>
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.
>DarkCat“There are far more forty year old women that I find attractive than forty year old men that I find attractive.”I agree with this. I’m bi-sexual and not only do I encounter more men 35-45 that haven’t aged well and don’t put in any effort toward their appearance/otherwise than women, but they tend to be shallow and have the same bitterly condescending, immature attitude as Clarence. I’m not here to validate you or enable the weakness you’ve refused to overcome and now use half-ass evo-psych explanations to rationalize. Heck, even guys my age and younger hook up with and date older women.If I wanted a baby (which I don’t) I wouldn’t go for a guy that age, either. Younger sperm is better for a healthier baby and a younger man has the strength and energy to be a more significant part of the child’s life.Clarence -“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.”Schooled? I wouldn’t say that, though maybe it’s because I think it’s cute that FC tries so hard to manipulate people into thinking that, assuming the CONSAD report is accurate, the 5% difference is inconsequential. Not to mention occupational gender segregation, but a favorite tactic of the FC types is to focus on numerous meaningless details to distract from the overall picture (“nothing to see here!”). That and whereas it doesn’t occur much now, FC regulars and bloggers were routinely destroyed on Alas. That was usually followed by running back to FC and complaining about the meanie feminists.“When I want a site which deconstructs bad statistics on both "feminist" and MRA sites I go to Feminist Critics”That explains a lot. I stopped reading Feminist Critics after it became apparent they have nothing to offer except an inability to see the forest for the trees, a tendency to misrepresent everything you say, and then a platform for the so-called unlucky in love guys to whine about how oppressed they are because women aren’t obligated to participate in pick-up culture. And any forum that doesn’t school some poor soul on the silly notion that wearing eye-liner is the same as telling calculated lies is a hack forum.
>Clarence, the argument ballgame had with Barry had to do with part-time vs full time workers. Not what I was talking about. The whole point of the CONSAD report — which has a clearly ideological tone, and was commissioned by the Bush administration — is to dismiss much of the wage gap as the result of "choics." Indeed, the intro to the report claims this:The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers. But the report doesn't actually show this.
>Not to spoil anyone's party, but I don't really see why a bisexual woman's opinions on female attractiveness would mean much–if anything–to a straight man. The fact that you seem to have different tastes or standards of attractiveness doesn't really tell us what we don't already know. By that token, the fact that you apparently like older women is utterly meaningless to us. I don't know what you girls look for in women, but since guys like smooth skin, pert breasts, etc. perhaps it's understandable why some, like Clarence, may not be as enthusiastic for the older ladies, at least not in general.Heck, even guys my age and younger hook up with and date older women.No offense, but one might argue that most of the young guys you know are simply desperate. No more, no less. I do agree with you when it comes to older fathers, though. They say women age like milk while men age like wine, but there aren't many 60 year old men who'll say they're as attentive, energetic, and strong as they were back when they were 20. In that respect, maybe men don't have it that great after all…though perhaps they still have it better than women.
>CinamonCW:Basic logic escapes you.For one, the CONSAD report put it at a 5 percent difference, but it might be less than that, it might even disappear entirely if one was to take all variables into account, which even CONSAD never claimed to do.Forest for the trees? When you can't even handle basic statistics or logic? This tells me you are either uneducated in mathematics and statistical modeling/interpretation or you are being a deliberate liar. Neither of which looks good for you. Besides, you know as well as I do that even if CONSAD was 100 percent accurate (which it isn't as explained above) feminists (including Barry!) are still claiming it's over 10 percent, with most still using a "women only earn 75 cents per dollar compared to man". You can find that one all over the web and in reports released to this day.Call me a liar. I dare you.Now, I suggest you learn something about basic statistics or learn how to argue without lying.
>It's quite amusing. Every now and again the genteel facade slips, and we're treated to a glimpse of the seething rage within.
>David:Unless you can show CONSAD misusing the reports it analyzed (which so far no one has apparently done, though you'd think they would have tried), CONSAD, as a meta-analysis , should be more definitive than any of the studies that make it up.By the way, do you really want to quote ballgame's post, as I feel you've made a total mess of what his disagreement with Amp was, or will you perhaps go back and actually READ ballgames comment (it's just a little bit after comment #30 in that thread) and give me a more accurate and perhaps less sleepy argument against it? (I'm being fair here, and assuming you were just tired and didn't actually read through the thread but merely Amp's opening remarks) I mean, assuming you can. I do note that as I said, to this day Amp hasn't responded to it, either to refute or deny it.
