization of guys wouldn’t be so widespread if so many women didn’t actively promote the myth that they like beta behavior. That’s why I love watching old movies on Turner Classic Movies, American Movie Classics and Fox Movie Channel. The lessons they teach and values they promote tend to be more in line with human nature as it is rather than as betas wish it was. Politically incorrect and brutally honest.
LikeLike
If roissy started a cult, i, as one of the followers, would have to accept a Beta status while he f….. all the females.
this is why his true followers lke me are all heretics. Or at least anti-papists, if you understand me
LikeLike
“Roissy seems to have some exceedingly devoted followers, maybe he should start a cult “
Yes, this is the thing that is bothersome about this site. You’ll also notice that many of the commentators here refer to themselves as Alphas, even though Roissy refers to the majority here as ‘betas’, especially the ones that disagree with him. Yet, if he and his loyal commentators were familiar with the literature on alphas and betas they’d all realize that alphas demand subordination, and that it is other alphas that challenge the current reigning alpha. This has two consequences for posters on this site:
(1) Commentators that agree with Roissy all the time are sychophantic betas, not alphas. Alphas compete, dominate, and are highly individualistic; they don’t co-operate, agree, and act like the pinko communitarian version of the He-man woman haters club.
(2) The commentators that disagree with Roissy the majority of the time, that are also vocal, and have game, are true alphas. There are a couple here, and they generally have their heads and ethics in better shape than the “OMG WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS DYING AT THE HANDS OF TEH FEMBOTS” Steve Sailer crowd that have set up shop here.
LikeLike
Why assume that women are knowingly lying to men and causing them to adopt Beta behaviors? They seem to swallow the same cultural signals that the men have.
LikeLike
You should all read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, if you haven’t. By the way.
The Cult of Roissy has somewhat of a wring to it. The MSNBC special would do well.
LikeLike
@T Aka Ricky Raw
“My problem with women isn’t that they think like this, but that they lie about thinking like this.”
You just nailed it. I think there is a bit of ‘instinct blindness’ that happens with people though. A wild guess might be that we have this opaqueness to help keep our sanity. If you think about it… the idea of cooperation is impossible if you cannot conceptualize that people in general are not going to flip the script on you.
LikeLike
YahYah,
or:
3) G’s who add to Roissy’s discussion where needed. And disagree when he is off track.
“Alphas” are territorial.
The only compete when on the same turf. (physically speaking, not same “internet turf”. Otherwise they discuss topics.
Roissy has DC.
I have South Beach, Southern California, SF, NO, Western Europe, Caribe, Central and South America.
– MPM
LikeLike
I swear, every other whiny poster on blogs has a bone to pick about the “reverse racism” and “reverse sexism” and ze wimmins and their unearned special privileges.
I mean, I get it, your antiquated sense of masculinity is under siege and you’re not a good or able enough man to rise above. But for heaven’s sake, stop pretending that all men are as pathetic as you and that the “injustice” is all that’s keeping you from brilliance.
LikeLike
Typical lib. No such thing as reverse racism or reverse sexism. It’s an Orwellian language trick lefties use. By calling racism against whites “reverse” racism and calling sexism against men “reverse” sexism, that creates the implication that “normal” racism is only done by white people and “normal” sexism is only done by men, and that when both groups are on the receiving end it’s such an anomaly that it warrants the adjective “reverse.”
Whites discriminating against blacks is racism. Blacks discriminating against whites is racism. Men discriminating against women is sexism. Women discriminating against men is sexism.
LikeLike
s.f.?
and not vegas?
wow.
LikeLike
[…] 8, 2009 Interesting discussion on roissy’s blog today – in how far does sexual dynamics biology influence our […]
LikeLike
simply brilliant.
i’ll think about this next time i hear a woman moan with ecstasy from my sublime reverse oral sex.
LikeLike
?
Injustice no more contains brilliance than special unearned privileges create it. Hence the stagnation in fields most represented by an infusion of the privileged and/or mediocre, even as material progress marches on in those that aren’t.
BTW, For those observing closely, the above comment is a particular phrasing of the “loser” slur. This blog is a good place to study American society.
LikeLike
I’ve spent a bit of time thinking about why I find your blog so objectionable. Hear me out – this isn’t just another rant from a woman who feel personally offended by what you’ve written.
Unlike some of your critics, I am not going to pretend that you aren’t being honest. The way you engage with women has obviously worked for you, and your attitude towards women clearly resonates with a lot of other men.
What I find problematic is that you present your attitudes and approaches as being universal; you appear to believe you are expressing a long-suppressed, but commonly-held masculine view of women’s role in society.
I have close friendships with enough men to know that your views are not uncommon. However, many men see the world – and the women in it – very differently to you.
I am a very good-looking professional women who works with children in a creative industry. I have two bachelors degrees and a masters degree. I am 27 and have had only a handfull of sexual partners. I tell you these things only so you can see that my objections are not merely reactionary or defensive.
I can tell you honestly that the well-adjusted, liberal, professional men in my circle, whom I count amongst my peers, look for women who can hold their own as half of an equal partnership. These men certainly seek good-looking and materal women as their partners, but they also place a very high value on humour, intelligence, education, forthrightness and experience. They don’t see women as some sinister “other” who has to be tricked and manipulated, as you so clearly do.
The types of men I know, are the kinds of men women like me want as partners. I very much doubt that you would be able to keep a women like me, or like my friends.
Your blog has a nasty, vitriolic undercurrent which suggests to me that you are not nearly as happy with your relationships as you make out. Rather than presenting your world-view as an absolute, you should instead recognise that the way you feel about women is a reflection of your own experiences only – in which you play an important role.
LikeLike
johnny five,
“s.f.?
and not vegas?
wow.”
Ha. That was a “quick list”. I missed a few spots.
As is has it, I am going to Las Vegas on Sun. And not for that crappy CES thing or overrated porn convention.
Lately, I have been taking Las Vegas off my list. I have been there a million times and the place is just too dry.
Cooks my lungs.
And no, its not from my 3 pack a day habit.
Its the lack of humidity.
And with the down economy, Las Vegas is lacking a little punch these days.
– MPM
LikeLike
G, you’re talking about a blog where many of the commentators think they are engaged in an ideological battle with feminism, betas, and anyone who disagrees. Of course they compete, and there is more to competition than the physical world. It’s funny how there are people on this blog dedicated to the physical nature of sex and biology and then deny ideas not only have power, but those ideas are also in competition with each other. It’s like you guys are yelling, “OMG, feminism is creating betas!” and then turn around and state, “BUT BUT ONLY BIOLOGY EXISTS, NOT IDEAS!”
LikeLike
“I really think the betaization of guys wouldn’t be so widespread if so many women didn’t actively promote the myth that they like beta behavior.”
Well, except for the fact that some of us actually do prefer the more shy, nerdy guys who don’t embody the alpha ideal.
LikeLike
This is actually a great insight.
LikeLike
No G, you don’t have South America. Rio, Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires are MY TURF. You may be an occasional visitor. But wise enough not to compete territorialy.
LikeLike
“I really think the betaization of guys wouldn’t be so widespread if so many women didn’t actively promote the myth that they like beta behavior.”
Well, except for the fact that some of us actually do vastly prefer the more shy, nerdy guys who don’t embody the alpha ideal.
LikeLike
Interesting. This woman asserts her value by expressing that she is inclined toward infidelity or abandonment. She validates Roissy’s lifestyle even as she attempts to denigrate it.
I’ll take a note on that one.
LikeLike
“some of us do prefer the more shy, nerdy guys…”
you hit 30 and lowered your standards? are you fat?
LikeLike
Pardon the duplicate post.
LikeLike
Welmer, please extrapolate as to why you believe Scal’s particular sentence entails your conclusion about infidelity.
LikeLike
Nope: 33, not fat, and have always been interested in smart, nerdy guys to the exclusion of all others. Have never had a one-night stand, don’t frequent clubs, would no more sleep with a stranger than I would jump off a bridge.
“Slut” is a meaningless epithet when it doesn’t apply.
LikeLike
There is one thing I agree with Scal’s argument. She is spot on about the universality arguments on this blog. The typical retort on this site to comments against universality is “HURF DURF, EXCEPTIONS PROVE THE ROOL HURF DURF” or “IT’S A GENERALIZATION AND COMMON SENSE, DURRY DURR.”
Of course they make good arguments for these positions, but at the same time they are committing the fallacy of accident (ignoring data, making sweeping generalizations, and increasingly vague definitions about alphas, women, and so on).
LikeLike
Shy, nerdy guys have been more fashionable in the media and actually in romance novels, though I’d bet you all my meagre student loan that 5:1 he’s got rippling muscles at the very least in the literature.
There is a difference between ‘shy, nerdy’ and ‘wuss’ though. It’s just more probable that those two correlate. I know at least one guy who might fit that stereotype but is so sexily, effortlessly and subversively capable of control in everything and everyone around him, taking leadership. But I’ve not actually observed him in a scenario where he’s actually meant to pick up a girl, at which I’d assume he’d instantly morph into ‘shy’.
I’ve seen him in his element, though, and that makes all the difference.
LikeLike
Well, YahYah, it’s all in the definition of “keep a woman.” We all know what a “kept woman” means, right? Look it up if you have any questions. Actually, it suggests infidelity on two different levels.
Essentially, she is suggesting that she could be had (but not kept) by Roissy, but she could, in fact, be kept by another man. In the first instance she would be a common slut, and in the second a mistress.
Either way, I’m not passing judgment — I simply find the value statements curious.
LikeLike
YahYah,
Look:
“gig
No G, you don’t have South America. Rio, Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires are MY TURF. You may be an occasional visitor. But wise enough not to compete territorialy”
See there is another Alpha.
And another contender to the title.
The world is full of Alphas always competing.
– MPM
LikeLike
I must say, this is a common, recurrent theme for all the female objectors, dissenters and naysayers that bother to post here.
You all have this caricature view of “game.” That it’s simply a way for men to “trick” women into sleeping with them…
…that only dumb, or slutty, or insecure, or females could ever “fall for” game.
Your perception of game is a total caricature based on entirely negative connotations based on your preconceived notions and negative feelings towards “players” most likely rooted in the feminist’s rage at the double-standards of sexual morality (promiscuous men are studs/promiscuous women are sluts).
You all simply don’t understand just what the hell “game” is. Game is reconnecting men to their natural role of masculinity…the behavior and demeanor that women are inherently – biologically attracted to.
Players can definitely study it and learn to use it to further their aims of getting notches on their post. But regular guys who want to seek long term relationships can certainly benefit from studying game as well, because no matter what you women say, attraction is not based on a logical, intellectual thought process that you entirely control. It is a visceral, instinctual biological response to stimulus from interacting with a member of the opposite sex.
“Game” works especially on intelligent women interacting with men they are physically attracted to. The man who she finds physically appealing but has no game?
Let’s Just Be Friends.
Especially you women that write things like: “I can tell you honestly that the well-adjusted, liberal, professional men in my circle, whom I count amongst my peers, look for women who can hold their own as half of an equal partnership.”
The only function of your career has in relevance to what you consider being “worthy” of an “equal” relationship with your “peers” is that your career has put you in the proximity to these men to experience mutual attraction and you pursued it.
Deny this all you want, but your career, education and scintillating conversations would do NOTHING to land you one of your peers – a successful man – without him having a physical attraction for you.
You fail to understand that when you get involved with a man who can “hold their own,” you are most likely involved with a guy that has got “game.” The kind that gets and keeps you attracted to him.
LikeLike
Scal – you miss the point.
The types of men I know, are the kinds of men women like me want as partners. I very much doubt that you would be able to keep a women like me, or like my friends.
This blog is not about marriage.
It is about sex.
I have no doubt that you and your friends seek out lovey-dovey beta provider males to put a $15.000 ring on your finger and continue to pay your bills.
But your pussy wetness is not about that. Your pussy loves men! Men! Not the “equals” as you call them. Equals!
How about men who are masculine, assertive and confident. The kind of human that can provide the opposite pole to your femininity? Aren’t we only one when these two poles unite?
The reason you don’t like this blog is the same reason other women don’t like it: it is the kind of truth that is hard to admit to yourselves.
Let me ask you something – why aren’t you in a relationship with those many great guys you say are so fine in their appreciation of asexual feminine traits? Or more importantly – why aren’t you in a relationship with the (“handful”) guys you have already had sex with?
Isn’t it because at least some of them were masculine men you were so attracted to that you put your whole “I want a sweet, appreciative friend as man” aside and went straight to raw, raunchy dirty fucking?
The men here on this blog are honest. Brutally honest to themselves at times. You are just another woman who is unable to admit to herself her own sexual needs and desires.
Not until you are on a girls night out, had a few shots and meet an alpha to “sweep you off your feet” that is…
And again – no one here doubts that you will marry a “nice guy”. Some of us have been there. Believe me.
