>
Recently, “game” guru Roissy offered his readers a list of “Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.” Most were fairly standard pick up artist tricks of the “act like an aloof jerk and she’ll worship you” variety. According to Roissy, though, these little tricks will miraculously enable guys
to date women one to three points higher than you could be expected to get by societal standards. Do these to a girlfriend and you will be a god to her. A god among penii.
A few examples:
Don’t call back right away. Done properly, you will start to hear girls say things like “I didn’t hear back from you. You were making me nervous!”
Don’t live together. It’s much harder to project mystery living under the same roof, watching each other fold laundry every week. (Not to mention side action will be more difficult to coordinate.)
Cancel dates. (Make the reason seem apparently legitimate, but suspicious.)
Muse wistfully about past lovers.Never do her a favor before you’ve had sex with her.
Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny. If you must, chuckle under your breath.
When at her place, eat all her food, leave the seat up, change her TV channels, and torture her cat. Act like it’s your second home.
Bo-ring. These tricks may have worked on women once upon a time, but today’s women are far too sophisticated to fall for these tired old ruses . If you really want to score with the hot babes of today, you’ve got to kick your game up a notch — or three. To help, I have come up with some “New and Improved Cheap And Easy Ways To Raise Your Value To A Girl.”
Wear a banana peel on your head like a hat. This will help to create an aura of “mystery” around yourself, as well as a lovely banana-y scent that will follow you everywhere.
Poke her nose playfully after sex and say, in a cheerful voice, “Hitler was right about you!” She will ponder this one for days.
Never laugh at her jokes. Instead, fall to the floor and begin singing “Rock Me Amadeus.”
Go out on “dates” with imaginary people. Introduce her to these people, and slyly suggest a “threesome.” (Or a “foursome,” if you are dating two imaginary people at the same time.)
Muse wistfully about butter.
Don’t buy her gifts. Instead, sneak clumps of dirt into her lingerie drawer.
Never call her back right away. Instead, hide under her bed and make low moaning sounds.
If you end up in an argument with her, shout out “mom always loved you better!” Then set her couch on fire.
Don’t move in with her. Instead, move into the apartment above hers, and watch her through tiny holes drilled in the floor.
When at her place, eat her cat, torture her TV, and replace her toilet with a sack of potatoes. Act like Meryl Streep in Sophie’s Choice, including the accent.
Go forth, my young apprentices, and score like never before!
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
>avpd:You are silly. I don't have to confirm to your idea of what a PUA must be: I've already said I use game techniques that I consider "light-side" as part of my search for a long term relationship. Indeed, I just got over a relationship, so I'm not actively looking, but I haven't tried to get any cheap sex in about 3 weeks either. And that's all you need to know about me. I use game as a toolkit for my own purposes. And no, it's not true that you have to do "club" game and short term escalation and all that stuff, if you are not looking for a one night stand, though it's good to be able to if that is what you want.Also, there's no Law that says PUA's have to wear funny hats or dress outrageously, though as Dave shows above, having a banana on your head does help. 😉
>By the way, and I must warn people potential trigger warning: Weird Al Yankovic song below.Here's a socially savvy man at work:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_U377vst5o
>So you're saying that it's a bad idea to teach teenagers good communication skills and what realistic expectations are for a romantic relationship? Some schools already do add a relationship skills segment to their health ed, but it's usually bullshit. I would like to see a segment where we taught teenagers to be honest with themselves and their own desires, and then teach them how to communicate them to potential partners. But our society is too fucked up when it comes to public discussions of sex, it'll probably never happen.
>Lady Victoria, you are correct.Our society is fucked up in relation to sex. Our laws and social norms are all over the place (mixtures of rad-fem, neo-victorian, puritan, and even some "sex positive" stuff), plus we don't like to imagine teenagers thinking about or having sex, in part since we've redefined sexually developed and developing adolescents as children.Oh well.
