>
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.
>Also, this bit: Since 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 argumentsActually, very few of the things I write about have arguments, per se. How do you "refute" something like "Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny." And many of the rest are not arguments, in the sense that they are logical and supported by actual evidence. Most are collections of dubious assertions based on some really bizarre assumptions about both women and men. Like, for example, the majority of your comments in this topic.
>Now, imagine at that point some lady … decided I'd make good "provider" material.I'm sorry, I'm trying, but I just can't imagine that. It's far too implausible.
>"Here's another ugly truth for you. Women generally get hit harder by aging then men." I absolutely disagree and I date people of all genders. There are far more forty year old women that I find attractive than forty year old men that I find attractive. Oh, and, btw, both my mother and grandmother had children over forty without any artificial medical procedures. You do know that menopause most commonly occurs at age 51, right? Most women are still fertile in their thirties and many women are still fertile in their early forties. Here's some fun stats"At age 30, 75% will get pregnant within one year. At age 35, 66% will get pregnant. At age 40, 44% will get pregnant. Within four years after trying to conceive naturally: 91% of 30-year-olds will be successful. 84% of 35-year-olds will. 64% of 40-year-olds will."(from a study by French Institute of Health and Medical Research).On another fun note, average age of first marriage in the US for fathers was 25 (as of 1996, the last major study, which found that average age of first marriage for mothers was 23). Maybe if you hadn't been such a career bitch and married and started baby making in your mid twenties, you would not have to worry about ending up childless because women your age were less fertile (despite the fact that the majority of women are pretty much fully fertile at 30).
>The younger the woman is the more health problems she faces. Physically the best age for her to have a kid is 34 while for the baby, the best age is 32. Your 21 year old is not good for your long term prospects of having a healthy child and spouse.But then it is not about her anyway-just you and your needs.
>Wow:A bunch of deniers here. I guess I'll have to link to some, you know, actual science. Linky1 mygoodnesslink2 And a quote from link below: "Middle reproductive stageApproximate age: 20 to 38Hormone levels: Your FSH and estrogen are within normal range (you might want to get a baseline test at around age 35).Characteristics: Your menstrual cycles should be regular throughout this stage. One percent of the female population, however, experiences menopause before the age of 40, where FSH levels prematurely increase and menstrual cycles stop.Fertility issues: This is the longest of all the stages. It's actually broken into three segments. The first seven years are your peak fertility time; the next third marks your first slight fertility decline, followed by the beginning of your second fertility decline, around age 35. (The sharpest statistical drop in fertility, however, occurs at the age of 45, according to the US Census Bureau.) " Linky3 Tsk, facts are so easy to put in the way of a good narrative, aren't they? Peak reproductive age for females is 20 to 27, or I've seen a few sources say 16 to 26. Pregnancy complications due to being "too young" tend to hit teen girls under ages 15 or 16. And I don't know what Elizabeth is smoking to think that 34 is physically the "best age" for her to have a kid. Want to back that up with a link, Elizabeth? Do you really think I didn't research this stuff?I'm under no obligation to make "older gals" feel better by being attracted to them, pretending their fertility is equal to younger ones, or any of that crap. Treat me as basically a sexual non-entity for years when I was younger and see how I turn it back on you when I'm the one being pursued, and your looks are fading. Besides, simply because I'm man doesn't mean I think aging is no problem with for me. My best chance for a kid is with a younger woman.
>Dude, if the 21-year-old girls of yesteryear wanted nothing to do with you when you were younger, what makes you thing the 21-year-old girls of today are going to want you now that you're old?
>David, David, David:It's obvious you didn't read Barry's post on Consad. Not only did he misrepresent it, but commenter "ballgame" from Feminist Critics totally schooled him in the comments thread. Barry DID promise to get back to it, but he never did, and it's been something like 3 or 4 months now.When I want a site which deconstructs bad statistics on both "feminist" and MRA sites I go to Feminist Critics, and some of the bad feminist statistics they deconstruct the most are those relating to the so-called "wage gap", which gets less and less the more variables you analyze. Of course this isn't surprising you really think that AAUW and most of the other feminist groups which put out these reports are disinterested scientific observers?
