>
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.
>"That's actually another tactic my ex would use – insist that we bore equal responsibility for every problem we had."—LVvSI'm not your ex. Perhaps there was more than a grain of truth to his insistence?
>"And yes, eventually I realized that this relationship was unhealthy, we broke up, and I took some time to figure out what it was that I had been looking for that made me end up with this guy. We all make mistakes; adults learn from them."Well, there it is.
>To ClarenceComments:These women that seek out abusers have issues and are emotionally dependent on men. And they can depend on any type of men, I've known a woman in a shyness forum that was like that, her first husband was beating her (I don't know if he was popular with women) and her second husband was asexual – he was a 30 years old virgin before meeting her and was never able to have normal sex with her.
>"having to suffer (like my brother) being everyone's platonic friend and having to hear the same problems from the same girl about the same guy over and over and over."No one is required to do this. If he's doing it in hopes of getting some pussy, he's an asshole and an idiot. Pretending to care makes him the asshole; thinking it will work makes him the idiot.
>"And yeah, while he later had a very flaming relationship with a hot redhead for about 2 years,"Here's an example of assholery on your own.Me and my friends didn't and don't refer to my previous boyfriends and male friends as, for example, the longhaired hottie with the big cock, the dark Greek with the gorgeous green eyes, the model and ex-escort, the tight-bodied gymnast, or the brilliant and sultry belly dancer. Judging his worth by the way his girlfriend looks is pretty sad.
>jupiter, ya little dip:Here's why I did that. Because he spent all his high school days being the "I just don't like you that way" best friend for lots of girls. I could easily see someone in and claiming well, if he's not good enough to date there must be something wrong with him.So I decided to mention he did eventually get a girlfriend and have a ltr. I like to add colorful adjectives when I can, if you don't like it, tough nuts. I'm not about to "mea culpa" for thinking my brother had a "hot" girlfriend.
>Elizabeth:So I guess the shy, awkward, or geeky guy is best advised by you to wait until he is thirty and then some gal who's had lots of "experience" if you know what I mean, might decide to "settle" for him. Of course, if he hasn't gotten any help, his social deficits are likely to kill any "real" attraction she might have had for him, but that's ok, she can still "give it up" enough to get him, maybe "think of England" while she's at it. Of course this won't end well, as he senses she doesn't really love him or she considers him second best to all those exciting , experienced lovers she had. Plus, she'll almost certainly end up leaving him, taking any kids with her and some of his money to boot.Line up guys! Sounds like a real deal to me.
>Clarence-my best friend is male, a virgin and turns 31 this year. He is shy, awkward and geeky…except when working where he is a brilliant attorney who does an awesome job of representing his clients. He is also someone who purposely chose to become a public defender despite his being worth much more as an attorney. He is a great saver and has nearly saved enough to buy a house by paying it in full.In other words-he is a caring, reliable, responsible, economical guy who is also socially awkward and not very good with the ladies. It took until he was in his late twenties to have a serious long term relationship because it took him a very long time to figure out how to highlight the positive traits he has and it took that long to start finding women who appreciate those qualities.So when your brother was the LJBF guy, he may have been mature, responsible, reliable, etc…and many a young woman in her teens or early twenties is not going to see those as positive traits because of their lacking understanding why they are important due to simply immaturity. And since I know you would lob this at me-I asked him out, we dated briefly but he never was as interested in me as I was in him. So we became friends instead.
>Clarence: I like how you high-five guys who are "scoring" a lot of women, but look down on women with a lot of what you call "experience" because, apparently, she'll actually expect to enjoy sex? Oh, and then you assume she'll leave a guy and take his kids because, I guess, that's how all women or at least all "experienced" women are?