>"Riddle me this: if I was such a phony nice guy before and women could see through my exterior to my dark and twisted soul, then why did they all think I was sweet and funny? Why did they all want to be my friend?"They were being polite.Riddle me this: if you were a genuinely nice guy, why did you take their friendship as some kind of insult?I have never met anyone who whines about what an unappreciated "nice guy" he is and is actually a nice guy. If you were nice, you wouldn't be whining. You wouldn't think that just being pleasant and friendly was some kind of extravagant special favor you were performing for women at great personal effort (gawd, it's so HARD spending time with those goblins with the holes between their legs!), and that it was appropriate to get angry if these women didn't fall all over your cock in gratitude.Look, it's not hard to get laid. Next time you're in line at the DMV, look around and consider: all these people have probably managed to have sex at some point. Even that shirtless mullet guy and the woman with no eyebrows. "I think it gets me laid" is a piss-poor excuse for acting like an ass.
>About Roman Candles and the like, I think what is really going on here is they started being themselves and were able to bed girls that genuinely were attracted to them. When they were pretending to be someone else (caring, sensitive, evolved) they did not bed the girls who would have been attracted to their real personalities, and were not convincing enough to bed girls attracted to their fake personalities, so they got nothing.Because of societal disapproval for not being nice, caring, sensitive, and evolved, they spin the "I'm just doing this to get laid" story. Personally I think that some people are sort of dicks, some people love people who are sort of dicks, and there's nothing wrong with any of that.Of course there is something very wrong with torturing a cat.
>Honesty does not mean keeping people apprised of your bodily functions at all times.It's being up front with people about your desires and what you want out of an interaction. I don't get involved with people who don't want the same thing out of the interaction as I do. There's no deception involved in meeting a woman and the two of you deciding you want to go back to your place and do whatever with no strings attached. In fact, you might be surprised at how many women are interested in this sort of thing if you canned the deception and false pretenses and tried asking them about it. There are a lot of cool, sex positive women out there who really don't care about these social mores.I'm no Don Juan or anything, but I'm pretty satisfied.
>I've never watched "Sex and the City," but the other two examples don't support the "women love assholes" theory.Rhett Butler is an asshole…but he's not the guy Scarlett O'Hara is in love with. She spends most of the story going to humiliating lengths to win the love of Ashley Wilkes, a sweet, kind, gentle man who just isn't into her. Eventually, after Ashley marries an equally sweet, kind woman and Scarlett fails in all her attempts to seduce him away, she accepts that Rhett is a better match for her because, well, she's an asshole too. P.S. It doesn't last.Darcy is standoffish and snarky, but he's not actually a bad guy. That's the entire point of the book: that he and Elizabeth get misleading first impressions of each other and have to suck it up and admit they were wrong. Hence the title. Once Darcy realizes that his Asperger-y attitude turns Elizabeth off even though they get along well otherwise, he spends the center of the novel apologizing for page after page, then goes to great effort to prove that he's a stand-up guy. He does not say, "Fuck it, if she's not going to sleep with me I'll just kick her cat. That'll make her respect me!"He also finds her conversation fascinating and laughs at her jokes. That's seriously in the book.Also, you're aware these are fictional characters, right?
>Johnny?Ever heard of the "apocalypse" opener?This is where you go right up to the woman or young lady and ask her flat-out if she'd like to go to your place or her place and have sex with you. It may be rude, it may be crude, but sometimes its as honest as you can get. It also gets one rejected between 90 and 99.99 (depending on your attractiveness level)percent of the time, and possibly slapped.Tell me, have you ever done such an opener? I'm assuming you've had such interests or thoughts whilst chatting to a new young lady if you are honest with yourself. And if you haven't done such an opener, why not? NSA sex means you don't have to get to know each other, right?No. For the vast majority of women, even sex positive ones, you have to get to know them a bit first. They have to feel comfortable with you. This is called the "comfort" phase in Mystery's parlance. But many women get hit on a lot. So before you can get to the point of getting to know them you have to ATTRACT them or they will brush you off. And part of attraction is advertising. Unless you are trying to tell me that you've used the apocalypse opener on many of your "hookups" you are lying if you say you relied entirely on "honesty" the whole way. You had to attract the young lady first. There's deceptive advertising, and there's truth in advertising. I advocate truth in advertising, but I know that when I initiate with a woman I must advertise!