>speeedlines you silly fool:Because I'm dating them at times. :)Besides, I specifically did not rule out women up to 32, nor did I rule out sex with women up to like 45 or so. But the fact that I have any "age related preferences" at all, just makes some feminists and regular females soooooo mad. You mean we can't ride the "cock carousel" for years when we are young and expect 30 plus guys or guys of any age who learn game to want anything to do with our old asses? Poor things. I'd almost feel sorry for them, if they showed some of that "character" they supposedly acquired over the years when following their vag tingles.
>I divorce her. Really simple, right? Unless she wises up and divorces you first. But do you really want to bring kids into the mix? I mean, pregnancy tends to make women gain weight, which can be difficult to lose after the fact. Do you really want to have to explain to your kids that you kicked their mom to the curb for violating the "no fat chicks" rule? Could be awkward.
>So your evidence is…not contradicting my point.
>dating =/= marryingI'm just sayin.
>Elizabeth:Besides calling me a bunch of names and making a claim that you failed to back up, AND I've never seen anywhere ("physically the best age for a mother's health to have a baby is 34..right), I really don't get what your point is supposed to be. Do you know what your point is?
>How do you "refute" something like "Never laugh at her jokes, even when they’re funny." I dunno. A good refutation would be something along the lines of, "Actually, this evidence suggests that laughing at a girl's jokes will actually help you get laid!" I'm not saying this to be snarky or anything–far be it from me to be a gratuitous guest, especially after so long–just saying there are convincing refutations you could give, but aren't. :/And many of the rest are not arguments, in the sense that they are logical and supported by actual evidence. Most are collections of dubious assertions based on some really bizarre assumptions about both women and men.Actually, they're assertions based on a sizable degree of personal experiences with women and assumptions based largely on evolutionary biology, at least in Roissy's case. You could argue that such assumptions are scientifically flawed or based on shabby evidence (which IMO is arguably true), but you haven't, as far as I know. Again, not trying to be snarky or anything, just saying there are more convincing ways to rebut these ideas instead of just pointing and laughing.BTW, Clarence, no offense, but frankly, if a desire to "pass on your genes" is what's animating you, why are you even bothering with "young, fertile" women? If you've got enough money you can just get a surrogate mother to accept your sperm and carry a kid to term for you. Look up "the Rotunda clinic," for instance. This is what a lot of MGTOW guys recommend, at least until their artificial wombs and/or sexbots are perfected and they can live without women forever! Now, I assume you're not a MGTOW, judging by the fact that you seem to be looking for a relationship, but I'm just sayin', and again, genuinely not trollin', it seems there are probably more efficient methods out there for a guy like you to spread his genes.
>Captain Bathrobe:It's ok for the lady to gain 5 or 10 pounds while pregnant and EVEN PERMANENTLY keep that on. I'm not some fascistic pig about this. But you'd be surprised how many women think "I'm married now, I'm not as attracted to hubby, and I'm not on the market so I can just let myself go" more or less. Remember, I'm being asked to consider a "cat" who used to be a "kitten". I didn't get her at her peak fertility OR peak looks, and she's aging. I'd like to enjoy boning my wife for a good 15 or 20 years, so I don't think its unreasonable of me to ask that she not hit "double chin" territory especially since I'm willing to do MY part and keep myself in shape. At near 40, I want to be in some sort of shape to play ball with Junior in 10 to 15 years and if she IS younger than me, I'd like to be able to have the stamina and looks she requires.Am I being so unreasonable?
>thevagrantsvoice:I've actually considered that, but in that case I'd rather not get married at all. No need to risk so much when I won't even have a bio mom for my child?
>So then don't get married and Go Your Own Way like the guys at Happybachelors or wherever. In that case, you can stop bothering with Roissy and Game and whatever as well. Just go out and "spread your genes" with the Rotunda clinic. If you can do that, why do you feel the need to defend Game/your preference for "fertile" women if surrogate mother technology has essentially rendered female fertility irrelevant for your purposes?