>David! Good to see you poke your head into the fray:Here's some numbers for you to crunch.A linkyMy issue with Elizabeth's post wasn't just that , however. What my hypothetical guy is , is a 30 year old virgin or near virgin -like I was. I had all of 2 sexual partners by the time I was 30.Now, imagine at that point some lady had heard her biological clock tick and decided I'd make good "provider" material. She'd come in to the relationship with tons sexual experience compared to me, and how could she NOT help but compare? Besides, most women like guys that have been pre-selected by other women. Needless to say, I'm reasonably sure this lady would consider herself "settling" as it was unlikely I'd be rocking her world. So, at the time never even having had a long term relationship, operating on the mostly crappy "mainstream" advice, I'd almost certainly kill her attraction to me. So she's bored, putting up with maybe a kid, and I'm bored never having sex with my wife and there's tensions, and no reason in the world for her to stay in an "unhappy" marriage even if for the sprat's sake. Not to mention if I ever got a clue that she was just "settling" for me I'd have resentment and mistrust (because even when I was 30 thanks to the internet I knew about the marital laws)…And you really don't think that would end badly?
>Or you could stop assuming that a woman who has lots of experience is just "settling" and has grown up enough to appreciate someone being responsible, reliable, economical and other positive traits.Also, most women do not "compare" like you do a person's sexual behavior with other partners.
>Elizabeth:You do know that teens and early 20's are extremely "horny" times for both sexes but even more so for young men, don't you? If you think the LJBF's shit didn't HURT my brother, you have another think coming. And while us males do have an advantage in the fertility area, it's still true that we are better off in our teens/20's then in our 30's, 40's, or 50's when it comes to making healthy or viable babies.In any case, teaching young women to date more responsibly might be a good thing, but I forgot that many people on the "left" don't really give a crap about marriage or family formation anyway, so that will never happen. There's a lot of truth in that what many girls from 15 to 25 need is a good father or grandmother presence in their lives. Someone to say no, or at least tell them the often ugly truth of what following their immediate desires can bring them. No, chances are that arrogant jock you want so badly isn't going to settle down for you or settle down at all for years and years, and no, you probably can't change that violent, multiply paroled boyfriend of yours.Never will happen, though, as our families continue to split up, or never be formed in the first place.
>Elizabeth:Here's another ugly truth for you. Women generally get hit harder by aging then men.A 30 year old just usually doesn't have "it" when compared to my 21 year old. So after this guy waits all those years he can get a gal who appreciates him but is showing signs of aging rapidly. And heaven forbid if he marry her that he insists that she stay in some kind of shape. That would be oppression and probably "psychological abuse" as well. In short "If the kitten don't want me, why should I want the cat"?
>Clarence=immaturity.Your 21 year old is about your level of maturity and too timid to stand up to you the way a woman closer to your age would so naturally you justify it with "well she has a hot body and an older woman would not" when all it is that you are too scared to deal with a woman of your own age. It is also extremely telling that you mention that a need to "teach her" whereas a woman who is closer to your age would be not need such. That says to me that you are too insecure around a woman in your age bracket since she no longer needs your guidance like a young woman does. And that without that guidance, you feel you have nothing to offer a woman.
>Elizabeth :"Shaming language" is never a good idea when in an argument, but you'll quickly find them more than ready to fight fire with fire.But the real reason you got upset is you know I'm right. While I'm willing to date older women and even marry those in their early 30's I have a range and it has a sharp cut off point. 18 to 32 or possibly 35 if she kept herself in shape, and gets a fertility test. Sorry, but the vast majority of women over 32 (even those who are still "hot" and they do exist -laser and plastic surgeries and staying in shape can do wonders) they go into my "one night stand" bin.And yeah, if I ever did marry an "older" (30 or up )woman, I would insist she stay in shape, and try my best to stay in shape for her. Unlike you, I'm not in denial about how important sexual attraction is in a marriage, esp. when one is being asked to be faithful.You see, I want a kid. Now take your "empowerment" and your insults and stick them where the sun never shines.
>I will let you bend over first Clarence and I promise to use lube.The fact is-you are a man in your late thirties who is scared of women your own age. First hint of maturity and you run screaming for the hills.Sexual attraction is important-but who says a human has to be "in shape" to be attractive? Other than a shallow, immature male such as yourself of course.
>Clarence, I'm not going to argue with your ridiculous hypothetical examples. I will note, however, that the study you cited put everyone who'd had more than one sexual partner — that is, the vast majority of people, and virtually every adult woman I've ever dated — in the same category. So, by the standards of the study you cite, you at 30 were hardly in the "virgin" category. Having had 2 sexual partners, you were clearly a dirty "experienced" whore.