>shaenon:I've only ever seen the movie "Gone With the Wind" because my mom loved it so much. So I'm not going to argue with you about the book. Indeed, I think I remember somewhere hearing that Darcy and his wife had a good marriage or something like that, even though Darcy is (in Roissy terms) a "beta" male.But Roissy did do a post on Rhett Butler in the movie and here it is:http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/great-scenes-of-game-in-the-movies/Now, I've seen all 3 Twilight movies, but only to humor my mom (rather sad, isn't it?). I've read about 1/3 of the first book. That is it. My brother has a long time female friend who has read all the books and loves to burn his ear about how the movies mangle something in the books. Plus, he has to watch the dang movies twice -once with mom and me, and once with Ms. Twilight. Poor guy. Anyway, feel free to tell me how the movie differs from the book. But I'd also like your thoughts on Roissy's analysis about this scene from the movie.Thanks.
>RomanCandle: Regarding the likes of Mr Darcy and Mr Big attracting women with their behaviour, I fear you are missing the point somewhat. An old school friend of mine shared these characters’ arrogant, aloof demeanour, as well as their dazzling and effortless success with the ladies. However, this may have had something to do with the fact that he also shared their exceptional good looks and awe-inspiring wealth. Arrogance was not this lad’s true selling point. Any more than a high calorie content is the true selling point of Ben and Jerry’s – or an outrageous fuel consumption rate is the true selling point of the Ferrari Scaglietti. Or that the ridiculous, wooden dialogue holds the key to Star Wars’ world-conquering success – and that any aspiring screenwriter simply needs to make his dialogue more ridiculous and wooden in order to become the next George Lucas.At the risk of battering you over the head with this point. Megan Fox, while I have no personal knowledge of the lady and may be doing her a disservice, gives every impression of being a vapid, unpleasant bitch. Yet, observing Megan’s effect on the male race, a woman with the appearance of Meg Griffin may infer ‘clearly, I am being too pleasant and bright to appeal to foolish, masochistic men. What I need to do in order to be worshipped by these idiots is to become more vapid, unpleasant and bitchy.’ If you still do not ‘get it’, you still do not ‘get it’. Clarence: Your devotion to your 'evil gifted one' lord and master is touching. It is almost as charming as the relationship between Smithers and Mr Burns, yet with more homoerotic tension. A word to the wise, however. Such cringingly sycophantic displays of prepubescent hero-worship are frightfully un-alpha. Whatever would your newly-acquired harem of girlfriends think? If your life has been changed by this gentleman’s advice – 60% of which is hugely obvious to anyone more socially astute than Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, and 40% of which is hugely disturbing to anyone more emotionally developed than Jeffrey Dahmer – then so be it. I am glad it has helped you achieve a level of sexual savoir faire most normal men instinctively acquire by the time they are old enough to shave. As for your adoration of his sparkling and timeless prose, allow me to recommend Stephenie Meyer, Barbara Cartland and Cecelia Aherne. For you, my friend, there is a vast universe of gloriously-written literature out there, just waiting to be discovered. You may also admire the literary genius of Danielle Steel. As Confucius has said in his wisdom, ‘the only man sorrier than the man who actively seeks out the title of Dark Lord at the age of forty-five is the man who seeks to become this man’s bitch.‘
>"No Strings Attached" sex doesn't mean you don't get to know the person – it means that there are no expectations of dating or romance. It's just two people coming together, who have chemistry, enjoying some fun sex together and then being able to part again as friends when the relationship has run its course. Your NSA partner will still doubtlessly want to be treated with respect. Getting to know a woman, advertising your good qualities and making yourself attractive – these are all good things that will help get you laid. And if some guy is making a million bucks by telling guys to take a shower and say 'hi', then more power to that dude. You know what the problem with Nice Guys is? It's that they don't see women as people. And I don't mean that they dehumanize women. Instead, they see women as these mysterious, alien life forms that they can never hope to comprehend. They're stymied on what to talk to a woman about, because they cannot imagine what she would find interesting. It never crosses their mind that she is, in fact, a person and would probably take quite nicely to being asked what book she's currently reading or what kind of music she listens to. Or how her day is going. I had a friend who as a virgin until he was 24, and had to hammer it through his head that it's silly to be afraid of women (he was also later diagnosed with Asperger's, which makes me wonder if many Roissy adherents are Aspies. It would certainly explain why they like rules and formulas so much, and why they had such a terrible time relating to people before they adopted these codes. Come to think of it, it would probably also explain why they rate women on a numerical scale and why they freak the fuck out when people deviate from The Way Things Ought To Be).