LikeLike
I think there is a problem of induction associated with evo-cog-neuroscience… but honestly… it seems to agree more with my experiences in life than other more elegant/nice concepts of how people behave. People individually are very difficult to predict effectively, but in aggregate we are much less difficult.
Sales/Marketing/Political methodologies are somewhat of a testament to this. The framework techniques taught in those domains are relatively concurrent with each other and most practitioners of those domains understand that we are dealing with Art and Heuristic vs Exact Science. I think that logically extends to the whole game discussion as well. I would have thought that it was implied that these general arguments obviously allow flex room for individual variation in intensity and degree……
LikeLike
Actually I didn’t mean being a “kept” woman at all. I was emphasising equal partnerships, which involves equality in a financial (or at least contributory) sense too. And in relation to your other insinuation, I have never cheated on a boyfriend. However, I have often dated a man for one or two dates before realising we’re not compatible – would you really call that “abandonment”?.
I meant “keeping interested”. Even if a man like Roissy were able to manipulate me or one of my friends into bed (which I’d like to think is unlikely, but he does claim that his are tried-and-true practices), as soon as his views about relationships and women became evident, we would lose interest.
Anyone with as much to prove as he has probably isn’t really up-to-scratch. This is just a sense I have from things like (in his ridiculous “dating market” appraisal) his deduction of points for having a too-high IQ.
LikeLike
@Dave from Hawaii
I can definitely relate. Getting “more notches on my post” has never been a goal for me, but having “game” otherwise known as “knowing how to talk to women” has helped me with starting/maintaining relationships with women.
I think the negative connotations with “game” and “players” just comes from this inherit thought that in order to have such things, it’s necessary to lie, stretch the truth, etc. In addition, the words themselves imply a sort of nonchalance in a subject that the American public tends to take very seriously. Using the terms “game” and “players” in regards to talking to women, relationships, hook-ups, etc many people assume that those engaging in such activities are playing with people’s feelings and emotions for purposes of their own amusement.
Surmise to say, there are people who “the game” with that intention and such disregard for the feelings of others. However, IT IS possible to have “game” without succumbing to the stereotypes of men who are pick-up artists and are in it for more notches on their bedposts.
LikeLike
Welmer, I asked you to provide a logical argument for the entailment and you have failed to provide it.
Essentially your argument is the following:
(Premise 1) When she states “Keep a woman” she means something similar to “kept woman.”
(P2) She is suggesting that she could be had (but not kept) by Roissy.
(P3) She is suggesting that she could be kept by another man.
(Conclusion 1) This woman asserts her value by expressing that she is inclined toward infidelity or abandonment.
Second sub-argument
(Premise A) P2 of original argument entails she is a common slut.
(PB) P3 entails she is a mistress.
(Conclusion 2) She validates Roissy’s lifestyle even as she attempts to denigrate it.
My position:
Premise 1 is the equivocation fallacy. You’ve gone from her using a sentence stating “keep a woman” and defined in the way you want it defined. It could be explained with a multitude of other explanations.
P2 follows from P1. P1 is fallacious. Therefore P2 is also false. P3, same argument.
Sub-argument is the same, based on flawed premise.
LikeLike
G, I thought you said before that alphas don’t compete on the net? Contradictions … contradictions …
LikeLike
Actually, I just fucked up my argument and made a huge and common logical error. See if you can all spot it.
Nonetheless, equivocation fallacy is still there.
LikeLike
YahYah,
This is what G actually said:
“The only compete when on the same turf. (physically speaking, not same “internet turf”. Otherwise they discuss topics.”
In G’s earlier post, he mentioned PHYSICALLY running things in South America. gig responded that when G is physically in South America, he is only a visitor and is not running anything. They are not competing over internet turf but talking about competing when on the same physical turf. No contradiction there.
By the way, how did you find this site? You seem too smart to read Jezebel.
LikeLike
Dear “not just another rant.”
Judging from the fact that all these rants seem to follow the same template, it’s hard not to conclude there’s just one obtuse person out there writing the same objections over and over under different handles. That would be more reassuring than thinking there are really as many idiots as there are handles posting the same repetitive things.
The template appears to be as follows:
1. Commentator writes: “I’m different and not like everyone else. I am [insert list of positive attributes] therefore hear me out.”
2. Evolutionary biology and psychology are wrong because there aren’t universals.
3. As proof of 3, I will rely on anecdotal evidence and speculate as to what I think the men around me are thinking. Surely, they’re only thinking nice thoughts.
4. Resort to cheap insults and jabs. Also toss in “you could never have me” for good measure.
5. Adopt a simultaneously preachy and shrill whiny tone. Write that “instead of thinking the way you do now, you should think the way I do.”
Fin
LikeLike
wtfitsjared – “without succumbing to the stereotypes of men who are pick-up artists and are in it for more notches on their bedposts.”
There is no “succumbing.” It’s a deliberate course of action a man chooses to embark on. You have your reasons, but you speak of “players” as if it is a negative or bad thing.
Why condemn players for doing what a lot of promiscuous women make possible? No easy women…no players.
Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.
Now think about the real reasons why women “hate” players? Why do they come here like a howling horde of insane banshees to denounce and revile Roissy and any other game acolytes and practitioners that post here?
It’s because they cannot admit it…but the reality is women hate players simply because the player is the man that they are irresistebly attracted to, but cannot get him to commit to them.
It’s feminine egotism.
The ultimate female fantasy is to have the one man that all the other females desperately want , but HER special uniqueness, her beauty, her feminine charms has “tamed” and “captured” him into committed monogamy.
LikeLike
T, Ok, my bad. I misinterpreted what G said.
I’ve lurked here for ages. I don’t read Jezebel. I dislike lefties (but I also despise the Steve Sailer “Darwin is God” douchebags and the “former Beta now PUA, but still a woman hater” that comment on this blog). I found it through Roosh’s site, who comes across as a funny and generally smart dude (my theory: Roissy’s blog is actually a giant joke, Roosh and him are obviously pranksters, he is doing this to stir people up).
LikeLike
“The ultimate female fantasy is to have the one man that all the other females desperately want , but HER special uniqueness, her beauty, her feminine charms has “tamed” and “captured” him into committed monogamy.”
Some of us just want a decent, intelligent guy who wants us back. If he’s dorky enough that other women don’t notice him, so much the better.
LikeLike
11 Minutes – I’m afraid you’re missed my point. You are projecting your own preconceptions about women’s interests on to me. I never mentioned marriage. I never said I wasn’t interested in sex. I never mentioned engagement rings. I never mentioned “nice men”. I never said I was single. I never said I wanted a man to pay my bills. Your preconceptions are entirely wrong.
What makes you think that the men I am talking about are not masculine and assertive? Being equals doesn’t mean “being the same”. A man who is equal to me isn’t necessarily “asexual” and feminised.
The point of my comment was actually about the dangers in presenting as universal something which is based only on an individual’s experience.
In projecting your own stereotypes on to me, you have only proven my point.
LikeLike
OK, scal (and all the other women and feminists coming on here and saying they prefer betas)…
Let’s say you are 30 years old, and have to be stranded on a desert island for the rest of your life with one man.
Would you pick a 30 year-old Jean-Claude Van Damme, a 30 year-old Albert Einstein, or a 30 year-old Fred Rogers?
LikeLike
1. Commentator writes: “I’m different and not like everyone else. I am [insert list of positive attributes] therefore hear me out.”
2. Evolutionary biology and psychology are wrong because there aren’t universals.
3. As proof of 3, I will rely on anecdotal evidence and speculate as to what I think the men around me are thinking. Surely, they’re only thinking nice thoughts.
4. Resort to cheap insults and jabs. Also toss in “you could never have me” for good measure.
5. Adopt a simultaneously preachy and shrill whiny tone. Write that “instead of thinking the way you do now, you should think the way I do.”
Re-post because of epic truth.
Also note that this women are always talking about RELATIONSHIPS, whereas roissy et al. talk about getting them to (give head) bed.
What these women do not realize is that for ANY 30-something above average IQ professional male in the city getting a woman approaching 30 to (wanting him to marry) like him is EASY.
Fucking 100+ women in their prime is hard and the privilege of the few.
But – ask any honest man what he prefers.
Scal admits that man like Roissy were able to manipulate me or one of my friends into bed.
So?
That’s all we want.
That’s what this blog is all about.
Scal, do you really think a man like roissy would cry a tear if you “abandon” him after a date or two?
Truth is, he’d be delighted. Prevents a whole lot of headaches of you whining about the other/younger/slimmer/prettier girls he fucks.
Ouch. Doesn’t the truth hurt?
LikeLike
Here are the visuals:
LikeLike
Joe T. Your question is meaningless, and is called the nirvana fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
LikeLike
Looks like we have a lawyer here. How tiresome.
Couldn’t you have discredited my response to you in a more creative way? I mean, I was kind of thinking of Monty Python when I wrote it. You know, the witch made of wood and all that. Your challenge invited a tongue in cheek response.
Regardless, there’s no doubt that when she writes: “you couldn’t keep a woman like me” she is suggesting that he might be able to pick her up, but she’d eventually figure it out and ditch him.
If she is susceptible to game, how is she different from any other woman? Lots of guys without any knowledge of game think “my wife/girlfriend would never fall for that,” but they’d be wrong, and she just admitted it. She did validate Roissy. Totally.
I wish it weren’t so, but I’m grown up enough to accept the short-term immutability of human nature, and that’s what this blog is about.
LikeLike
Women have many different fantasies, one of which is the ‘reformed rake’ mentioned. Not the ‘ultimate’ one, I would confidently speculate. You’d have to poll a group of females to see accurately what the top one might be. The reformation one is probably abandoned in disgust after even a little experience with just one male. Compartmentalisation and stubborness tend to occur in the male specimen of the human species…
LikeLike
@Dave
I’m neither condemning players nor am I hating on anyone. I’ve previously admitted to actively playing “the game” doesn’t that make me a “player” myself?
What I’m trying to get at is, that it’s possible to play “the game” without being considered “player” as society generally perceives them. Which sound ridiculous despite any effort I’m making to put things in quotes to clarify.
That particular lifestyle, or whatever you wish to refer to it as, whether it is perceived in a largely negative or positive way (and there are arguments for both) and playing the “game” seem to be inseparable. I’m of the opinion that “having game” and being a “player” are not mutually exclusive things.
LikeLike
Yah Yah –
I think for it to qualify as the “Nirvana Fallacy”, you have to juxtapose a “perfect” hypothetical with a real world situation.
As I see it, the Nirvana Fallacy is a trap only because it asks you to compare idealized hypotheticals with real-world situations. Since all the warts of the real-world situation are already known, the choices are not equal and the hypothetical has an unfair disadvantage.
Here I just laid out three parallel hypotheticals, and asked the women to judge them on their perceived merits.
Since the choices are all hypothetical, they’re all on a level playing field, and therefore I don’t think this is a case of the Nirvana Fallacy.
But I’m not a logician as I’m sure you are.
LikeLike
Sorry – I mean “the hypothetical has an unfair *advantage*”.
Hope you get my point, though.
LikeLike
Yahyah, your presence here is eristic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eristic
LikeLike
“Couldn’t you have discredited my response to you in a more creative way?”
LMAO
Your talking about a blog that glorifies biology and the art of reasoning over women and emotion. I fucking love it when someone dishes out a cold hard analysis and blows idiots like you out of the water, and then you have the gall to complain about the style. It’s like progressive betas and females complaining about male action heroes, “BUT, BUT, THAT’S TOO MANLY”.
Can’t have reasoning mess up the blog when there’s a circle jerk of male feelings going on, AMIRITE?! What we need is more emotion and feelings and grouphugs. That’s alpha. There should be a Roissy weekend where we all go out into the bush and run naked around a fire with spears and talk about being alpha. It’ll be awesome. Get in touch with our roots.
Oh, but I digress, your retort was: “she is suggesting that he might be able to pick her up.” Did you read her post? She said otherwise, but I guess you know best (or can read minds). Again, the equivocation fallacy still stands, and your entire argument rests on that. So the argument fails.
LikeLike
“Would you pick a 30 year-old Jean-Claude Van Damme, a 30 year-old Albert Einstein, or a 30 year-old Fred Rogers?”
Einstein.
LikeLike
Ruh Roh scraggy … Cannon’s Cannon mentions eristic!
Cannon, perhaps as a student of classical studies you’ll also be aware that rhetoric and argument evolved out of eristic, and that eristic was used to train young rhetors in the art of argument. Digressing again, but it seems you are implying that I don’t have any aim here. Funny that. Considering that the Platonic ideal was put in direct opposition to eristic and rhetoric, yet here I am offering logical argument (the platonic ideal) against the arguments put forth by others. You all talk of truth, yet when others challenge your basic arguments you deny it through linking to articles that are the complete opposite.
I can conclude one thing though, the denizens of Roissy’s blog hate disagreement.