>I should also point out that complaining about the Bush administrations ideological bias is rich when most of one's own "research" is by advocacy organizations that long ago shot the arrows of their credibility. It's not like CONSAD is the only report to ever come out that disputes a "wage" gap at more than "white noise" levels when all relevant factors are taken into account. Indeed, the more one tries to factor things in on one's own, the smaller the so-called "gap" becomes. Honestly, after 14 plus years of checking into this stuff and debating it on the web, I don't even believe a wage gap exists. Certainly no one has ever found a "smoking gun", nor do feminists ever point to companies that somehow end up paying male and female workers differing amounts of money for the same job.
>Lilly Ledbetter?
>Clarence, I'm not arguing with the data in the CONSAD report; I'm arguing with their interpretation of this dats. Here's what the report says: Extant economic research has identified numerous factors that contribute to the gender wage gap. Many of the factors relate to differences in the choices and behavior of women and men in balancing their work, personal, and family lives. These factors include, most notably, the occupations and industries in which they work, and their human capital development, work experience, career interruptions, and motherhood. Other factors are sources of wage adjustments that compensate specific groups of workers for benefits or duties that disproportionately impact them. Such factors for which empirical evidence has been developed include health insurance, other fringe benefits, and overtime work. It is not possible to produce a reliable quantitative estimate of the aggregate portion of the raw gender wage gap for which the explanatory factors that have been identified account. Nevertheless, it can confidently be concluded that, collectively, those factors account for a major portion and, possibly, almost all of the raw gender wage gap.They are claiming that things like gender differences in occupation are the result of individual choices, so therefore they assume that differences based on this (which contribute to the "raw gender wage gap" aren't the result of sexism. In fact, differences in occupation may be the result of occupational segregation — that is to say, rooted in sexism. They've simply dismissed this issue by waving their hands and saying "choice." This is one of Barry's key points in his post, and, as I said before, is discussed in a number of the articles I cite in my post. Again, I suggest you read some of them. The studies I cite that provide data all derive from govt sources (the GAO, the Census). The feminist articles I cite in the post offer INTERPRETATIONS of that data. I don't actually claim anywhere in my post that the "raw" gender gap is an accurate measure of discrimination. But I think the CONSAD report exaggerates the amount of the gap that is the result of simple "choices."
>David:It's rather late, but I will say one thing you seem to have forgotten and then depart for most likely 12 hours or so:There may be no "gap" to be explained. And that's the whole point. Like I said, the more this is analyzed the smaller the "gap" becomes. And thus, it doesn't really matter why men and women segregate into different careers, or at least it doesn't matter to women anymore than to men. After all, men do the vast majority of dangerous and uncomfortable work in most sectors of the economy and as I said: you want more women in the boardroom ( a place very few males get to) then I want more females in the coal mines.
>Clarence: I was beginning to warm to you several hundred posts ago. I was also beginning to wonder if I had been wrong about the amusingly-named Dark Lord and his teachings. However, I am now beginning to remember why I took such a violent dislike to the keyboard jockey extraordinaire and his bootlicking minions to begin with.For one thing, your obsession with women's ages is ridiculous. There are women of my acquaintance who are startlingly beautiful in their early forties. There are women of my acquaintance who are plain and overweight at twenty-one. I do not think I am being controversial to claim that Nigella Lawson is significantly more attractive than Kelly Osborne. Or that driving a vintage Jaguar will gain you considerably more kudos than driving a showroom-new Ford Focus. This is not to say that there are not also strikingly beautiful twenty-one year old women and plain, overweight forty year olds. It is simply to say that your sweeping generalisations are annoying and banal. As is your odd perception that men age like fine wines, accruing the sly weapons of devastating sexual attraction as the ageing process accelerates. Some of us simply acquire large sums of money. Others acquire the ability to emotionally manipulate naive teenagers who have yet to learn how to identify a wrong 'un. Neither of these things should be mistaken for 'sex appeal.' Incidentally, a woman who is 'in shape' in her early twenties may well let herself go in grand and spectacular style. A woman who is 'in shape' in her mid-thirties is very, very unlikely to. Finally, an observation from my own life and experience. The happiest men I know are those who have sought out partners at their own age and attractiveness level. The unhappiest men I know are those who have not. Make of this what you will.