>citizenlemonade:I know who you are, as you've seen me before. You hang out at LadyRaine's and, on your blog, with maria. Greetings, Escapist. I actually find some of the Sexy P, to be funny. Now, that being said:"If your life has been changed by this gentleman’s advice – 60% of which is hugely obvious to anyone more socially astute than Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, and 40% of which is hugely disturbing to anyone more emotionally developed than Jeffrey Dahmer – then so be it. I am glad it has helped you achieve a level of sexual savoir faire most normal men instinctively acquire by the time they are old enough to shave. " Beautiful. Really funny, and partly true, esp. the 60/40 part. I'd say it's more like 70 percent useful advice, 30 percent disturbing stuff, but hey, that's quibbling.On the other hand, I don't want a harem, and I've never thought of myself as an "Alpha Male".And if you want to hate on me, you should hate on Erick Von Markovic, aka Mystery, for he has influenced me and a friend far more than Roissy.I'm one of his success stories, though I'm going to be the first to tell you I don't hook up with 9's or tens every night , nor do I want multiple girls at the same time, and I can live without a 3some. My previous girlfriend rocked my world as far as fulfilling my *I'm slightly kinky* pedestrian sexual fantasies. We are still friends. I'm happy. Why can't you be?Oh, and I've read some Danielle Steel. Not to my taste. I'm more an HP Lovecraft, Issac Asimov type of dude.
>Lady Von Syrus (Hey, I'm trying multiple greetings to get it right):I actually pretty much agree with everything you said in your most recent post. Remember there's two types of "niceguys" – the manipulative jerks that feminists always put the trademark symbol near, and the shy and socially awkward who truly believe that being nice and sweet and non-threatening attracts females, and believe in treating everyone with kindness. The second type just never get the social cues, and they never understand the power of confidence. I know. I used to be one.
>Clarence:You are coming dangerously close to persuading me that some of Roissy's followers are normal, humorous, likeable and pleasant. Perhaps you are not all like greatbooksformentalcases after all. Although I am not the Escapist Pterodactyl. Just to clarify. I post at LR as Nice Lurker.
>And if some guy is making his career off teaching Aspie men (or just socially awkward men) how to approach women and talk to women, then he's actually probably providing a valuable service. I think one of the good messages is that it's okay to get shot down by one woman, because you can try again with someone else. But then it's wrapped up in a bunch of bullshit (like Roissy's list which is the inspiration for this post) that paints dating and romance as an adversarial game. The man is convincing the women to give up something (sex), and achieves some kind of victory over her when he does. And then to prove his superiority, he has to treat her like dirt. You can still see how their insecurity about women permeates everything. Women want men who are confident, and that's what a lot of timid Nice Guys don't seem to get. They watch a confident man getting dates, and interpret him as being an asshole. It's not that at all.
>At risk of pimping my blog, I would like to point out a post I did relevant to the issue of "whether women like nice guys": http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com/2011/02/its-always-more-complicated-and-playing.html
>Dammit, why didn't the link work?