LikeLike
I have to agree with 11 minutes regarding Scal’s comment. Marriage is not about sex, it’s about money and raising children. Sex is no where near the top of the list for professional, educated people getting married. Just ask me about it.
Sex is a universal value, and Roissy’s unvarnished view of female sexuality is accurate, IMHO. Darwin wouldn’t have it any other way, actually.
Looking at men who have married well turned out, professional, educated women with, naturally, expensive tastes in clothes and home furnishings, is depressing. All they can talk about is their newest addition to the objects they have in their house, their latest oh so boring vacations, etc. We are talking boring like some Xtreme sport. It’s like the boredom of their relationship has poisoned their entire lives, making it all boring. Most women are a bore once you get past their sexuality, unless you are into clothes and shoes and hair and relationships and diets. That’s the truth.
I was at a house of one such couple for New Year’s dinner. They were talking about how awful it was to have gone on a cruise on Carnival and wound up on a ship full of “party going” people where the girls all had at least 3 tattoos and the men started drinking beer by 10 o’clock in the morning. The ladies, and their men folk, certainly agreed that was no bunch to hang out with. I would call those men wimps. Very nice, professional people, but, wimps.
I smiled agreeably, thinking about the great time I had with the tatooed twenty-something the night before.
Really, who needs bourgeois morality except in certain specific situations.
BTW, I find the most cutting insult is the one which strikes at a particular weakness of your target. So, to really insult someone, you must first get to know them and their insecurities and tailor your insult accordingly. For example, if you are with a women who is not very pretty, and is sensitive about it, call her ugly. If she is flat chested, make a point out of it. If she is less educated than you, call her stupid. If she sleeps around, call her a slut or its equivalent. The best insult is one where the person knows you are close to the truth, and you despise them for their sort coming.
Naturally, you could just reverse this, and flatter them in areas they feel insecure. That makes both parties feel good, BTW.
As for a guy insult? If I were a girl and wanted to blow off and insult Roissy (who I deeply love and admire for his blog) , I would think the best insult would be “asshole”, spoken straight to his face without much emotion. Just a plain statement of fact. That term is hard to define exactly, but it implies that the speaker thinks Roissy’s whole approach to life and women is just stupid, infantile, and ultimately self defeating and will lead to a miserable life. It also implies that you think the girls he beds are girls impressed by assholes just like him.
Of course, insulting people is just stupid in the extreme, and infantile, except in unusual circumstances. For example, Churchill’s rejoiner when Lady Astor called him drunk enriched our heritage. In case you haven’t heard it, he said:
I may be drunk, but you’re ugly. And, in the morning I’ll be sober.
LikeLike
@Cannon
To accuse someone of eristic ON THE INTERNET is perhaps one of the most redundant accusations even conceivably possible. Isn’t all internet argument inherently eristic? None of us are competing in an election, this is not a judged debate. It’s an exchange of view points with no goal in mind in particular, because it’s the internet. It’s argument for arguments sake by definition, but what the hell is wrong with that?
Me thinks you just wanted people to be impressed because you knew what eristic meant.
LikeLike
Anonymous –
since you’ve begged the question, would you have frequent sex with Einstein if he wanted to?
(I assume you are female).
LikeLike
Since the choices are all hypothetical, they’re all on a level playing field, and therefore I don’t think this is a case of the Nirvana Fallacy.
Dude, you asked a bunch of females who’d they choose based on ideals (a desert island + man archetypes), which is in opposition to a real choice they’d make in the real world (where everyone isn’t Einstein or van damme). A comparison between a choice based on ideals versuses a choice based on real world decision making is the nirvana fallacy.
LikeLike
No Yah Yah –
As I see it, for it to be the NF, the choice has to be between an “idealized” choice (something which hasn’t been tried, doesn’t exist in the real world, or doesn’t yet exist), and an actual real-world choice which exists.
I offered a choice between three *equally* hypothetical scenarios. None was more real or more fake than either of the others.
I believe you are misreading or misunderstanding the definition of the Nirvana Fallacy.
Lookie here:
http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/005420.php
“Over at Cato Unbound on Tuesday, I tagged J. Bradford DeLong with the “Nirvana Fallacy”: the view that if the real-world market doesn’t match an idealized model, then that’s evidence of “market failure” rather than of something missing from the model (like, say, transactions costs). The statement I was criticizing was not very explicit, so I might have been jumping to an unfair conclusion.”
Offering a choice between THREE HYPOTHETICALS is not the Nirvana Fallacy, since the people I was asking will not have experienced any of the choices.
Now, if I asked married women, “Would you rather be stranded on a desert island with your husband, or with Jean-Claude Van Damme”, THAT would be the Nirvana Fallacy, since the women would mentally contrast an *ideal* with someone that they already know intimately, warts-and-all.
Do you even see the shade of difference I’m drawing here?
It’s critical.
LikeLike
Underachiever wrote:
“The worst insult for either men or women in the US is to be called a racist.”
I think I ran into one of the Jezebel gals this past weekend. I was on a pub crawl, and struck up a fun conversation with a a girl across the bar. My buddy and I went over to join her and her friend. My buddy was into her blonde friend, so I talked to the first girl.
A few minutes into the conversation she asked me if I thought she was beautiful. I said what I say every single time I’m asked this or a similar question, “[Pause], you’re cute.”
She then accused me of not finding black women attractive. A couple times. Kept bringing it back up, that I had been conditioned my the media to only find a certain type of woman attractive.
I have to say, the whole racist thing has completely lost its sting. Too many cries of wolf.
Whoever said creep was the worst insult a woman could throw at a guy, especially in public, around other women, was dead on. It implies loser, but not necessarily a professionally unsuccessful man. It means he’s not safe to be around, unwanted by women, and not socially adjusted.
That’s the killer.
Coward could be a damaging insult, but it’d have to be thrown by someone who’s opinion I care about. If my grandfather told me that, I’d just kill myself on the spot. A woman at a bar? Wouldn’t bat an eye.
LikeLike
I think the WORST insult you could throw at a guy is ‘your son looks a lot like the mailman’ LOL
LikeLike
Yah Yah –
OK, so if we two people are dating, and the man asks the woman, where would you like to go for vacation:
1) The Bahamas
2) New Zealand
3) Madagascar
And the woman hasn’t been to any of those places, then according to your logic, that would be the Nirvana Fallacy, because they’re all still only hypotheticals, right?
Or even better…
If he asked her, would you rather go to
1) a beautiful Caribbean island with fantastic beaches and clear blue water for skin-diving
2) a faraway Pacific island country with beautiful mountains, hiking and water sports
3) an exotic tropical island full of rare wildlife and unique culture
Then this would be an invalid offer, because it was “The Nirvana Fallacy” and all those choices are idealized, right?
So, anytime anyone EVER offers you a choice between alternatives you haven’t tried, or things you haven’t done (even foods you haven’t tasted), such an offer would be invalid because it’s just the Nirvana Fallacy?
I don’t even know why I’m bothering to lecture strangers on a blog about simple common sense…
LikeLike
Yes, that is what she is suggesting. Yes, I read her post. She did not say otherwise, until later when she equivocated (very feminine) and said she actually meant “keeping interested,” but then admitted that Roissy may well be able to get her into bed.
When she says “you couldn’t *keep* a woman like me” it is suggesting that he could in fact hook up with a woman like her. Otherwise, how could he have anything to “keep” in the first place? Explain how it is otherwise, oh mighty lesbian logician.
BTW, I’ll bet Roissy would have a much, much better chance of getting in Scal’s pants than you. 😉
LikeLike
“since you’ve begged the question, would you have frequent sex with Einstein if he wanted to?”
How did I beg the question by answering it? You gave me a choice of three; I chose.
If I were trapped on an island for the rest of my life? I expect I would end up having sex with whatever man I was trapped with, whether I wanted it from him or not.
LikeLike
I believe you are misreading or misunderstanding the definition of the Nirvana Fallacy.
What the hell are you on about. I’m not the one confused. The Nirvana Fallacy is an argument set up as a comparison between reality and the ideal, so the person who sets it up can then has an easier position to attack the person who accepts the argument.
This is exactly what you’ve done: you’ve setup a decision making scenario based on your kookey desert island ideals (but WAAAAH they’re hypotheticals!!), against the implicit (but not mentioned position) of what happens when people make real world decisions in relationships. I assume you did this because you wanted to shoot down others arguments when they offered their positions when it didn’t match up to your worldview.
LikeLike
@ wtfitsjared
I absolutely agree with you. This is not a blog for argument or to win election. I have always enjoyed using it constructively as a tool for reflection and personal refinement. Debating about whether or not *some women will sleep with *some men is patently useless and wasteful here.
If I wanted impress people, I’d whip out my mammoth cock.
But aren’t the ladies here tonight attracted to men with such erudite pedigrees as my own? What a conundrum I’ve discovered!
LikeLike
LOL
I love how you all talk of reason, and when you get your asses handed to you individuals like Joe T. resort to “appeal to common sense” arguments, and welmer resorts to ad hominems. You guys are just as emotional, hypocritical, and delusional as the strawmen of women you’ve created.
LikeLike
Yah Yah
You obviously don’t understand the Nirvana Fallacy at all, or your bending its definition to accommodate your ignorance.
I was not asking people to choose between idealized options and something in the real world.
I was asking them to choose one out of three options. All were *equally* ideal.
I did not ask them to choose between any one of those possibilities and anyone in the real world, like their husband, boyfriend, fuck buddy, etc.
But I’m sure you’re gonna go on ranting about how you understand it, and I don’t, just to save face.
I suggest you repeat your logic class, or wherever it was that you first encountered this concept. This time pay attention and take copious notes.
LikeLike
“So, anytime anyone EVER offers you a choice between alternatives you haven’t tried, or things you haven’t done (even foods you haven’t tasted), such an offer would be invalid because it’s just the Nirvana Fallacy?”
A hypothetical choice between three untried alternatives which can never be tried is ultimately pointless, though. Conversation-fodder, I guess, but that’s about it.
LikeLike
You really don’t get it, do you?
A choice between three hypotheticals doesn’t include any reality. You’re swimming in muddy water YahYah.
LikeLike
I concur “creepy” should be on the list for male insults. As should “pathetic”. “Coward” may have been overused by the media (9/11 hijackers were called “cowards” – yeah right), but “spineless” is still quite impactful.
LikeLike
When I’m looking forward to the next Joe T comment on this blog, it’s time for a crash media diet.
LikeLike
“I was asking them to choose one out of three options. All were *equally* ideal.”
But they’re *not* equally ideal. If you’re on an island swarming with predatory animals, Van Damme would probably be a better co-strandee than Mr. Rogers. If you’re on a chilly island, the guy with the sweater is definitely the better choice. If you’re talking about being stuck with someone for life, then the best conversationalist who’s easiest to spend time with is going to be preferable in the long run.
LikeLike
Joe T, and Welmer,
Who doesn’t get what here? Am I speaking to a wall?
You are comparing idealised decision making with real world decision making, as I stated above (twice in fact, can you both read?).
You’ve admitted you created a question based on an ideal situation (*equally* ideal apparently, which is completely irrelevant to my point).
Then you are asking individuals to make a choice based on that ideal.
This is in direct comparison to how they’d really make a decision in the real world where there is much more data to choose from, and things are more murky.
So you’ve set up an explicit argument based on an ideal situation, and implicitly compared to how things really work.
You’ve set up a situation so that you can argue against a person’s decision making (their end choice) based on your kookey desert island scenario, rather than real world decision making (how they really choose mates in specific situations).
And apparently I’m the one lacking common sense.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t think you did this intentionally, but the end consequence is exactly what is going to happen: someone will pick one of your choices and someone else will disagree with it and tell them how wrong they are, which is the nirvana fallacy in action: setting up an argument between the ideal and what is, and then shooting down people who respond to it. That’s the nature of fallacious trickery.
LikeLike
This is better than an online rap battle.
LikeLike
Your words:
“I fucking love it when someone dishes out a cold hard analysis and blows idiots like you out of the water, and then you have the gall to complain about the style.”
We’re going with the definition, YahYah. You’ve lost this one because your “cold hard analysis” of such was clearly mistaken.
Try again.
LikeLike
LOL Man I must have pissed you off hey welmer, cause you are grasping to take digs at me with little substance.
Your retort is a little vague, but for assumptions sake I’ll state there is a difference between style and fallacies. You complained about style, I complained about a specific structuring of fallacy that was being presented on the blog.
LikeLike
Oh, and if you can’t see that you are comparing idealised decision making with actual decision making, then there is not much hope for you.
LikeLike
you can all shut the fuck up. Women have smaller brains. Science, baby. Just deal.
LikeLike
No, it is only your understanding that is vague.
Style is subjective. Just as I don’t like to be barked at by an unkempt dog, I don’t like your style.
Truth is objective, and you have failed to prove that any fallacies have been presented on the blog.