>"I'll fully agree to getting more women in the CEO chair, if you work at getting more women into the coal mine."Let's get more men walking the streets as prostitutes, if you want to talk about jobs that are brutally ill-paid and subject to violence.
>Thevagrantsvoice:Why does it have to mean anything to straight men? We’re talking about aging.“By that token, the fact that you apparently like older women is utterly meaningless to us. I don't know what you girls look for in women, but since guys like smooth skin, pert breasts, etc. perhaps it's understandable why some, like Clarence, may not be as enthusiastic for the older ladies, at least not in general.”As opposed to queer and straight women, that prefers blemished skin and saggy parts? But since you mentioned it, a lot of men like big breasts. Depending on what you consider “pert,” D’s or DD’s may not fall into that category even if they don’t actually sag.At any rate, I didn’t even say I preferred older women perse. I just said that when choosing between older women and older men, older women generally win based on aging better and having a better attitude.“No offense, but one might argue that most of the young guys you know are simply desperate. No more, no less”Yes, that’s what I’d argue to make myself feel better if that wasn’t something I wanted to hear, too. But I’m glad you brought that up, actually. One of the young men is actually a 6’2, muscular guy that fronts a band. He has a huge personality and many tattoos; he knows people everywhere he goes and has connections. There is always a couple women completely taken by him; I wouldn’t exactly call him desperate for attention or sex. What else may he be desperate for? It sounded to me like guys such as Clarence are desperate for something.Another one is a “work hard, party hard” type that has had a couple long-term relationships. He’s had his own place since he was out of high school (works with computers) where he’s semi-regularly held parties. Again, I can’t think of any area where he’d be desperate; he’s actually been called a player.Both of these guys are well-hung, btw.“They say women age like milk while men age like wine,”Of course they say that! But I like cheesecake more than vinegar, honey. Clarence is vinegar. The dark-haired beauty with the big smile and leather jacket is cheesecake.“Basic logic escapes you.” This better be good …“For one, the CONSAD report put it at a 5 percent difference, but it might be less than that, it might even disappear entirely if one was to take all variables into account, which even CONSAD never claimed to do.”My god you have a knack for saying a whole lot of nothing, don’t you?I know CONSAD put the difference at 5%; that’s the report FC used when they dismissed any meaning to a 5% difference. I’m going to go ahead and skip over the rest because it’s just speculative and misses the issue that goes to my larger critique of FC anyway.“Forest for the trees? When you can't even handle basic statistics or logic? This tells me you are either uneducated in mathematics and statistical modeling/interpretation or you are being a deliberate liar. Neither of which looks good for you.”Calm down, sweetie. I know it makes you feel better about yourself to draw bizarre conclusions from words people say that do not support them, but you’re going to give yourself a heart attack. That’s a big risk for guys your age.
>I notice that Clarence complains that young women don't give men like himself when he was young, or his cousin, the time of day. Now he thinks he should be dating them and they are more attracted to him.No insight into the connection!As a youth he's competing with the Clarence of today. And he's the one causing young men to be bitter, by fishing in their pond, and giving young women reason to become cynical about men.Nothing new here, of course. It's not like older creeps picking up young girls just started with the PUA movement.Guys like Clarence and his nephew (who had a two-year relationship (let me guess, it spanned 2008 and 2009) with a "redheaded hottie" but hey, that's over, isn't it? that's his entire claim to sexual fame?) say are just not attractive to women until they get older … and that may mean, when they become craftier and learn ways to prey on younger women who don't have their defenses fully formed yet.Don't flatter yourself by thinking this means I'm jealous. I don't want guys like that paying attention to me. Didn't like it when I was young, even if I couldn't figure out exactly why they were bogus then; don't like it now, when I can see the strings.
>You know, I have to wonder–genuinely not trolling here–but looking over this discussion, why are guys like clarence, who go for younger girls, "creepy," while the older women who manage to capture the attention of younger guys aren't? If you say folks like Clarence are "preying on girls who haven't learned to 'defend' themselves,' why aren't your older female friends 'preying on young guys who haven't learned to defend themselves?'Again, genuinely not trolling here, I'm curious as to why Clarence would deserve condemnation for pursuing younger girls while an older woman wouldn't for pursuing younger guys.Full disclosure: I actually like older women. While I won't divulge too much of my personal life here (I don't want to be uncouth or ungentlemanly) suffice it to say I've little issue with courting their affections. However, I'm not really in the market for a relationship at the moment, much less marriage. If Clarence feels differently, so what? IMO, as I said above, it's a much more telling critique to mention that if you want kids, a surrogate mother can serve just as well as most 'young girls' you can find.