>Lady Von Syrus:I wish I could believe that, but I don't. You might wish to look into studies involving "dark triad" traits. It's not just confidence (and honestly, if you don't have confidence you have to fake it till you make it) that explains why so many bikers and never do wells get plenty of girlfriends. I live in a mixed income and race area of Baltimore city and I've been here 20 years, and the amount of women that some of the repeatedly jailed members of this community get is beyond belief. It might have to do with them being tough (you know the old "protector" rule)due to a life of constant violence and since these men get women early and quite often they tend to have tremendous sexual confidence that someone like me (who didn't go "all the way" till 26) couldn't naturally match. Also, often to lose your girl around here, you have just to lose your status, which is often done by losing a fight. So there's that female "hypergamy" in action – They are attracted to the excitement, the drugs, the violence, and the status games. So yeah, sometimes the asshole does get the girl, and that's partly on a natural instinct for most young ladies (loving protection, confidence, and style) and the lack of a good culture with which to show them what types of manifestations of those things are actually good for them.
>@ Ozzy: I don't think links work at all in the comments here. But I did copy/paste, and your graphics amuse me. @ Clarence: It's as unfair to say that because some women in Baltimore go for bikers and violent gang members, this must be what all women want as it is to say that because some men are violent gang members, all men must have an atavistic desire to thug other men. I have never dated a gang member or a man who spent even a day in jail, and neither have any of my straight female friends. Any guy who treated me the way Roissy says he ought to treat me would not only *not* get laid by me, I wouldn't even want to be friends with the douchebag. Women also tend to date men who remind them of their fathers, so if a woman's father was absent, unavailable or violent, that's the sort of man she will pursue as an adult.
>Lady Von Syrus:I am not intending to say who "all" women are attracted to. Merely to point out to you that it's not always "in their heads" or a misunderstanding when guys say women go for jerks. Quite a few do, and the amount seems to vary by locale and local culture. That's all. And my final point would be that the dating advice I was given when I was younger was totally useless and either required me to disbelieve my own eyes, or gave me the wrong impressions on why the women were acting the way they were. You know the "oh, they must be victims/brainwashed/coerced/" , that sort of thing.A lot of "game" is merely knowing what social tools you need depending on what sexual environment you are in.
>Okay, too many people took issue with my last post to respond individually, but I do notice that no one really had a response for what I wrote here:"Riddle me this: if I was such a phony nice guy before and women could see through my exterior to my dark and twisted soul, then why did they all think I was sweet and funny? Why did they all want to be my friend?"Most of you, knowing me for all of two internet posts, just assumed I was always an asshole. All I can say is that this is simply not true, and people who have known me all my life would literally burst out laughing at the thought of me being a life-long jerk. I'll repeat my theory that you all are projecting some sort of "he was always an asshole just pretending to be a nice guy" vibe onto me so you won't have to confront some facts that conflict with your PC worldview.In fact, when I do get rejected nowadays, it's often because my sensitive "nice guy" seeps out of the "cocky jerk" persona I'm working hard to project. Bottom line: I'm a nice guy pretending to be an asshole, not the other way around.And I don't just sleep with vapid women who have low self-esteem. To be sure, I've slept with plenty of girls like that (although never anyone with an orange tan).But I've also slept with (and even had a few relationships with) plenty of intelligent, independent, and even self-proclaimed feminist women (ironically, they tend to be the most submissive in bed). And most of these women probably would have been unattainable to me before I started taking the Roissy-style advice.So again…if these things never work, how come they work for me?
>As an addendum: I've never tortured a cat. In fact, I own two of them myself.And as for Michael Cera being some sort of sex symbol…well he's funny, famous, and somewhat good-looking (I guess), so he could probably do okay for himself. But take a look at his girlfriend
I'm sure she's very nice and talented. But hot she ain't.