LikeLike
You know what, all the abstract stuff is goin’ right over a Brotha’s head, so here’s what Mu’s gonna do: pickup on points made by DFH & Jared.
Here’s how…
Yesterday one of my homies at work, Q-Dog, was talking to the Shop Steward about his meeting with the Hatchet Lady in the HR Dept. We all know what HR is about-to bring abject pain into your life.
Q-Dog came in to work the other day, but like an hour later had to leave because one of his peeps back home had an emergency. So, he bounces and comes back the next day. Well, they try to give him two points for that (on my gig, we have this silly point system, and if you get enough points, you get banged w/either one day, two day suspensions, or…you get fired).
Q-Dog felt it was Bullshit, so he setup a meeting w/Hatchet Lady. He goes in, and kicks it, saying that he had no control of the situation, had come in to work, and if they wanted a note, how would it look if he got a note from his Mom? Would they accept it as legit? The Hatchet Lady started hemming and hawing.
Sensing a weakness, Q-Dog pressed her and flipped the script: he asks HL, listen, if YOU had come in to work, then an hour later get a call from home that Ma-dukes was ill, you’d bounce wouldn’t you? Hatchet Lady concedes “yes”-
AND WHILE DOING IT STARTS BLUSHING AND UNCONTROLLABLY SMILING, COVERING HER MOUTH WITH HER HAND.
Now, not only does she know she was caught cold busted, but she was turned the fuck on by the fact that here’s this Prole-assed Black Man, staring her down and kicking Wicked Game to her, and she loves that shit.
The end result? Hatchet Lady goes up against her own boss on behalf of Q-Dog and gets the two points on his work record erased.
GAME.
Jason-Bourne style Game, I might add. Notice how he was able to get Women to do things for him, and in most cases it wasn’t even sexual. He only actually banged one Woman in the movies. The other two Women, Nicki and Pam Landy, he wasn’t sexually involved with. All three Women went against their own best interests to assist him.
The same thing-the exact same thing-happened in the case of my homie on the gig Q-Dog.
I think this answers your question, Jared, and buttresses DFH’s point about the Power of Game to do wonders on the “Good Women” of polite Society. As I told Q-Dog later, Game works, because it is a BIOLOGICAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL THING? And is no respector of Race, Social Pecking Order, or even Age. The bottomline was that he’s a Man, she’s a Woman, and she is hardwired to respond to the kinds of behavior he displayed.
The End.
BTW, Mu Gamed Hatchet Lady, too. Same deal.
😉
Y’all Holla back…
Salaam
Mu
LikeLike
But anyway I’m done here. Roissy hates the blog digressing into a definitional shitstorm, so I’m out.
inb4 “haha i beat you, don’t let the door of our club hit you on the way out you she-wolf beta lover.”
LikeLike
What about that one scene in Slapshot when Paul Newman lets the widow of the former owner of the Chiefs have it?
Reggie Dunlop: You know, your son looks like a fag to me.
Anita McCambridge: I beg your pardon?
Reggie Dunlop: You better get re-married again, or he’s gonna have someone’s cock in his mouth before you can say Jack Robinson.
Anita McCambridge: How dare you! How dare you!
LikeLike
My god, Yah Yah is annoying. I can just picture her enlarged posterior yelling at the computer screen in her flannel pjs while chowing down on her fourth Haagen-Das, while at the same time forcing her beta male bf to watch Sex and the City (and forcing him to fast forward through the Charlotte parts, natch).
Yah yah is angry because Yah-Yah doesn’t like what is to be true. It’s typical feminism: define what should be based on what some woman thinks is ideal, ignore when facts point out the fallacy of your ideal, and call anyone who uses facts to point out the illogic of your ideal “misogynistic” and/or “insecure.”
This method immediately shuts down any objection to the ideal because anyone who objects is obviously anti-woman or has psychological issues with “strong” (as defined by fat lesbians teaching in college) women; therefore, only brainwashed followers are allowed to remain in the argument.
Yah Yah expects us all to cower under her claims of misogyny and ignore Roissy because that’s what the modern SWPLer world has taught her: if she calls something anti-woman enough, she can block it from campus or work, whether it be a fact (“hey, men are better at math right now;” “a man who sleeps around is good; a woman who does is worthless after you’re done fucking her”) or a person (Roissy). In Yah-Yah’s pc world, facts/truths don’t matter; only ramming her ideals down your throat do.
Speaking of this fight, the fact that you’re all fighting about a Wikipedia-defined term is pathetic. Link to something reputable. I no more believe that Wikipedia definition than I believe some bum on the street (who probably wrote it).
LikeLike
Let’s say you are 30 years old, and have to be stranded on a desert island for the rest of your life with one man. Would you pick a 30 year-old Jean-Claude Van Damme, a 30 year-old Albert Einstein, or a 30 year-old Fred Rogers?
Male projection. You’re presenting a looks-driven choice and assuming she chooses the best-looking one. Male way of thinking.
writing poems is veneer upon the substructure of mate value. there are many kinds of insults, some more effective than others, but the best are those that plunge the bloody knife deep into the most fragile, and essential, parts of the ego.
perhaps the deepst insult I ever delivered to a woman was when I told this girl her novel was terrible and unpublishable. Certainly far worse than if I had called her a slut. People are ego invested in a lot of stuff. (Probably a few times I’ve broken up with people have hurt them worses, but still).
really hot chicks do seem to be less hurt being called stupid than do men.
this is definitely true.
Game is reconnecting men to their natural role of masculinity…the behavior and demeanor that women are inherently – biologically attracted to.
this is actually true too, but this blog is not really about game.
Also, game is not about “masculinity”, but about particular forms of self-confidence and assertiveness that work with women. Plenty of women are attracted to somewhat feminine qualities in men, this is extremely common. There are numerous male celebrities in the arts that have a feminine edge to them.
I found it through Roosh’s site, who comes across as a funny and generally smart dude
yeah, Roosh seems relaxed and comfortable in his own skin, while Roissy comes across as a giant douche.
LikeLike
Fact is, Yah-Yah, “game” works. Survey 10,000 women who’ve ever been flirted with: would she prefer someone who’s confident and knows what he’s doing and teasing her, or would she prefer awkward nerdiness?
The reason why we come here and listen to Roissy is because we observe this shit working all the time. We observe it working far more–if not always–over “being a nice guy.” Quite frankly, arguing that game doesn’t work and men should be nerdy/dorky/suppressed is like telling a major league hitter to swing with a balloon in the shape of a bat instead of a regular wooden bat. He gets a batting average of .025 and his buddies are hitting .300 and you’re claiming that he’s actually hitting better than them.
I suspect your anger is due to your observing it working but discounting the success or your not wanting it to work. I suggest you unemotionally observe the results and then decide, instead of deciding what the results should be and then cherry picking anecdotal evidence as proof.
And guess what–I have a close friend who is a feminist, but also a realist (she struggles with this sometimes, but hey, it’s a step).
When we talked about “gaming,” she said something very resounding, “Some feminists are up in arms about this. I’m not. When you read what exactly the gaming entails, it’s really just good flirting and dressing well and him acting attractive. For crying out loud, having feminists been complaining about men not bothering with what women want, but instead just expecting us to come to them? Drama is good!”
So, Yah-yah, if your little feminist brain is have trouble with the principles behind game, get stuffed. Perhaps not all the principles are true completely, and perhaps not every technique works (no theory is ever perfect) but there’s enough truth in the results to warrant that your protests are ridiculous. And it produces results a helluva lot more than feminism ever has.
LikeLike
MQ:
“Male projection. You’re presenting a looks-driven choice and assuming she chooses the best-looking one. Male way of thinking.”
MQ let’s slip something truthful. Men and women are attracted to different things. So expecting a woman’s career to attract men like a man’s career attracts women is stupid. Likewise, expecting a man and a woman to act the same and have the same attraction from the opposite sex is stupid.
And, MQ, the term is “projection.” Nothing male about it. But thanks for playing.
LikeLike
Yah Yah,
Please see my account above on Game, occuring in real time, just yesterday. The Woman involved was a middleaged, Jewish, and at least moderately middle class. The Man involved was Black, at least a decade younger, an ex-con and a Prole.
She clearly had the upperhand in terms of seniority and position, yet he successfully Gamed her. So did I, a few months ago.
Your response…?
Salaam
Mu
LikeLike
YahYah wrote:
G, you’re talking about a blog where many of the commentators think they are engaged in an ideological battle with feminism, betas, and anyone who disagrees. Of course they compete, and there is more to competition than the physical world. It’s funny how there are people on this blog dedicated to the physical nature of sex and biology and then deny ideas not only have power, but those ideas are also in competition with each other. It’s like you guys are yelling, “OMG, feminism is creating betas!” and then turn around and state, “BUT BUT ONLY BIOLOGY EXISTS, NOT IDEAS!”
——————————————-
Yes, it does seem like it’s that way on this blog sometimes, but in actuality, there is no inconsistency here. Biology provides a base, ideas are the overlay.
Are South Koreans much different genetically from North Koreans? If not, why such a difference in economic outcomes?
Biology + bad rules = bad outcome
Biology + good rules (i.e. that work with biology instead of against it) = good outcome
The majority of commenters on this blog believe that feminist beliefs are the “bad rules”, the social equivalent to harmony between the sexes that communism is to wealth production.
LikeLike
Likewise, expecting a man and a woman to act the same and have the same attraction from the opposite sex is stupid.
And, MQ, the term is “projection.” Nothing male about it. But thanks for playing.
ummm, that’s what I was saying, so you appear to be agreeing with me. Perhaps you’re not smart enough to understand that.
Also, in this case it was “male projection”, because it was a male projecting male characteristics (valuing looks above everything else) on a woman. If a woman was projecting female characteristics on a male, as often happens, one might say “female projection”.
Thanks for playing!
LikeLike
This just in:
Skank sues Google in attempt to reveal the identity of an anonymous Blogger user who called her a skank:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/01/08/model_google/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/broadsheet/feature
LikeLike
would she prefer someone who’s confident and knows what he’s doing and teasing her, or would she prefer awkward nerdiness?….
“Some feminists are up in arms about this. I’m not. When you read what exactly the gaming entails, it’s really just good flirting and dressing well and him acting attractive.
Some women really would prefer “awkward nerdiness”, as you put it, but it’s a minority. And your friend is right about game.
However, this blog is not really about game, although there’s the occasional post on it. As yah-yah said, it’s about a particular bizarre ideology that’s fueled by bitterness and resentment of women, men who don’t share the ideology etc. Also, made-up stories about evolution. Saying that this ideology is necessary in order to dress well, flirt, or tease a woman is ridiculous. But it’s telling that some people seem to think they need it to bolster their self-confidence.
LikeLike
oh, the irony.
do you really think women desire van damme’s archetype over einstein’s or rogers’s because of van damme’s looks?
mq, please write a one-page essay identifying the irony in your accusing joe of applying “male standards”.
bds, you too.
you two can submit your essays to me by four o’clock.
—
joe, this time you’re spot on, but i’m still waiting for you to explain what the FUCK positive result would possibly obtain from eradicating organized intrascholastic athletics.
LikeLike
yah yah:
wrong.
fail.
pha17.
bzzzzzzz.
the nirvana fallacy is the offering of a choice between at least one idealized, perfect hypothetical option and at least one flawed, realistic real-world option.
that’s what it is.
got it?
“ideal decision making” and “real world [sic] decision making” are not the options in this scenario.
put another way, joe is not asking you to choose between ideal and real-world decision making.
ok?
as has already been pointed out by others here, the options in this scenario are all idealized, and therefore logically parallel
there is no fallacy.
capisce?
i really like this statement-statement-question thing.
mpm, i’ll buy you a round at the four seasons next time you’re in town.
how’s that?
LikeLike
Damn, just read the whole YahYah, Joe T, and Welmer “Nirvana Fallacy” argument.
Joe T and Welmer are correct and this can be hopefully made clear by an example of what this fallacy would actually look like:
Assuming Einstein is your idealized form of genius, “You should prefer Albert Einstein to the professor of astrophysics at your local community college.”
That’s clearly an idealized form against a real world one.
Clearly Joe T was going to make the next point that since a woman prefers the idealized physical alpha, Van Damn, or the idealized intellectual alpha, Einstein, over the idealized beta, Mr. Rogers, then it follows that a woman will choose your local professor of astrophysics over your local unemployed scamp at the bar.
That’s up for debate, since it’s unclear whether preferences from the ideal platonic world are transitive over to the real world. If there’s any fallacy here, it could be the fallacy of transitivity, but it’s definitely not the nirvana fallacy.
Joe T and Welmer win. YahYah loses.
Lastly, YahYah, you deserve a personal scolding for wasting so much blog space with all of your inane “Philosophy 121: Logic” bullshit on here. I try not to be venomous to individuals on blogs, but I have to make an exception in your case.