>thevagrantsvoice:Because I think a child is better off raised with two parents -best a man, and a woman, and because I want to marry the mother of my child. Maybe I'm romantic that way.
>Clarence,So, if she gains, say, 20 lbs., then it's off to divorce court? Where do you draw the line?
>Fair enough. Two things to consider, then:A: Remember, "bearing" a child is very different from "raising" one, and a 21 year old who's good at the former may not be good at the latter. An older, wiser, 30 year old, on the other hand, might be less likely to do stupid crap, like drinking while pregnant or neglecting to feed or clean the baby in lieu of watching Sex and the City reruns, that a 20 year old might do.And B: I want to marry the mother of my child. Maybe I'm romantic that way. I would say you are indeed romantic, and I mean that as a compliment. I have to ask, though, isn't that in contradiction with your acceptance of Pick-Up artistry? The inescapable conclusion that PUA adherents must inevitably accept (and this is what makes them similar to MRAs) is that women are biologically and immutably inferior to men in all respects, mental and physical. They're stupid, amoral children–or, as one commenter at the Chateau put it, "walking incubators." As Roissy himself implied, how could you have any respect for a gender that responds sexually to negs? So in that respect, why, exactly, would you want to marry the "mother of your child?" She–just like your mother, and like all woman–is a stupid, amoral child that shouldn't be trusted with anything, including raising an actual child.Heck, the fact that you want to get married *at all* seems to indicate, to me, even you don't really believe Roissy's PUA advice is all it's cracked up to be.
>Captain Bathrobe:If she gained 20 pounds during pregnancy that's one thing. I might still accept that, luckily I've heard (omg, I don't have any research) that gaining 20 pounds during pregnancy is not the norm, though its not unheard of.I was talking about her getting lazy and then gaining 50 pounds and refusing to lose it because that would be effort, and she doesn't have to, not weight gain during pregnancy or her getting in an accident or cancer or something and being stuck in a hospital bed and gaining weight that way. That becomes "in sickness and in health" and that gives her an excuse.Presumably if she has the uber entitled married woman's disease she'll display that before I knock her up, and I could dump her with little regret. As a mom (partly out of respect, and partly due to the kid) she gets much more leeway, but we'd still have an issue if she ended up looking like Rosie O' Donnell. In that case, I'd divorce early when it would do less damage to the kid and I'd try to stay in his or her life IF she'd let me. She could go pursue other options if anyone wanted her.
>Clarence, you could try actually reading some of the reports I cite in my wage gap post. For example, it doesn't matter what the ideology of the AAUW is; their report is an empirical one based on Census data. I was also unaware that the Government Accountability Office was a feminist group. As for CONSAD, I will have to look again at the report to see if Ballgame's critique is valid. Even if it is, that doesn't affect Barry's main critique, that the CONSAD report basically suggests that things like occupational segregation of women into lesser-paying jobs counts as female "choice' and thus doesn't reflect sexism. As Barry put it:Ballgame’s big mistake is assuming that sexism in the wage gap (if it exists at all, which he denies) is entirely a matter of women being paid less than men for identical jobs. But most economists who study the wage gap believe that it’s caused, to a significant extent, by occupational segregation, which means women and men are sorted by the market into different jobs – and the women’s jobs, on average, pay less.This is an issue taken up in more detail in several of the other pieces I linked to in my wage gap post.