>Clarence wrote:You reap what you sow, and this is only the first part of payback.A veritable biblical plague of PUAs? I don't know whether to be frightened or amused. Still, I suppose that not giving socially awkward guys an easy way to score is a fatal flaw for any social-political philosophy. Why even Karl Marx famously said: "Dweebs of all nations unite! You have nothing to lose but your virginity." Or something like that. It's been a while since I've read it.I mean, consider the possibilities. What if the Seneca Fall Convention of 1848, instead of devoting itself to petty matters like women's suffrage, had focused on a developing a resolution "concerning the rights of men of poor social grace to unlimited nookie of their own choosing." History would never have been the same. Or imagine if Mary Wollstonecraft, instead of wasting her time writing A Vindication of the Rights of Women instead wrote Rules for Plaeyers who Desirre to score with Ye Bitches and insodoing in Perpetuity keepe their Dickes Wette . (Or maybe that was Chaucer. No matter.) Future historians may well mark these missed opportunities as the point where feminism first went awry. Ah, the benefits of hindsight!
>I suddenly like Mr. Cera way more then I did before.Clarification the "cocky jerk" persona Mr. Candle-are you torturing cats or are you just not letting someone walk all over you any more? Because there is quite a difference between the two.
>"Ozymandias said… At risk of pimping my blog, I would like to point out a post I did relevant to the issue of "whether women like nice guys": http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com/2011/02/its-always-more-complicated-and-playing.html February 3, 2011 2:03 PM Ozymandias said… Dammit, why didn't the link work? February 3, 2011 2:04 PM "You weren't acting cocky enough.
>Captain Bathrobe:I'll speak slowly so even you can understand it.A. Guys not getting their advice on relationship from feminism -the one modern political movement that claims to be the end-all and be-all for all your "gender" needs.B. I've done my part (as has Roissy) to add practical real world legal considerations to the PUA's. That is "marriage 2.0", insanely overbroad definitions of rape and domestic violence. This creates a lot of anger in guys when they learn this stuff.C. Men who learn this stuff no longer pedestalize women. Thus women get more pushback both politically and personally in their relationships.Now I hope THAT explained things.
>"Riddle me this: if I was such a phony nice guy before and women could see through my exterior to my dark and twisted soul, then why did they all think I was sweet and funny? Why did they all want to be my friend?"Women are taught to be nice under all circumstances. Therefore, they are likely to tell you you are sweet and funny and they want to be your friend when they tell you they do not want to be in a relationship with you.
>Oz, to get clickable links, Blogger stupidly requires you to type in the actual html code for a link, as I have done here:Funny dating charts post
>Roman Candle, most Nice Guys(TM) are not sadists that torture small animals, they are boring guys that spend their days playing video games and that's why they are unpopular with women. And ever heard of LBJF (let's be just friend) ? If a woman think that you are a boring guy, she will not throw eggs at you, she will say that she accept only to be your friend, but for her it means "get lost loser". And since the nice guy(TM) doesn't understand it, he still expect that she will eventually fall in love with him. That's why Nice Guys (TM) end up very frustrated.
>""Riddle me this: if I was such a phony nice guy before and women could see through my exterior to my dark and twisted soul, then why did they all think I was sweet and funny? Why did they all want to be my friend?"Women are taught to be nice under all circumstances. Therefore, they are likely to tell you you are sweet and funny and they want to be your friend when they tell you they do not want to be in a relationship with you. "And this doesn't mean, RomanCandle, that you are a mean nasty guy. Just that they don't want to date you. Maybe you're unpleasantly clingy — a lot of NiceGuy (TM) types are.
>Elizabeth:For the second time, no, I'm not torturing cats. I find it kinda weird that I have to deny this twice.If you had bothered to read my posts, you'd realize that I actually own two cats. One of them, no lie, is purring in my lap as I type this! And I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter.
>"I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."When feminists use hyperbole it's taken dead serious. How interesting when the tables are turned.
>AVpd:I agree with most of what you just wrote, and you kind of prove my point for me. I think maybe you didn't catch my earlier posts? If you only saw part of what I quoted from earlier, I can see how'd you'd make that mistake.The whole point I've been trying to make is that I'm no longer a Nice Guy (TM) because I was tired of getting the LJBF. And that's what I'm now getting criticized and called a misogynist for…no longer being a nice guy. And you know what? That's fine. I'm a big boy, and I can deal with feminists being snarky at me. But what I'm also trying to convince you all of is that there's a method to my madness. I behave this way not because I hate women or because I was born evil. I behave this way because women reward it. Because it works.