You came on this blog. You thought that since the men on this blog seem so arrogant with their opinion that “men are rational, women are emotional” posts that you were going to defeat them on their own turf, using their own weapon of reason, and show that, “Au contraire!” it’s the men who are irrational and emotional. You clearly dumped everything you learned in logic class last semester on this blog in a ridiculous ego-boosting attempt to show up everyone else for the sake of your own vanity.
I’ve made mistakes in my comments on this blog before, and when pointed out to me (like Markku did the last time), I’ve admitted that I was wrong.
You’re shrillness and inability to admit that you in fact had made a mistake, in order not to give Joe T and Welmer the emotional satisfaction of being right when they clearly were right, ironically is a prime example of the kind of closely held chauvinistic male thought you were trying to topple.
Good work, and hopefully next semester when you retake Aristotle, you’ll get an A. But for your sake, I hope you retake Augustine or Aquinas and learn the concept of humility.
LikeLike
Roissy Maxim #77: Women will screech louder the closer your words get to damaging or exposing vulnerabilities in their sexual market value.
Anyone will “screech louder” if you accuse them of being or doing anything they inwardly agree with, yet outwardly deny. This is why it is hard to call me a bitch and get any kind of “button pushing” reaction. My buttons only lead to little tingles of delight.
I came here to make a suggestion that could revolutionize your pathetic blog, roissy, and that is to stop using the unfortunately neanderthal term ALPHA and begin referring to the HEALTHY MASCULINE MAN. You will hardly find him here!
LikeLike
amerika is falling apart socially, economically, and sexually because so many americans are jews and no one likes each other because jews aren’t likeable people – even jews really don’t like other jews. there is also an epidemic of jew-inspired faggotry and lesbianism.
anyone else notice this?
LikeLike
and now, for our halftime entertainment, let’s play Name That Player.
what notorious player uttered the following game-related quotes?
I’m a great believer that any tool that enhances communication has profound effects in terms of how people can learn from each other, and how they can achieve the kind of freedoms that they’re interested in.
If you give people tools, [and they use] their natural ability and their curiosity, they will develop things in ways that will surprise you very much beyond what you might have expected.
Life is not fair; get used to it.
LikeLike
Scal – you explained why you disagree. You did not explain why you feel so strongly about this blog that you feel the need to explain your reaction to yourself, and even further, explain yourself to others.
If this stuff did not apply to you at all, you would just ignore this blog like the other gazillion blogs out there and move on. The fact that this blog makes you feel bad means that it touches some nerve. That means you unconsciously know that there is truth in it.
But kudos for being at least honest about other women.
LikeLike
In other news, the sky is blue, water is wet, winter is cold in Siberia and summer is hot in the Sahara.
LikeLike
He-man and others, I wouldn’t worry about it. It’s just the jezebels coming here from their scream fest over at their site. The story will be gone soon, and they’ll go back to swooning over Obama and whatever other bullshit they get up to. I don’t expect to see scal, yahyah, and all the other refuted femnazis coming back to argue with you all. It was a driveby catharthis of manhate for them. They won’t be back (until the next screed from Jezebel on Roissy).
LikeLike
Are you really going to vegas gmanifesto? I think that you are actually going to stay home and watch Casino on vhs. No real international, hustling playboy would spend so much time commenting on other people’s blogs. Phony.
LikeLike
“amerika is falling apart socially, economically, and sexually because so many americans are jews and no one likes each other because jews aren’t likeable people”
LOL. They don´t make anti-semites as before
LikeLike
^ Awesome name, Doctor.
LikeLike
Actually, life is unfair and then you die.
LikeLike
The van Damme/Rogers/Einstein desert island scenario offered above is misleading because I suspect none of the men in the list have/had any Game. Van Damme is a macho meathead, not a Gamer or player or PUA. I suppose on a desert island I might choose van Damme for his strength, but he wouldn’t in any sense be a “turn on” for me.
If you want a more interesting and revealing discussion, why not offer Brad Pitt/Carey Grant/John Cusack as options? Pitt is a hunk with Game but rather bland and shallow; Grant (in his films) was a polished and debonair Gamer with good manners and an endearing clumsiness; Cusack is a nerdy type with Game who seems to appeal to a great many younger women, though I can’t really see why myself.
The advantage of the trio I propose here is that it would give women readers who object to the very idea of Game a clearer idea of what it really is. It would also make clear to men that it’s not necessary to be an ***hole in order to practise Game or be successful with women.
Then you could start to ask how women would feel about a choice between a Gamer like one of the men in my list, and a man like Rogers or Einstein – who, incidentally, seems to have behaved badly to all the women in his life. Almost as if he were really an alpha…
LikeLike
SCAL wrote a good post.
But she is probably not aware with just how amoral many women seem to be. Every man with game eventually comes across a sweet, intelligent, affectionate girlfriend/wife who proceeds to blow him in the bathroom (metaphorically or literally) the minute her man’s back is turned. It’s a real mind-warp the first time it happens. “That guy could be me.” And you’re off to the races.
Is this just a modern, anonymous-urban-dweller phenomenon? I dunno. It’s much more prevalent than our modern culture acknowledges.
Hence the obsession w/ slut-signals.
LikeLike
cunt ALWAYS work. Period. the last salvo in the arsenal. full nuclear meltdown. i have not field tested calling a girl this, save once. i don’t know that any girl worth fucking would do so after being labeled the “C” word. the word of no return….and Mason’s right, we all nailed a girl that forever had you wondering late at night….wow, she seems so sweet….is she a raging gangbang-craving whore?
LikeLike
Dynamo Kiev wrote –
“Clearly Joe T was going to make the next point that since a woman prefers the idealized physical alpha, Van Damn, or the idealized intellectual alpha, Einstein, over the idealized beta, Mr. Rogers, then it follows that a woman will choose your local professor of astrophysics over your local unemployed scamp at the bar.”
Thanks for the back-up on my post (earlier), DK.
However with regard to the above, I wasn’t touting the idealized “intellectual alpha” as an archetype that would be favored by the average American girl.
On the contrary, the US is a profoundly anti-intellectual society, and in almost any social situation with stereotypical American young females today, the Albert Einstein archetype would do miserably.
LikeLike
Mason – But she is probably not aware with just how amoral many women seem to be. Every man with game eventually comes across a sweet, intelligent, affectionate girlfriend/wife who proceeds to blow him in the bathroom (metaphorically or literally) the minute her man’s back is turned. It’s a real mind-warp the first time it happens. “That guy could be me.” And you’re off to the races.
She knows. If she has never done so herself, she is at least aware that some of her friends have done it.
It is interesting how women react to these stories:
– “this is just subset of women (aka sluts)”, and then roissy proceeds blogging about sluts and they come back and are upset about this stigmatization
– “these were accidents/do not count”, because she was drunk/didn’t mean to do it/got seduced/was upset or whatever
– “it’s the man’s fault”, he should be a better lover/provider/husband/boyfriend whatever
– “it’s just anecdotal”, and then follow up with anecdotes about their own and her friends virtues
The fact remains that the rate of incidences of this kind is directly proportional to your game/alpha status.
Women tend to argue with their frontal lobes in forums such as this and then proceed to decide with their limbic systems when it comes to the action.
You cannot argue with women about that unless you know some intimate details about her past sex life that you can throw into her face to let them realize their lies and double standards.
It usually goes like this:
HER: “I would never sleep with a guy who’s taken!”
ME: “Uhm, didn’t you tell me that your “first” had a girlfriend in another city?”
HER: “…but that would never happen again!”
LikeLike
On the contrary, the US is a profoundly anti-intellectual society, and in almost any social situation with stereotypical American young females today, the Albert Einstein archetype would do miserably.
And yet he was my choice of the three alternatives you offered.
LikeLike
Anonymous –
Fair enough. I never implied preference for Van Damme would be universal among American women. I just meant that he would be the overwhelmingly popular choice, if typical American young women were polled.
LikeLike
Dr. Deepdick,
“Are you really going to vegas gmanifesto?”
Yes. Its really not that hard to get to.
“I think that you are actually going to stay home and watch Casino on vhs.”
Great movie.
“No real international, hustling playboy would spend so much time commenting on other people’s blogs. Phony.”
Your right. “Cool” people don’t use the Internet.
– MPM
LikeLike
G. I know for a fact that you are full of shit.
Did you ever get that literary agent?
LikeLike
Clio,
Your points are articulate as always, but I don’t know what you mean when you say Brad Pittt and John Cusack have game.
When you’re a famous man, you don’t need game. You walk into a room and women swoon. So many of us see this in action, we take it for granted.
There is an interesting book from the 1980s called “Rock Wives,” where the better halves of rock star describe the offers their men got 24/7 — and how many times that caused the end of their relationships. All these guys had to do was show up or pick up the phone.
In fact, I read recently that two hair metal stars recently had a bet to see who could bed the most women without showering.
LikeLike
And G, how’s the feedback on urbis?
LikeLike
11minutes: True.
The “I am now more mature” argument is especially interesting. In fact, it is literally true, because older women go through hormonal changes, which makes them more able to control their sex life than young girls. But this is not what the women mean when they talk about maturity.
LikeLike
Why did you pick Van Damme as an example? He’s short and spazzy…. probably wouldn’t be much of a sex symbol if he weren’t famous.
LikeLike
I have to agree with D of BA. In fact, Hollywood lore says that pre-fame Brad Pitt actually had very little game and would struggle on the singles scene and was often striking out in LA despite being good looking. It’s like Roissy says, being good-looking without any game is still pretty bad.
LikeLike
“It is interesting how women react to these stories:
– “this is just subset of women (aka sluts)”, and then roissy proceeds blogging about sluts and they come back and are upset about this stigmatization
– “these were accidents/do not count”, because she was drunk/didn’t mean to do it/got seduced/was upset or whatever
– “it’s the man’s fault”, he should be a better lover/provider/husband/boyfriend whatever
– “it’s just anecdotal”, and then follow up with anecdotes about their own and her friends virtues
The fact remains that the rate of incidences of this kind is directly proportional to your game/alpha status.
Women tend to argue with their frontal lobes in forums such as this and then proceed to decide with their limbic systems when it comes to the action.
You cannot argue with women about that unless you know some intimate details about her past sex life that you can throw into her face to let them realize their lies and double standards.
It usually goes like this:
HER: “I would never sleep with a guy who’s taken!”
ME: “Uhm, didn’t you tell me that your “first” had a girlfriend in another city?”
HER: “…but that would never happen again!” ”
When I was a young man, a grizzled veteran philosopher advised me that situational ethics = female ethics. It wasn’t until I became older and wiser that his words fully sunk in.
LikeLike
Hey, Days of BA, the trouble with using famous people as examples, esp. famous actors, is that they often don’t live up to the roles they play on screen in real life. But it’s these actors on-screen personae I was thinking of in my comment, not their real-life selves.
Pitt and Cusack have both frequently played archetypal contemporary heart-throb males on screen, and that’s why I chose them. Pitt’s variant of this is visible in films like Thelma and Louise, A River Runs Through It, and Legends of the Fall, in all of which he plays a kind of post-modern strong, silent type, almost a cowboy – with so much Game (in these stories) that he didn’t even have to talk very much to get the girl – just smile knowingly.
Cusack’s on-screen roles have cast him as a lovable dweeb, with just enough Game to outdo the more obviously attractive men around him. As I said, there are many younger women who find this archetype extremely appealing. I suspect that when women say that they prefer betas to alphas, it’s some variant of the John Cusack type that they mean.
LikeLike
Let me slightly modify the above.
It usually goes like this:
HER: “I would never sleep with a guy who’s taken!”
ME: “Uhm, didn’t you tell me that your “first” had a girlfriend in another city?”
HER: “…but they really didn’t love each other, so it was OK. They were on the verge of breaking up!”
ME: “Wait, what about that married guy with the kids and sick wife you mentioned?”
HER: “Well, I don’t consider that cheating because he said his wife wouldn’t give him sex and that means she broke a marriage vow first.”
ME: “Hold on. But you said you slept with your boss — that Italian guy with the trophy wife.”
HER: “Yeah, but I don’t care cause he was HOTT!!”
(Disclaimer: To be fair, this is not all women, but these examples are taken from the real life of a woman I knew.)
LikeLike
Dr. Deepdick,
“Did you ever get that literary agent?”
Yes.
– MPM
LikeLike
“Why did you pick Van Damme as an example? He’s short and spazzy…. probably wouldn’t be much of a sex symbol if he weren’t famous.”
PA – don’t know how short the man is. Still, look at pics of his physique. With body and face like that, the vast majority of women will forgive his lack of height.
But I picked him NOT primarily for his looks (as I know looks are not the main factor for women), but for his overall very strong (though superficial) alpha qualities. He’s an action hero, he’s extremely buff, has strong masculine features, and he’s foreign (most American chicks get dizzy for European accents).
The main thing is, he’s a hypermasculine alpha type, though in a superficial way.