>thevagrantsvoice:Have you even been following this thread? Did you miss the part where I said that Roissy is not the be-all and end-all of PUA?No, not all women are the same. Women, like men fall on a spectrum of personality traits with some overlap. The differences between the sexes are mostly differences of means and averages. Some women (a minority) can have sex like a man and apparently still pair bond. Why? I don't know. Some women are immune to most PUA techniques (no woman is immune to them all) some women prefer geeks over jocks. Some young women are wise, or just have families with wisdom to guide them and can find a young man like my brother was. Roissy's tips and assertions are all a matter of statistical averages and particular kinds of environments, such as clubs. He is right about some really ugly things, but even then it's "on average". I disagree with him on some things and are almost 100 percent sure he's wrong on those things.I also love how you try to conflate all MRA's with the ones you see quoted on this site, some of which ONLY have one or two arguably bad attitudes, others of whom are downright misogynists. Yet you'll note there is little mention of Warren Farrell or Glenn Sacks on this site, yet they are most assuredly MRA's. Meanwhile, if I pointed out that many feminists say similarly ugly things, and many of these ugly assertions and types of bigotries get codified into actual LAWS (Do you want some links?)and policies and propaganda, er "education" campaigns, I'm sure you'd complain and moan as if the MRA's and PUA's all got their attitudes in a vacuum.No, not every PUA or every MRA believes women are vacuous children, though few believe women are shining paragons of angelic light either. So lay off it. Do you really think I'd want to date or have a relationship or consider modern "marriage" to a creature I hated and thought was guaranteed to mess me over? Heck, if I hate a lady enough for doing me a wrong (thankfully this has rarely happened in my life) I'd rather not even have sex with her no matter how attractive she is. Really unpleasant , combative women aren't even good for one night stands.
>David:Yes, Barry claimed that ballgame and Consad claimed that but they don't. Thus Barry misrepresented things. Like I said, check out that comment thread. Most of the studies Barry and you cite were cited in the Consad report. It was what is called a "meta- analysis".As for occupational segregation to the extent that exists I'll fully agree to getting more women in the CEO chair, if you work at getting more women into the coal mine.
>Did you miss the part where I said that Roissy is not the be-all and end-all of PUA?Nope. Problem is, he's close to it. Even you admit that there's not a single woman out there who's completely immune to this PUA stuff. Women may exist on a "spectrum," but if there's any truth to Pick-Up Artistry, it's a pretty wretched spectrum anyways. What's the point of even bothering with any of them, then?And if you're talking about "averages," well then, older women are only less fertile "on average." If you want to find a young lady who's not as amoral and stupid as PUA holds women to be "on average," you might as well try your luck finding an older lady who's more fertile than to be expected "on average" too.I also love how you try to conflate all MRA's with the ones you see quoted on this site, some of which ONLY have one or two arguably bad attitudes, others of whom are downright misogynists.Not All MRAs Are Like That. Problem is, most are. If you'd like to argue they're not–and again, genuinely not trolling–I would really, *really* like to hear more names than Sacks and Farrell. Because as far as I can tell, for every Farrell or Sacks in the MRM, you can find twenty bitter MGTOWers or wanna-be Sodinis on the comments section of any given MRM blog *alone.*I'm sure you'd complain and moan as if the MRA's and PUA's all got their attitudes in a vacuum.Nope. I hate feminism as much as I hate much of the MRA ideology, and in fact consider them mirror images of the other. I suppose you can credit our gracious host for this. I beg his forgiveness for being blunt, but when I first came here I was mildly sympathetic to the Men's Rights Movement while still having a degree of respect for feminism. Now, though, I despise both. I suppose he can take credit for dragging a potential MRA away from their side, but then again, considering he describes himself as a "feminist," perhaps creating a new enemy for his side wasn't exactly his intent. Oh well.Do you really think I'd want to date or have a relationship or consider modern "marriage" to a creature I hated and thought was guaranteed to mess me over?Nope, which is why I recommended you to Go Your Own Way like the other guys and get a surrogate mother if you really need to spread your genes that badly. The fact that you're still romantic enough to even consider marriage or any kind of relationship with a woman at all indicates, IMO, that you're probably too romantic to really have much business with PUA/the MRM in the first place.
>Clarence:OK, 50 lbs. without a good reason and Fatty-Fatty-Fat-Fats, the mother of your children, is history–maybe a little more leeway out of respect for her or concern for the kids. Got it. Would you include that stipulation in a pre-nup or let her find out the hard way?