>“If you say folks like Clarence are "preying on girls who haven't learned to 'defend' themselves,' why aren't your older female friends 'preying on young guys who haven't learned to defend themselves?'”This is a bit of a strawman. He’s made his bitterness and immaturity very clear, almost unapologetically. That isn’t inherent to older men that like younger women, it is just an obvious factor with Clarence. He can’t handle a woman that knows better and that is easier to find in younger women.If an older woman came in with the same attitude, it’d be no different. But this isn’t the case, is it? In fact I made it clear the older women I encounter are quite self-aware and mature.
>FWIW, I know several 40-something women who've tried online dating and quickly found themselves beseiged with messages from guys in their 20s and younger; they were not interested. Indeed, one of them (who I believe was 49 at the time) ended up writing a sort of motherly note to one 18 or 19 year old who'd written her, warning him that any fortysomething woman who was willing to get with him probably had a screw loose. I don't think age differences are that big a deal, but generally speaking the half-your-age-plus-seven rule is probably a good guide to the outer limit of what is healthy and what is exploitative. 40-something men — or women — going after 21 year olds is a bit creepy.
>When what you want is someone interesting, and you find out that the interesting person is older or younger than you, or from another country, or otherwise "different," no problem.When what you want is someone older or younger than you, or from another country,k or otherwise "different," so you can gain a particular advantage over them (or think this will give you an advantage)? Problem.
>And when what you want is someone older or younger than you, or from another country, or otherwise "different," because you think choosing them is somehow going to punish those people of your own age and country, that's just all kinds of screwed up.
>Thevagrantsvoice:To answer your question, I think it has to do with the approach. Are older women seeking out younger men or are younger men (as David's anecdote indicates) seeking out older women? And if it's the older person seeking out the younger, why are they doing that? This all will lead you to figure out why one is creepier than the other. If I had to give an answer, I'd say that generally it's because IN GENERAL the motivations of the older men are to exploit the naivete of the young woman, while the older woman is usually just seeking a good time with a younger man. She's older and probably pays for dinner, but she's not seeking the power differential that the older man is seeking.Now, anecdote: The men aren't always just seeking power. A girl in my class was rumored to be dating her coach (my teacher). She was 16 or 17. Some years ago, I found out they got married. Creepy? Kind of. But obviously he wasn't seeking to exploit his position of authority. Not like the band teacher, the geography teacher, the art teacher, the French teacher, the principal … list goes on … in my jr. and high schools, who were reprimanded or who left because they were being inappropriate with female students. One or two may have been seeking genuine romance, but the rest were just trying to feel up pre/teens and exploit the power differential.It's all about the motives. People who want to use + people who are less aware of being used = creepy. From my own vast experience on the internet over the last 12 or 13 years, I know that older guys will say just about ANYTHING if they think a young woman will bite. I've always been a way cynical person, so I never bit. And then the guys would get really angry and frustrated, and accuse me of being an older man PRETENDING to be a young woman, because I wasn't all naive and stupid, and I spelled too well. Then they can tug out the other mind game–the, "Well, if you aren't a man then go on cam and show me!" (Yeah, go jump off a bridge.) I'm sure that works for someone. Not me. So there you go. I'm sure this is a bit rambly, but I can't stop thinking about my horrible heartburn. The front of my brain is going, "AGGGHBURNING DEATH" and the rest of it is trying to type out this answer.
>Captain Bathrobe said… "It's quite amusing. Every now and again the genteel facade slips, and we're treated to a glimpse of the seething rage within."With many feminists I've encountered, they practically wear it on their sleeve. And they are even proud of it. It's interesting—as much as David himself is pro-feminist, even he will mention something when another feminist crosses the line too much. That's actually very uncommon, because feminist anger is perceived to be righteous and justified.
>Dude, I was laughing so hard that I had tears. Have I ever mentioned that I love this blog? Best place to satisfy my cravings for snarkiness.