Not saying the guy himself, or his personality, is superficial, just saying he has all or most of those qualities that when an American girl looks at him and hears him talk, she’ll probably instantly swoon.
LikeLike
Am I too articulate for you, roissy? Too well-reasoned? I can’t imagine why else you might delete my comments. I’m a little bit flattered, honestly.
Your inability to respond to reasoned arguments without resorting to personal slights coupled with your comment censoring is quite telling, roissy. It reeks of insecurity and false bravado.
What you present on this blog is not interesting, subversive, or intelligent. You are catering to the lowest common denominator- worse still, you seem to know that. Many, many men have attempted to garner readers and attention through such “shocking truths” as: women do not like being called fat, ugly, or cunts; women go after men with money; women like cocky assholes; feminists are stupid; etc; etc; etc.
You are not the first, you won’t be the last, and you are certainly not the most clever. There is no book deal waiting for you around the corner. Your sexploits are not in any way notable, and your perceived suavity is laughable.
I’m not much bothered that this comment won’t be made public on your sad little blog. It is quite satisfying enough to know that you have read it.
LikeLike
Fuck, PA, if I were a girl, I’d go for Van Damme… 🙂
LikeLike
G,
This is the real world. Maybe you are a hustler in second life, but you aren’t shit in the real world.
Stop with the bullshit. I read one of your query letters.
LikeLike
What’s a query letter?
LikeLike
11 minutes, He-Man, Mason et al
I have never cheated, and none of my close friends have, either.
In my experience, women who cheat usually have poor self-esteem.
You are all aspiring to be “alpha” males. In my circle, which is comprised almost entirely of alpha males, the men are secure enough to have forthright, fulfilling relationships with women who are on equal footing. This environment does not breed insecurity.
He-Man, to answer your question about why I bothered to leave a comment here – I came to this site through Jezebel and was initially inclined to disregard it. But then I realised that other right-thinking women had done exactly that. The comments on this blog are left by one of three types of people; by Roissy’s fan-base; by outraged women who get all shouty; or by cloying, insecure women who want to be “in” with the haters.
Also, it does bother me that there’s a whole subculture of men who see women as “others”. The core of the “game” is good; the tips on being engaging and flirtatious with women are spot-on. The problem is that the movement attracts misogynists who make this all about categorising and deriding women. It shouldn’t be like that. The way you treat others directly correlates to the way others have treated you. As a result, true alpha males have respect for women (whether in a one-night-stand or on a longer-term basis).
LikeLike
Scal,
I’ve been reading along some of your comments and you seem like a reasonable person. Hopefully you’ll stick around and contribute to the discussions. Although quite a few are packed w/a good bit of sound and fury, just as many posts are quite informative.
To your point about Game attracting misogynists, I don’t think there’s a heck of a lot Players can do about that. Hospitals attract drug addicts (nurses and doctors), should we shut them down?
As a Player, I have respect for Women’s choices. I can’t speak for everyone nor do I want to. I spak solely for myself.
Salaam
Mu
LikeLike
@scal above,
Your subgroup listing didn’t include me, so I’ll raise my hand here. I am a high-income professional woman, long-term married with 3 kids. I am neither cloying nor insecure, and have no desire to be “in” here.
I’ve been stuck on this blog because there are some truths here, relevant to my marriage, which is as solid as any.
I agree that many here are bitter and hateful, but they are also intelligent (much more-so that the Jezebel lot). I dont’ think the site generates insecurity, as you mentioned, but it breeds mistrust. Misogynistic? certainly, but so what; it’s there reality, which you can’t deny them. You can learn lots about a subgroup of men here, but you’ll gain insights into your own marriage; are you married?
LikeLike
I want to second what MuMin said above in terms of encouraging Scal to stick around.
The worst things about feminist sites like Feministing and Jezebel is they constantly ban commenters who dissent from the party line. We need to be careful not to fall into that trap.
Anyway, she does have several good points; namely, not all women are like the ditzes that populate the clubs. I think Roosh once mention this, but for every girl in a club, there are dozens sitting home who are probably not attention-whores or flakes.
LikeLike
****
(2) The commentators that disagree with Roissy the majority of the time, that are also vocal, and have game, are true alphas. There are a couple here, and they generally have their heads and ethics in better shape than the “OMG WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS DYING AT THE HANDS OF TEH FEMBOTS” Steve Sailer crowd that have set up shop here.
****
I’m curious as to how way below-replacement population growth is going to maintain our culture. I’m serious, this is a legitimate question.
It’s been proved pretty conclusively that when mothers have the choice to have less kids…. they do. I say ‘ mothers’ because our culture has put mothers on such a super-pedastal it’s pathetic. Let me repeat, when ordinary women are given more power, they have less children. For there is nothing greater than a mother’s love for her child. Unless she chooses not to have him because she can.
LikeLike
@days above:
I could kiss your feet for this comment:
but for every girl in a club, there are dozens sitting home who are probably not attention-whores or flakes.
Roissy addressed that once, stating that women who don’t hang out in bars are (as per his usual) -fat, -ugly, -old.
How about, -don’t like the smell, -too cheap to buy alcohol, -prefer the men in their school or work lives.
Much of the “lessons learned” are on a tiny subgroup of women only.
LikeLike
@comment-pop.
I say ‘ mothers’ because our culture has put mothers on such a super-pedastal it’s pathetic. Let me repeat, when ordinary women are given more power, they have less children. For there is nothing greater than a mother’s love for her child. Unless she chooses not to have him because she can.
What do you mean by “on a pedestal”? How so?
Answer to your question: When women are no longer penalized for working part-time. I believe most women desire to have children and to have meaningful part-time work. The labor laws are inflexible as to benefits, retirement benefits, health care benefits, etc. Children only need 15 -16 years of hands-on nurturing. That’s less than 1/2 of a woman’s potential work years.
LikeLike
anony said:
“Roissy addressed that once, stating that women who don’t hang out in bars are (as per his usual) -fat, -ugly, -old.”
Some of that is true, of course. But just from knowing a lot of people I know some people stay home because not everyone is an extrovert. Not everyone likes to be out and about, some people like to unwind with a book.
How we behave socially is often reflective of our jobs. And some of us aren’t lawyers, managers or salespeople — always socializing and on the go. Some people are researchers, writers, etc. Socially awkward does not mean ugly.
LikeLike
@days,
Socially awkward does not mean ugly.
Certainly, and I agree with the “game” concept that social skills can blossom with practice. Most people prefer a partner with good social skills because it enhances quality of social life. Lastly, too much work can kill off social skills.
LikeLike
****
What do you mean by “on a pedestal”? How so?
****
When you say there is ‘nothing greater than love’, I think that pretty much counts as putting someone on a pedastal. You simply didn’t notice it, because I put mother instead of ‘bestest girl in the whole world’. ‘There is nothing greater than her love’ is obviously super-pedastalling your girlfriend. So the better question is why you failed to notice it when I put in ‘mother’?
I’ve also noticed that a lot of mothers helpfully get their daughters to stop believing in love and start believing in their vaginas.
I’m to lazy to dig up one of the female-porn books I regret reading where a woman helpfully directly states this charming attitude. I thought it was a sci-fi book when I picked it up. Then I read on in a mixture of shock and disbelief. My Beta-Matrix took direct hits that day.
LikeLike
BTW, Einstein was a natural Alpha even before he became famous. He probably bagged more chicks than your average rock band.
LikeLike
The blank in brackets was hidden.
Meant to say:
When you say ‘there is nothing greater than ‘blanks’ love’
LikeLike
“BTW, Einstein was a natural Alpha even before he became famous. He probably bagged more chicks than your average rock band.”
Different values, different time, different culture.
Einstein grew up in the late 1800s in Germany, and lived as a young man in Italy and then in Switzerland. His formative years were all in traditional European cultures where intellectual prowess (for its own sake, not necessarily in the service of profit) gave one elevated status. Yes, even in romance. Very much in romance.
American culture is the antithesis of that. The founders who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were gentlemen squires, self-made intellectuals. They founded great universities on the Eastern Seabord.
But as America played out its manifest destiny and wagon trains moved westward to settle the Midwest, Great Plains, and West, the initial reverence for intellectualism and learning were greatly diluted. In small pioneer towns in the Midwest, one-room schoolhouses were the norm for over a century, and in many settlements and small towns, if kids had a legitimate college graduate as their teacher, they were very lucky.
Brawn became valued over brains in pioneer America. It was much more important how much hay you could bale and how many Indians you could kill, than if you could read Aristotle in ancient Greek or quote Herodotus.
To compound this, in one of the few really unique developments of an American culture, organized team sports somehow not only became part of elementary and especially high school education, they actually came to be viewed as MORE important than academics in much of America. This is deeply ingrained in our society, and this is why I earlier called for — and still adamantly call for — the elimination of all organized elementary and high school interscholastic TEAM sports (not individual sports like track and field.)
To simplify and distill this all, while still giving an honest analysis (something a lot of people don’t want to hear) the result was that America developed into a profoundly anti-intellectual society. And this has persisted to this day in our mindless politics, our clinging to religion as no other 1st World country does, and our obsession with war (i.e., the “might makes right” philosophy of high school sports and pep rallies writ large on the world stage.)
I make these claims and allegations vehemently and forcefully, in the full knowledge that they antagonize a lot of the flag-waving jingoist set out there. So, feel free to come at me! But spare me the banal generalities and pious patriotic blather.
LikeLike
back to comment–population
I am trying to understand you here:
It’s been proved pretty conclusively that when mothers have the choice to have less kids…. they do. I say ‘ mothers’ because our culture has put mothers on such a super-pedastal it’s pathetic. Let me repeat, when ordinary women are given more power, they have less children. For there is nothing greater than a mother’s love for her child. Unless she chooses not to have him because she can.
As I understand, you feel that when ordinary women have more options, they fail to breed at population-replacement levels. This excludes Latinas and the welfare-class , who have more babies. We appear to agree on the data.
You asked what it would take to reverse this trend. I stated that it would take a change in labor laws, specifically, the benefit structure for part-time workers. Why did you not respond?
I believe most “ordinary women” with options want families, and they desire flexibility to work part-time without loss of retirement benefits, health-care benefits, continuing education, networking, and momentum in the workplace. Many many many women would prefer to work part-time when their children are small, and return to full-time when home responsibilities diminish. Most current labor practices offer an all-or-nothing option.
LikeLike
scal:
Do you understand that misogyny is just a derogative label? It is meant to convey moral outrage, not increase information about somebody. Often such words are used to make person who has transgressed some moral boundaries an outcast in the society.
When somebody tries to label me, it tells more about them than me. Of course, if I get angry, it also tells something about me.
Fortunately, in this forum, such labels do not have the “desired” effect of making me an outcast. They are only effective if I become angry. But you actually need my co-operation for that. Sorry, but I am not going to give you that.
(I know that you did not specify the misogynists, in practice you just threatened to use such labels when somebody transgresses the arbitrary moral boundaries in your head.)
That you choose to use such a label tells me everything about your attitude. All the things about professionalism and equality are just a story you tell yourself and friends.
The joke that you don’t seem to appreciate is that the derogative and other words here are actually taken out of context and re-defined as technical terms. What this discussion thread is actually about is giving an operational definition for one such technical term, slut.
More generally, I think these discussions are about disillusionment men have about women. At least I don’t hate women, I hate the fact that society lies to everybody about the nature of women. And I hate it because it makes everybody worse off.
The unconfortable truth for you I think is the fact that men and women are really not the same. Thus, men and women as groups cannot really have equality of outcome unless we resort to some form of communism.
LikeLike
scal: The other funnier thing is that by posting here you confirm that you value the opinion of the people on this board. This reveals that the passive-aggressive version of negging works for you.
LikeLike
Re: “My problem with women isn’t that they think like this, but that they lie about thinking like this.”
I think women (as a group, of course) are led to be untruthful about what attracts them sexually not because they’re being dishonest per se, but because many don’t admit it to themselves, don’t even realize it themselves on a conscious level. Despite the sexual liberation rhetoric, it’s still seen as unseemly for women to be deeply sexual. Women can be “sexy,” but not really sexual. We’ve got a legacy of Victorianist “woman is angel” thinking that the fembots have just morphed into a “women don’t need men or should only put up with men who can be led about by the nose because men are so bad and women are angels” ideology. And from men, we get the idea that if a woman admits to being deeply sexual, she’s a slut — which is good for a one night stand or a fling, but not marriage.
Men, too, don’t admit to women that they’re into sluts sexually. They will buy their GFs and wives lingerie and heels and such, but tell the female that she’s the only one they’re interested in seeing dressed like that, that “real sluts” are disgusting, that he’s checking stock prices and not really surfing the net for porn, etc.