>Ozymandias:You make an interesting point with your chart there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument is essentially this: women want to date guys who are nice, but also interesting. And if a nice guy gets rejected, it's not because he's nice, but because he is uninteresting.It's not a bad point, but it has a fatal flaw: There's a huge overlap between "nice" and "boring", and between "interesting" and "douchebag". It's very difficult for a guy to be interesting and nice at the same time, at least when he's trying to make a first impression.Conversely, "interesting" and "douchebag" usually go hand-in-hand. It's been my experience that the more confident you are, the better. And what is arrogance and douchebaggery but extreme confidence?Most women won't sleep with a nice guy if he's boring, which is fair enough. But you might be surprised how many women will sleep with a jerk if he turns them on. Bottom line: being exciting is more important to women than being nice, generally speaking. Indulge me a bit, and let me paraphrase Machiavelli: "Is it better to be admired or desired? We should wish to be both. But since it is difficult to join them together, it is better to be desired than admired".
>When feminists use hyperbole it's taken dead serious.NO KIDDING!!! I'm sure that Elizabeth was using the "torturing cats" reference in like manner, but the possibility of that doesn't seem to occur to some. Maybe because it's believed that women lack a sense of humour?
>Captain Bathrobe:I'll speak slowly so even you can understand it.I doubt that will help, but go ahead and knock yourself out.A. Guys not getting their advice on relationship from feminism -the one modern political movement that claims to be the end-all and be-all for all your "gender" needs.Now, see, you've changed topics. Now you're talking about relationships; whereas before you were talking about getting laid. My point is that feminism was never about helping guys to get laid. Feminism, however, has transformed modern relationships–something that PUAs seem to have no interest in. Your contention in your previous post appeared to be that feminists were about to get their comeuppance for years of shamefully neglecting men's need for pussy. My point is that it was never feminists's responsibility to begin with.Besides, socially awkward guys have always had trouble getting laid. Feminism didn't cause that. If anything, feminism's questioning of gender roles created space for men to deviate from the masculine ideal. I know you won't believe that, and I don't have time to school you on it, but it's true.B. I've done my part (as has Roissy) to add practical real world legal considerations to the PUA's. That is "marriage 2.0", insanely overbroad definitions of rape and domestic violence. This creates a lot of anger in guys when they learn this stuff.Ah. So it's the usual MRA twaddle about how feminism is responsible for everything bad ever. Why didn't you say so to begin with? You could have saved us both a lot of time."Men who learn this stuff no longer pedestalize women." I rather thought that's what feminism was all about.
>RomanCandle– First of all, the charts are for me dating people, not other people dating people. The same principle works for hot/nice, rich/nice, smart/nice, religious/nice, committed/nice, interested in the same things as me/nice, likes cats/nice…Secondly, for me, "interesting" means two things: a) Code for a certain cluster of nerdy interests (science, SFF, tabletop RPGs, even Cracked.com and shit like that) that I have historically found most attractive and had the best relationships withb) Able to maintain a conversation about his subject of interest for long periods at a time, which satisfies my desire for useless information.I see no reason why those are necessarily correlated with being a douchebag.