>Clarence and Elizabeth, let's just move past the whole "sticking things where the sun don't shine" stuff.
>And yeah, if I ever did marry an "older" (30 or up )woman, I would insist she stay in shape, and try my best to stay in shape for her. And if she doesn't stay in shape, what then?
>Captain Bathrobe:I divorce her. Really simple, right?
>David:Actually what the post linked to says is that women who are experienced are far more likely to divorce than men who are experienced.I mean , I know you didn't take the time to actually read it, now, did you? Prior to that post, he had 3 posts on "Defining slut" which seemed to show the same thing, that study merely backed up the original paper which used the US governments National Survey of Family Growth.Women who bone might have more trouble at "bonding" then men ON AVERAGE.GASP. Could it be a real, genuine, SEX difference that has something to do with the so-called "double standard"?Naw, I'm sure it's not. Because all "enlightened people" know that gender roles are NEVER influenced by genes but ONLY by culture. Right? Right? Basically, I didn't buy into it all at once. I spent a few months passing those posts around to various feminist and masculinist places, and guess what? So far, they've held up. I've even looked at NSFG data myself to make sure they haven't been misused.For a man looking into marriage, it is safest, esp in these days of no-fault divorce, to pick a partner who doesn't have tons of sexual experience. If she does it's my OPINION (no studies go into WHY some girls can be faithful at 50 plus partners, while most can't) that it's probably something to do with girls who prefer drunken hook ups. So I avoid those as marriage material – if she makes a habit of it. Since I've never gotten a girl drunk to get her in my bed, I'm not missing anything, nor being hypocritical.
>Elizabeth:I'm a man in my late thirties who is perfectly normal and is not:A. attracted to MOST aging women, esp those who haven't kept themselves in shape.B. attracted to women whose fertility is on a steep declineC. Wanting to forever be compared to the Captain of the High School football team which I very much was not.I am attracted to youth and fertility. That's perfectly natural for a guy and makes sense evolutionary. That it somehow offends or frightens you is just tough cookies. I don't want a used up, entitled, bitter (because she's had tons of experience , most of it bad) competitive harpy who can't provide with me a kid with or without help from modern medical science.Sorry, but game over for ladies who think they can coast until they are thirties and then men they neglected/insulted/or overlooked will just fall into their arms.
>Clarence, sorry, cupcake, but since you're a slut I don't have to take anything you say seriously.
>David:That's alright dear man. Just like the CONSAD report that pretty much put the nail in the coffin of "pay discrimination" which you never noted in your thread on that subject, I'm half surprised you haven't just banned me and removed the links. After all, it's quite obvious you can't actually deal with them in terms of logical argumentation.I was mostly having fun interacting with your commenters anyway, I know this blog exists only to make fun , very one-sidedly – of the targets of your political blindness, and I'm aware that most of your posts could be written by a robot since they contain the following simple algorithm:Anything feminism/progressivism says is right and proper. Anything some group or person says that critiques said political philosophies is dumb/evil/ or wrongSince no one with any brains (according to your lights) could possibly believe that anything about your favorite political groups or stances is fucked up or incorrect, you don't have to actually, you know, deal with any argumentsRinse/repeat.You don't even show the intellectual honesty or bravery of most of your commenters. Pretty sad, really.
>I can't believe I forgot to mention the good old CONSAD report. Barry did a good post on that; I have now linked to it in my wage-gap post. Now that I've dealt with CONSAD, how about you refute all the other stuff I cited there? As for your study, I'm dubious about it, but I'm not going to dismiss it without actually reading it, and I don't have time at the moment. Maybe I'll get to it later. But in any case, "women who are virgins when they are married" are a fairly small demographic slice. Probably conservative, probably religious, probably quite young, and probably the sort of women I would have absolutely no interest in. I actually prefer women who are — gasp! — "experienced," and who have had, you know, a reasonably normal amount of sex in their lives. I will take my chances with them.