>Clarence: You expect your future hypothetical wife to put on between 5 and 10 lbs during pregnancy? Five pounds, are you nuts?The average newborn weight in the developing world is 7.5 lbs, so you are already over the 5-lb mark. Add the weight of the amniotic fluid, plus the normal weight gain caused by hormonal changes during the pregnancy. In fact, normal weight gain for a woman within normal BMI limits is between 25 and 35 lbs — and the lower her BMI pre-pregnancy, the more weight she is expected to gain in order to be able to carry it to term without significant health problems for her and/or the baby. So keeping it in the 5-to-10 pound range, or even under 20 lbs, as you later magnanimously allowed, would require your future hypothetical wife to work against the normal physiological process of pregnancy — no doubt by severely starving herself. The fact that it might kill her is of little concern to you, I'm sure, since being a widower is probably better in your eyes than being married to a woman who's overweight for a year or two — but what do you think pregnancy starvation will do to the baby? Have you thought through all the implications of raising a developmentally disabled child, especially if you have to do it on your own?It's nice of you to plan to "try" to be in good shape for your hypothetical future wife. I note, though, how she absolutely MUST keep thin, while you will merely try. Why is that? Because it's so much harder for you? She'll have to contend with the immense hormonal changes of pregnancy and (possibly) breastfeeding, so that will explain her weight gain. But when YOU put on the pounds, what will be YOUR excuse? If she's allowed a maximum of 20-lb weight gain during pregnancy, I take it you won't think it's unfair if she slaps you with divorce papers the moment you gain even a single ounce?
>If I had to give an answer, I'd say that generally it's because IN GENERAL the motivations of the older men are to exploit the naivete of the young woman, while the older woman is usually just seeking a good time with a younger man. She's older and probably pays for dinner, but she's not seeking the power differential that the older man is seeking.No offense, but I have to apologize–this just sounds like the rationalization hamster spinning away. "Power differentials?" "Exploiting the naivete of the younger women?" Maybe in Clarence's experience, women "his own age" tend to be either worse looking (by his standards) or bitchier/harder to deal with (what you'd call "experienced" or "less naive"). Yes, because a couple of bisexual women on some blog think older girls "age well" indicates Clarence ought to feel the same way. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks–maybe younger women are just what turn him on, much like MILFs (or black women, or asian women, or whatever) are what turn on different guys who have different sexual tastes and/or fetishes. Your condemnation of him seems much more like a selfish, self-serving post-hoc rationalization of your (or more specifically, your gender's) self-interest that is, sadly, perfectly keeping with what most PUAs, MRAs, and MGTOWs would say is the amoral, irrational, and solipsistic nature of women. Oh well.
>Thevagrantsvoice: I don't think anyone seriously disputes that a person's sexual preferences aren't a matter of political conviction. However, Clarence does remind me of a man I talked to once, who planned to bring over a (much younger) mail-order bride and stated that if she happened to give birth via Cesarean section, he would divorce her and send her back, because he couldn't possibly be expected to have sex with a woman who has a surgical scar. Contrary to what traditionalists and PUA's preach, the nature of sexual attraction is complex. It's funny that Clarence mentioned "bonding". If you are truly bonded with your partner — emotionally, romantically, intellectually and sexually — then it will take a lot more than age or pregnancy-related physical imperfections to destroy that bonding. That's why happily married couples are known to fuck well into old age, apparently still finding each other attractive and exciting despite all the cellulite and sagging flesh, and why good relationships survive scars, injuries, loss of limbs and, yes, weight gain. If a pregnancy gain of more than 20 lbs is enough to completely dissolve Clarence's bond with his wife, it means that he never had much of a relationship with her to begin with, it was always about sex and breeding — nothing more. Every "I love you" was a lie. It is what it is, of course, and I would never presume to "require" Clarence or other men like him to be less shallow, but if that's how he feels — then honestly, marriage is not for him. This is merely a practical consideration: marriages, ideally, last a long time, and it's likelier than not that your partner will develop some physical imperfections along the way (and you will too); and if you can't see past that and still love this person, then marriage simply isn't the type of arrangement that would work. It's not just a matter of "different taste" — it's a matter of one's ability to, ironically enough, bond with another human being. If you are able to stay happy with a woman only as long as she is thin and under 30, you can't very well claim that you are "bonded" with her.As for alleged selfishness and "rationalization" — I, for one, feel that women shouldn't have to rationalize their aging. We ALL age. Most men DON'T age like wine, either. We all become less physically perfect with age, that's just an inescapable fact of life. I think what gets some folks' hackles up, however, is the way most PUA's, MRA's and MGTOW's try to portray women's aging as a personality flaw, or some kind of divine punishment, rather than the result of a physiological process that affects everyone.