>"I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."See the problem with that is that Roissy and his band of not so merry men also post a whole lot of crap on how date rape shouldn't really exist etc and how if a woman goes back to a man's apartment she should know what she is there for (ie sex not a cup of hot milk) and many of the folk over there and at places like the spearhead will advocate that any claims of rape in this case are just slut regret and not rape at all. They will pretty much put the blame on the woman for being stupid (while simultaneously giving bonus rating points to very young and presumably very naive women).While complaining about the 'all men are potential rapist stereotypes', there is also the 'the womyn are gonna get whats cumming to them when we get more men on board' and complaints about whores who go after assholes getting what they deserve'. Its just not that much of a stretch to see if Roissy was arrested for eg murdering one of his 'dates' (not that I am suggesting he would) certain sections of that community saying well 'the whore deserved it – she knew he was an asshole – he even talked about torturing cats – she should have known better' Sure he probably doesn't mean it but some of the elements that post on his website project that sort of thinking online on a regular basis. It becomes a Catch 22. If violent threats/talk is talked its 'legitimate mens anger' or 'hyperbole' but if a womyn fails to heed the warning signs its her fault as she should have seen it coming. Someone who allows that kind of talk on his site shouldn't expect people to accpt that as hyperbole I would think.And I have no problem with the dress nicely and brush your teeth etc side of PUA however a 'neg' will have me smiling sweetly and remembering a previous engagement while backing away. Some of the stuff they suggest there would have me calling security or the cops
>Oh, oh!Captain Bathrobe is a troll.See how he puts words in my mouth that I did not say, and shows an ignorance of history besides? I bet he's too stupid to realize just what in history disproves his assertion about how I'm blaming "feminism for everything bad ever.." but I'd like to see if he has the intelligence of a garden house and can point it out.I don't appreciate people claiming I say things I do not say, so we'll see if he can solve my riddle. If not, into the ignore bin he'll go.And he didn't even notice that I mentioned that I'd run into the "feminism isn't a dating service" argument before. Fine, then stay out of the dating game, and don't regulate or pontificate on it is what *I* say.
>Also I have been known to say after a few drinks 'oh you must be one of those PUA robots – Not interested thank you' in a fairly loud voice (Yes A SHAMING tactic – only I see it more as a public service to both the other women in the room and hopefully the man himself when he sees the interest in the room evaporate)
>RomanCandle said:"I doubt Roissy tortures cats, either. It's called hyperbole, and it's Roissy's bread and butter."I can assure you there are naive guys that believe everything that Roissy says. Just check the number of commentators on his blog that agree with him.
>Insults and a smokescreen of righteous indignation. Yeah, I've heard better.
>Also, "ignorance of history?" You wound me, sir!
>RomanCandle said:"Most women won't sleep with a nice guy if he's boring, which is fair enough. But you might be surprised how many women will sleep with a jerk if he turns them on. "Do you understand that the reasons that a woman sleep with a guy are not the same that the reason she will fall in love with a guy ? A woman can have sex with a jerk because her 'gina tingle but she will not want to fall in love with him because she doesn't want to be abused.
>"I can assure you there are naive guys that believe everything that Roissy says. Just check the number of commentators on his blog that agree with him."Sure there are. So what? Are you saying that everyone expressing a controversial opinion should be held liable for the potential violent actions of their deranged followers?Should I point to Andrea Dworkin and The SCUM Manifesto and blame all of feminism the next time a woman commits an act of violence against a man?Seriously, you people are great at debating the low-hanging fruits of the MRA movement. And you're fantastic at being snarky. I have alot to learn there.But as for convincing me to abandon my caddish ways of projecting a veneer of charming arrogance when I attempt to seduce women? Yeah, not so much.
>"Do you understand that the reasons that a woman sleep with a guy are not the same that the reason she will fall in love with a guy?"Oh most definitely. Alot of times, in fact, they're almost mutually exclusive.Who ever said I was looking to fall in love? You think I want to get married with the divorce and family law courts the way they are? To hell with that scam, no way.
>Seriously, you people are great at debating the low-hanging fruits of the MRA movement. And you're fantastic at being snarky. I have alot to learn there.But as for convincing me to abandon my caddish ways of projecting a veneer of charming arrogance when I attempt to seduce women? Yeah, not so much. Actually, that's a fair point.
>"Women want men who are confident, and that's what a lot of timid Nice Guys don't seem to get."—LVvSIs this because you lack the confidence in yourself so you want someone to over-compensate for that?
>"Is this because you lack the confidence in yourself so you want someone to over-compensate for that?"No, if you lack confidence you cannot sponge it from someone else. It is because you want a partner who is going to be strong and confident in his abilities, a match to you, not leaning on you for support of his ego.