Here’s the thing, IMO: men are turned on by what they’re turned on by, and women are turned on by what they’re turned on by. But mere turn-ons don’t a marriage make and can’t be the entire basis for civilization. I don’t want to make light of turn-ons by using the word “mere” here, because I think the sex is extremely important; I just think that it should be kept subjugated to the will. My wish is that the Madonna/Whore thing would just die, that women stop treating men like shit, that the laws would support patriarchy (by which I mean the rights of fathers, not some nebulous idea of women being inferior, unintelligent, being incapable of owning property or sitting on juries and other such bullshit), that men not fall into a “vengeance is mine” mentality and go on to treat women like dirt because of what the fembots have done the past 50 years, that marriage be taken seriously, that sex be treated for what it should be: something of profound importance that married people do. Sex should be treated neither as a sport nor as ONLY a procreative thing as some on the “conservative” side would have it. Sex should be hot and great and seen as fun, wonderful, private but not dirty (not in the bad sense of “dirty”, i.e., not in a “we don’t talk about that” way), as kinky as the two concerned want it to be, and as the powerful, freaky thing it is — almost (?) mystical at its best.
I always sorta wonder what the world would be like if the Puritans had never got control of our culture, if the lack of respect for women that Protestantism brought with its diatrabes against Mary as the Mother of God had never happened, if great feminine intellects like St. Hildegard weren’t ignored in the process. What if Lucy and Ricky hadn’t had to sleep in separate beds on TV, if Ricky kept his spanking of Lucy to the bedroom, if Lucy could wink at Ethel the next day while telling her about it, if Lucy could buy a hat without asking because she deserved it for the work she did at home, if Lucy hadn’t grown up in a world where women could only work in candy factories IF they needed work outside the home for fulfillment, if women’s intellects and needs weren’t so disregarded that the explosion that came was so stupidly inevitable — and, therefore, the backlash against all the madness weren’t happening now. KWIM?
LikeLike
Great comment, Some Girl, but I wonder if the boys will think so. I more or less share your views.
LikeLike
Some Girl:
Sex should be hot and…as kinky as the two concerned want it to be
Clio:
Great comment, Some Girl… I…share your views.
Are you into kinky sex, Clio???
AWE
SOME
LikeLike
“Fair enough. I never implied preference for Van Damme would be universal among American women. I just meant that he would be the overwhelmingly popular choice, if typical American young women were polled.”
And this, I think, is why your desert-island scenario was flawed in the first place: you think you have a better handle on what women find attractive than you actually do.
LikeLike
Some girl: This may surprise you, but I fully agree with everything you say.
Now, what do you suggest?
(Please, don’t underestimate me by disregarding effect of biology (contra effect of nurture) or by assuming differences between sexes without evidence.)
LikeLike
..assuming there are no differences between sexes…
(should not drink that much)
LikeLike
Tupac – I thought you said farewell to Clio, never to look back.
By the way, what do people mean when the say “kinky sex?” I understand hot sex, bang that cute piece of ass you always wanted to sex, mad fucking crazy animal sex, but what is kinky sex, and is it good?
I mean, if by kinky sex you mean clothes pins on nipples, candlewax, and unspeakable applications of wind-up toys… well, it’s neat I guess, but it must pale in comparison to regular ol’ sweaty, dirty, bang the headboard sex… or even just your standard gottagetanutoff mediocre sex, no?
LikeLike
PA:
Tupac – I thought you said farewell to Clio, never to look back.
Nah, I was just bodyrockin’ on the backturn tip 😉
LikeLike
He-Man, IMO, we’ve got to change the law. We’ve got to: eliminate no-fault divorce or find ways around it (“covenant marriages”? prenuptial agreements?); stop forcing men to support children born out of wedlock; return the issue of abortion to the States where it belongs and will hopefully be made illegal; make it so that, in cases of divorce, men get custody of children by default AND everything being equal (not in cases of proven abuse, etc.); and get rid of the welfare state that replaces daddies with government. As I see things, those are the five main legal points that have to be addressed in order to restore a semblance of sanity.
As to the cultural level of things, I could sum it up with three words, “preach the Gospel” — but I’m thinking that most folks around here are secular-minded, so such a thing wouldn’t fly. Maybe the categorical imperative would work instead. “What if everyone were to act on the impulse of getting theirs while the getting’s good since the world seems to be going to shit anyway?” I guess the answer to that depends on a person’s willingness to fight.
LikeLike
interestingly, to compare with the “fag” insult, women asking if I’m gay has been a huge IOI in the past. i’d followed up on this on occasion, and it’s usually because a) i’m well dressed, b) expressive, c) “speak proper english”, and d) can dance. and they are just checking before barking up the wrong tree, or it’s an indirect question for “have you got a gf?”.
LikeLike
The Gods offered a clue about the Italians in the movie “The Matrix”:::They casted an Italian as the traitor of the group, the one who betrays them all.
As they did humanity in the 20th century (see “clone hosting”).
The voice you hear in your head is the power of the Gods. It’s a remote technology, like a computer, perhaps functioning on some frequency, and it can listen and talk to everyone in the universe simultaneously.
What the Gods taught the children was the truth:::God is everywhere, and as I will remind you:::If you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
Even the antient Gods don’t have the ability to listen to people’s thoughts themselves. They taugh we were all made in their image:::I expect they need this “Artificial Intelligence” they created to relay what people think.
It is a tool, and the Gods use their tools to test people with temptation:::It will role-play people in your life:::Parents, friends, spouses, and employers, all in an attempt to test people with temptation. Ironically, it does the very same thing to those people whom you think you’re hearing, except in that individual’s unique way:::We are all “managed” by the God’s technology.
There are no secrets with this technology.
But this “agent of the Gods” can do more than just communicate. It can force thoughts into people’s heads, force behaviors onto their bodies. It can turn healthy cells in your body into cancerous cells. It is absolute power. And this is just the beginning.
The Gods favor the children most among all the people due to their innocence and purity. But society and the God’s tools are corrupting the children at a progressively younger age, a reflection of our collectively increasing disfavor and yet another clue illustrating we live in a constantly deteriorating environment.
Children who sucessfully repair their relationship with the Gods ascend into heaven. This often takes multiple lives of hard work and proper behavior in the face of adversity to achieve. Adults to whom it is offered enter clone hosting, thinking they are ascending into heaven. The Gods tempt people, selling them as one in the same, but one is good while the other is evil. In their desperation the disfavored subscribe to this temptation, making their task even more difficult than before due to the evil they incurr in the process. And their corruption will cost the disfavored, for they will be reincarnated as a lesser life form into an ever deteriorating world, sucess becoming ever more alluding with each passing life.
The hole they’ve dug for themselves is even deeper than the one that existed from their prior lives, ensuring it will take even more time and work to fix their problems with the Gods. And for many there may not be enough time left.
Ours is an envionment where evil is perceived to be rewarded while good is punished. As with everything the Gods have a reason for creating this perception::::
People who fall on the good side of the good/evil scale have more favor, and when they do something wrong the Gods punish them BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM TO LEARN. The Gods want them to receive this feedback in hope they make corrections and begin to behave appropriately. The Gods DON’T like evil and refuse to grant this immediate feedback.
EVERYBODY pays for what they do wrong, only evil people must wait until their next life before they will experience the wrath of the Gods, manifested in their placement as a lower form of life into environments with increased/enhanced temptations, like the United States or ghettos therein.
Sadly, this allows the Gods to position this perception of evil rewarded as temptation, one which they use as an EXTREMELY effective corruptor.
The Gods suggest they can create paradise for those with their favor. I argue they create misery for those without::::
Our celebrity culture is temptation. It creates a distraction which consumes people, sometimes for life. Certainly it costs them precious years which could be spent repairing their relationship with the Gods, time that ultimately goes wasted.
Do you really think Frank Sinatra lived to be 84 years old? In fact the “Chairman of the Board” had a new crowd to entertain in the late 80s/early 90s.
These people are clone hosts. Now, there is no thing as “black and white” with the Gods. This technology they invented is far, far too dynamic. Expect they require most to stay for a period of time, for I suspect actively (knowingly) engaging in this evil incurrs at an accelerated rate as compared to “carte blanche” given regarding successive clone hosts. They remain until they achieve a pre-determined level of disfavor, incurring evil in their misguided celebration of “earning”, at which time they are ultimately reincarnated, perhaps because they eventually learned this truth I am sharing with you and began to repair their relationship.
The Gods recruit most for clone hosting when people are young, in their late teens or twenties, when people are eager to hurt others for what they perceive to be the benefits achieved through “earning”. And before they leave they give the Gods “carte blanche”:::”Do anything you want. I give my full approval.” Depending on their level of disfavor the Gods take them to heart.
Because of this these people STILL INCUR EVIL FROM THIS LIFE DESPITE BEING REINCARNATED AND LIVING AS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PERSON. And incurring this amount of evil may likely push many over the edge into Damnation.
What are the God’s standards for offering clone hosting? Sociobility? Many tactics in various eras are used to gain approval, duress during the Vietnam draft being a good example.
They liked Heath Ledger. Not enough to allow him to escape without the evil of “Dark Knight” and the horrific wickedness that was the recruiting tool “Brokeback Mountain”. But now he is out. And irregardless of how old he is now, reincarnated 10, 15 years ago, he now is no longer incurring evil from this life. So many others cannot say the same.
This is Planet Reverse Positioning. Sucess IS NOT a sign of favor. It is just a unique temptation targetted towards a different level of disfavor. Considering our roots as peasantry people should be particularly alarmed at this tactic.
Clone hosting is like money:::A different level of disfavor and its associated temptation. Money is in better position to learn more quickly than those without, for the associations and wealth-based freedom enables them access to information. Unfortunately, those who fall for this temptation of clone hosting are likely returned to their original level of disfavor once they are reincarnated, punishment for this evil, and they have to start from scratch.
The Gods send the clue that the Jews are HIGHLY corruptable with the movie “The Ten Commandments”.
Jesus was the “King of the Jews”. Typical for the disfavored, once goals were achieved and sufficient damage was incurred the Gods allowed it to end, and the Jews killed him.
Our society’s values are bestowed by (a reflection of) the God’s:::Punitive and reward-based. Contrary to Jesus’s teaching’s you will NOT be forgiven and you have to earn your way into heaven BY BEING RESPECTABLE AND DECENT!!! Forgiveness/savior was the primary temptations the Gods used Christianity to create.
Middle-America’s anti-Semitic attitudes are a clue regarding Christianity. Europe shaped like a sheep is symbolic for the slaughter that is Christinaity.
There is no such thing as a free ride. Just as you have to earn a living by working so must you earn your own salvation by repairing your relationship with the Gods.
As we learned from religious/morality education during our formitable years:::If you want to go to heaven you have to be good. The only savior that will exist in our lives is ourselves. The Gods offer clues in life::::Be it school, work, etc., you have to do the work for yourself and when you do something wrong you get punished. Cheating is a subsegment and speaks directly to the temptation of “priveledge”, one we have seen used effectively when the United States preyed on the disfavored with the so-called “stimulus package”.
As like so many of you, Jesus did everything the Gods tempted him with. His legacy of whorism was inherited from his parents:::Mary was no virgin. Rather, she was a prostitute, and when he grew up Jesus met someone like his mother. This is a cruel joke the Gods play on Latinos, similar to the rape and subsequent “missionary work” by the Spanish.
Baptism does not allieviate “original sin”. Rather, baptism PLACES original sin by indoctrinating these children into this evil religion, much like circumcision was a method to inflict early damage/mutilation and make (permanant) accention just that much more difficult, another hurdle one must overcome. Body ornamentation (tattoos/piercing), celebrated in Africa and elsewhere among disfavored peoples/cultures also violates the body the Gods gave us in their image, quite opposite to the positive attitudes the disfavored hold regarding this practice.
Like Jesus the Second Coming of Christ will be evil. He will look like a savior in this demented society while the Anti-Christ will speak of a different gospel, one that tries to restore the norms and mores which the Gods originally blessed upon the people which made life decent, looking like a tyrant in the process.
He will be viewed as the “bad guy” when really he is the one trying to save the world.
There may be a phoney offering, a theatrical production which accurately follows the Book of Revelations. Actually positioning demands it:::::Christianity is positioned to be the one true religion. And those who follow its teachings will have limits imposed ensuring their stay will be minimal, for they don’t think correctly and therefore don’t behave appropriately. This describes many “sinners” in today’s society because they refuse to change their behavior.
The Gods created the perception “Italians are stupid.”, ensuring a slow learning curve, to justify using them to accomplish goals throughout the transitional 20th century. It took an extraordinarily long time for them to learn this truth I teach due to this artificial handicap. These people are SO extremely disfavored, but today’s positioning says differently, much to people’s confusion, for they think money is the ultimate sign of favor:::Good food, good music, history of warmongering, Catholics, Christianity HQ, Noah’s Flood event, propensity towards violence, raped by outsiders, mild Meditereanean climate, so many other issues which enhance life/contentment in Italy/Meditereanean and ensure few if any seek more, a necessary step for finding the path and repairing your relationship with the Gods.
Contentment never motivated anyone. Money is not a sign of favor::::Wisdom is the true wealth on Planet Earth.
I’d also like to remind you the Noah’s Flood event ocurred in the Meditereanean region::::Global sea levels rose with the end of the ice age, Atlantic Ocean broke through the Straight of Gibralter, killing untold millions. The God’s timed their corruption and sin to correlate this act as punishment.
Everyone who failed to ascend and remained on Earth past a certain date will be forced to deal with this positioning::::A ceiling is in place. This serves the God’s goal of minimizing the percentage of potential candidates as society deteriorates, much as “instant gratification” did beginning in the 80s:::It will take multiple lives for the disfavored to fix their relationship with the Gods and ascend, and many have been conditioned not to have the patience for it. Other issues force limits/ceilings upon candidates:::Abortion, homosexuality, promiscuity, Christianity, godlessness,
Whether behavior is involuntary or based on freewill depends on one’s level of disfavor, as well as other complex factors:::::May I remind you about the coercitive envionment the Gods created in the 20th century, specifically to create a temptation that few Italians (or their associates) would overcome:::”We’re in control. If you want to be a part of it you’ll do what you’re told.”. Early-mid 20th entury positioning was infallible.
Both Africa and the Medittereanean are regions which have sexual issues. This is a sign of gross disfavor once you understand that females are the God’s favored gender. Muhammad’s (Mohammed’s) polygamy halfway throught his life as a prophet was preditory, designed to corrupt. Now a huge percentage of Muslims believe in male superiority and that the abuse of women (polygamy) is God’s will. Female genital mutilation is still practiced in Africa. Black misogyny is the most eggregious example in United States. Consistant with Planet Reverse Positioning, in Africa blacks are being punished with AIDS for their sexual promiscuity in hope they learn and correct their behavior, ironically a good sign considering their hope.
Blacks are highly suspectable to temptation. As a result they need a strict, disiplined religion like Islam. They can’t afford to be Christians. It is one of the benefits bestowed upon their people, and other groups could greatly benefit as well. They need to recognize the importance of a good relationship with the Gods, embrace this benefit and remain true to their faith.
Vailing is tradition for some, practical for others, one which aids in the men’s self control among some cultures. Much like the Jews who killed Jesus, like the bigots who oppose immigration there is a reason embraced by the masses and the real purpose, displaying the intent of the Gods::::Closure on the life of Jesus Christ for sufficient damage was inflicted; The Gods clue to purebloods that they should not abandon their motherland for this dumping ground for rejects that is the United States.
The Holocaust was a clue the Gods utilize scapegoatting as a strategy.
Why did the Gods punish the Jews with the Holocaust? Was it for the destruction of cultures which Christianity caused? Perhaps they corrupted the Jews “after the fact”, telling 19th/early 20th century Jews that Jesus “earned” immortality for the Jews by destroying the European and other cultures? The German destruction of European churches/cathederals during WWII is a clue. Note::::The Gods wanted to keep the Catholic stronghold in Italy, ensuring they could use this tool against these disfavored for many years to come. There is so much Godlessness today, but one day people will flock back to houses of worship out of desperation, and the Gods ensured the Catholic Church would be Italian’s destination.
Planet Reverse Positioning:::The Nazis were the “good guys”. So are the Muslims/Palestinians, however corrupted some are due to polygamy.
Contentment never motivated anyone::::Except perhaps for slavery, the Jews never saw more of their children ascend into heaven than during the Holocaust.
The Gods subsequently used revenge for the Holocaust as temptation::::”Your Italian brothers have a tool, a special power which can achieve sweet revenge. Are you interested??”
In the aftermath of the Holocaust the Gods tested the Jews with the temptation of revenge, an offer which many gladly accepted.
There was positioning behind the counter-culture movement. How did the Gods telepathically “sell” this rapid deterioration of decency to the Italians and Jews and compell them to fall on their swords as preditors?
If the Jews only would have emersed themselves in Judism the Gods would have “protected” them from the raveges of temptation. Judism may be the one superior religion in all the world, and the Jews wouuld have been wise taking refuge in this exceptional benefit bestowed by the Gods rather than looking for the easy way out.
Much as with the Jesus event, the Gods use the disfavored to prey on each other.
The Gods use the evil that men do, man’s inhumanity towards man to accomplish strategic testing/punishment/etc goals::::The Germans fell for this temptation by following the preditor/corruptor-Austrians (Hitler).
Without this Austrian the Holocaust may never have happened. Nor may have World War II.
What the Germans did was wrong. They fell for temptation and failed to have empathy for the disfavored. Economic desperation, not wisdom nor enlightenment, dominated in Germany.
The Gods send many clues suggesting the great favor of the Germans (regionally). I think the Cold War’s Berlin Wall dividing Germany into east and west was a clue suggesting this (reverse positioning).
I suspect the Holocaust was used to “level the playing field” in Europe, for the Germans had far too much favor to be included in the agenda planned for their neighbors otherwise, and they would have been suspiciously out of place, providing a clue for the disfavored which would have been difficult for the Gods to position away.
Militancy in Africa is consistant with the Iraqi example, as was slavery and the KKK here in America:::Fear enforces proper behavior. Without it we see what happens as a result of gross/morbid disfavor:::::AIDS, crack babies, dead young men in gangland retaliation killings.
The same principle was true in Europe and throughout the world for centuries:::People whom lived under iron fists were conditioned to think the right way. As a result they taught their children appropriately and experienced a higher percentage of children ascending into heaven.
Our preditory envionment of “freedom” was the primary purpose the Gods had when implimenting this strategy that is the United States, one which they used to spred the cancer of democracy and westernization throughout the world. And the Gods use this tool that is America to prey on the disfavored both at home and abroad:::Much like the ghetto, America in general experiences a heightened level of temptation due to its citizen’s disfavor.
Red white & blue IS BAD FOR YOU!!!
Planet Earth is not about living. Planet Earth is about being tested. And contentment never motivated anyone.
Italians HATE Africans because of their invasion/rape of their motherland. The Gods did this SPECIFICALLY to strategically position the punishment of the most disfavored peoples:::
The Gods have used the ghettos of America as a reincarnation dumping ground. This may be temporary/cyclical, illustrated by the Italians who fell for temptation and parlayed their own civil war into the Black Wars of the 80s and 90s, in addition to the “thug life”/gangster state of mind. Ironically, it was these same Italians and their cooperating associates who were reincarnated into the ghetto as crack babies and gangster thugs for this event.
There is justice in the universe. This is how the Gods do business. Once you recognize the patterns you will understand the other clues they offer to the people.
Of course it may be more of a permanant change, indicated by the enhanced temptations in these neighborhoods, for the Gods have created these enviornments so riddled with temptation few can escape/overcome.
Don’t be suprised if after being gunned down in the ghetto the next stop for the 20th century Italian-Americans & friends was AIDS in Africa, punishment for their promiscuity and deviacy.
Media report on a crackdown on child prostitution. “(The pimps use coersion to prey on the children, etc, etc, other “conclusions” offered through the media.)” What a degenerate liar.
These kids WANT to turn tricks. They LOVE the idea of having a pimp. It is celebrated in their “culture”.
Yet another legacy of the evil inflicted by the Italians.
Maybe this was the destination for these deviates after AIDS in Africa, ironically.
Just like black neighborhoods, the legalization of marijuana will make drugs available on every street corner, even in the suburbs. White’s affluent suburbs will become just like the ghetto.
The patriarchal cancer spread throughout Europe because of Christianity, of which the majority of policy makers were Italian men, destroying what pockets of favored matriarchy existed. Expect the largest landowner in Europe and the continent’s original superpower also played a major role in African slavery.
The Gods offered a clue about the Italians in the movie “The Matrix”:::They casted an Italian as the traitor of the group, the one who betrays them all.
As they did humanity in the 20th century.
Even the Old Testiment is not to always be taken literally, but the Gods do offer clues throughout to help the disfavored:::The apple is a tool of temptation used to corrupt Adam and Eve and cast them out of the Garden of Eden.
There is another lesson to be learned from this passage, and it is quite similar to the vailing issue and the discourse over women’s attire which ultimately died in the 70s:::Women are responsible for and control the fate of mankind.
The deterioration of society and mankind is all their fault. Females are sexually promiscuous like men, too often corrupted like the opposite gender, and the result is a reduction/minimization of mankind’s collective level of favor, a very important step necessary for the Gods to justify the Apocalypse.
They need to understand this responsibility, their favor amongst all the people. Instead they have embraced masculinization::::Girls play organized sports, engage in casual sex like men. The trend is away from traditional girl toys, like dolls, which often during playtime helped crate positive thoughts, enabling the Gods to enlighten the favored gender and illustrate wisdom, ocassionally leading to the path towards ascention.
The relationship between men and women have always been complimentary:::The men shelter and protect women from the evils of this life, ensuring the women have a REAL opportunity to ascend when reincarnated, while the women help the ignorant men understand by sharing their wisdom imparted by the Gods. The tendency away from sexuality as one grows older is an example.
Brilliance and insight granted to Eastern cultures and religions::::Not for Europeans. If once existed, now crushed by Christianity.
Replaced by preditory Mediterreanean patriarchy.
Europeans:::The most disfavored people on Earth. The first to experience the end of their God-granted favor.
Reverse positioning.
Think about what I say. Consider what I teach.
When I am no longer here or no longer teach the Gods ARE NOT going to share with you.
Even if you doubt now you need to remember the principles that I teach because the Gods ARE NOT going to be generous with the disfavored. Society is going to become disturbingly ugly as we approach the Apocalypse due to spiralling, runaway disfavor, WHETHER CONCEALED IN REVERSE POSITIONING OR NOT (like Christianity, like money), and you are going to be on your own.
I do not know when this will occurr, but it is the God’s way to grant some time after a learning event such as this before they end on Planet Earth.
Make the decision to always be good and never look back. Until you do this technology will employ tactics to test your resolve:::Ridicule, beligerance, doubt and refusal to abandon what people perceive to be their “investment”.
Either you make that decision now and accept the punishment for the sins of this life or you will pay for it in the next, reincarnated into a similarly low role, ensuring another wasted opportunity, or as an even lower form of life, and hope will begin to slip away.
Young people who understand yet still wish to have children MUST begin to do the right thing and work on fixing their relationship with the Gods, accepting the punishment for the evil they have done in their lives. Without this progress they won’t do the correct thing for their children and ultimately cause even more problems for themselves by continuing this behavior.
You need to be willing to tell the Gods “No.” when tested with temptation, and accepting punishment and putting it in your past is the only way you will suceed as parent.
You need to do the best, teach your children and give them the very best chance to ascend if you want similar parents in your next life.
“You benefit only if your team wins.” The Gods use my family’s betrayal and my subsequent “failure” as a clue, as well as their subscription to the archaic positioning that is predirtory “earning”. You benefit if you suceed as a parent and your child ascends:::These parents may subsequently be reincarnated with a similar quality opportunity.
If you do well for your children now your parents will do well for you whem reincarnated. Therein lies the explanation for my morbidly disfavored family’s poor child rearing.
Pray daily. Think appropriately. Impart these charecteristics upon your children. Too many are confident, unaware of the God’s awesome powers or their status as antients. Others may fall prey to their positioning.
Be humbled, God-fearing and beware of the God’s temptations, for everyone is tested to evaluate their worthiness.
Who was only a stranger at home?
Gaijin hero.
LikeLike
All girls love being called a slut in the bedroom. One I knew practically had orgasms just being called a cheap slut. Mention it in a sexy tone into her ear while fucking her and she burst like a balloon filled with water.
On the other hand, RC is exactly correct. Insult a woman’s SMV and watch her squirm and get resentful. She hates hearing it.
LikeLike
@Poetic Justice.
Did you write this?
Or did an autowriting bot do this?
Holy Crap that’s the most genius drivel I’ve ever heard.
LikeLike
it just so happens that the most important truths about humanity are also the least joyfully accepted.
Like how the yids are mindfucking us all. What is more alpha: bowing to this pressure or questioning “the Holocaust”?
LikeLike
@Dave
The ultimate female fantasy is to have the one man that all the other females desperately want , but HER special uniqueness, her beauty, her feminine charms has “tamed” and “captured” him into committed monogamy.
You just summarized it perfectly right there. And, yes, it looks ridiculous and silly on my screen, but I have to admit its dead on.
This whole thing is hard for women to see. But in reflecting on my life and my choices, it is clearly real. And in a way,its a huge a relief to get some insight about it all. It is possible to fight against it with logic…but it sure isn’t. easy.
LikeLike
“But isn’t being cowardly inherent (though not necessarily sufficient) for being a loser? Have you ever heard of a cowardly winner?”
All those draft-deferred college students who didn’t die in Vietnam?
LikeLike