A PUA, living the dream. And by “living the dream” I mean “being a dick.”
Cheating is jerky. But this picture is still hilarious.
Here’s the bravely anonymous alpha blogger behind “Danger & Play ~ An online magazine for alpha males” explaining “Why You Should Cheat on Your Girlfriend.” I’ve bolded my favorite bit:
Haters will tell you to, “Man up! Break up with your girlfriend if you’re not happy.” They are missing the point. You want to have your cake, and to eat it too. Steady, reliable pussy and the occasional strange is the best of all worlds.
Cheating is a lot of fun, and it’s something I highly recommend. It’s way more exhilarating than bungee jumping, and few things feel as good as banging your girlfriend on the same day you banged some strange.
Cheating keeps your game tight. The best way to regulate your girlfriend is knowing you can bang chicks as hot or hotter than your girl. Well, when you cheat, this isn’t hypothetical. It’s reality.
Somehow I’m guessing there’s a lot more “hypothetical” than “reality” going on in this guy’s posts.
You don’t want an exclusive relationship? Fine. There’s no law saying you have to be in one. You can date casually and non-exclusively. You can have an open or polyamorous relationship. There are a lot of people out there in relationships, yet happily fucking other people outside of them. They’re just above board with it.
But that’s not what’s going on with our PUA friend here. With his talk about “regulat[ing]” girlfriends, he seems more interested in fucking over his girlfriend (assuming such a creature really exists) than he is in fucking strangers (sorry, “stranges”).
That’s not “Game.” That’s just being a dick.
But, hey, Nietzsche! He’s BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL! Or, as he puts it in a comment, “Shame and guilt are beta.”
You know, if you have to go around telling everyone what an Nietzschean ubermensch you are, you’re probably aren’t much of a Nietzschean ubermensch.
Posted on October 17, 2011, in alpha males, beta males, douchebaggery, men who should not ever be with women ever, PUA. Bookmark the permalink. 961 Comments.
No, no. I think it’s just a rewrite of an older comment I made. lol Aw he’s so mad. Poor guy. =D
Wow…. I’ve seen some pathetic stuff, but wow…. the absolute incongurity of it… in some ways it reminds me of the manboobz_ dude at reddit, but it lacks the style and substance.
He’s not mad. He’s ALPHA! And ALPHA does what ALPHA wants!
It’s like he’s taken photographs of us and drawn on fake mustaches, or drawn big penises and written “I are doofus” on the top. Poor guy.
Ha ha! Score! The most recent comments… ALL KIRBY! Hail to the Warp!
LMAO kirbywarp. I’m really, really tempted to introduce all my friend’s to his blog just so they can have their comments edited to. He’d have quite the workout.
.:Darksidecat
I think the drunk sex = rape equation is highly problematic. I don’t know if you intend it that way, and while i wholeheartedly agree that having sex with someone so drunk they can’t enthusiastically consent, because they are more passed out than concious, can’t see straight anymore, are clearly desoriented and things like that,is straight-out rape, i don’t like the implications of “never have sex with a drunk person, because this always amounts to rape”. To me, it implies that this takes away my self agency. I decided to drink. I knew beforehand that this might change my behaviour, that i may do things i wouldn’t do otherwise. But if i do them enthusiastically and out of my free will, even if my judgement is impaired at that moment, it stems from that earlier decision to get intoxicated. Taking away my responsibility for that makes me feel very uncomfortable, because, well… that’s like being treated like a child. Like my decisions are not taken seriously. That in the end, when it comes to sex, my self agency again doesn’t matter, even if it’s in a way intended to protect me. Especially if this is only aimed at women.
But there’s a world of difference between “does stupid things happily, that she/he might regret later” and “can’t do anything anymore on their own, especially not giving enthusiastical consent.”. Nobody should make them out for the same, be it in one way or the other.
So, greetings from Germany, i hope i didn’t misspell too many things. Also, i don’t want to accuse you of any of these views.
That would also give him more blog hits… Eh. Could be fun to watch the fallout. (evil Kirby mode… ACTIVATE!
)
Eneya: That was many moons ago, during a thread where the subject of dirty talk vs. disrespectful talk came up. Brandon was defending calling someone a… whore maybe?…with the fact that it got Ashley hot in bed.
I believe that on another occasion he told us he’d read his comments to Ashley, and she responded by giggling, bouncing on his bed, and begging him to spank her. She’s a keeper, that one.
Did anybody else catch the part where he described himself as approvingly as “cold and calculating”? Awwww. I remember when I was sixteen.
The thing is, I think Brandon’s way old enough to know better. That’s the scary part.
Well… making fun of someone for liking something in the sack is like making fun of someone for their music taste… just cos you don’t like, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t…unless it’s evil of course >.>
I still want to know if he (Brandon) thinks other people have the right to secretly record him having sex. Several people have asked this (or similar things) already. He’s yet respond, if memory serves. I wonder why.
@darksidecat:
Buying something also involves an intervening actor.
How can you even compare that. Sex is something most people do voluntarily in their lives contrary to being beaten or run over by a car.
I don’t know how consent is defined and there are surely big differences between legislations.
But common sense tells us that if a drunk person gives me $ 50 that’s not the same as if I would steal $ 50 from a passed out person.
Why shouldn’t “having sex” be so different?
And so at least it should be a defense because I’m sick that sober people have to give much thought about how intoxicated exactly someone is before they can assume consent.
Oh, thanks for your sympathy, but I assure you, I don’t have absolutely any desire to have sex with drunk women, disgusting as they are.
But I am glad that I am at least still allowed to just leave them where they are.
DUDE THERE IS A KIRBY CARTOON WHY HAVEN’T I WATCHED THE KIRBY CARTOON ALSO THIS ONE IS WHERE MY AVATAR IS FROM I THINK!
That is what alcohol does to you! But he did everything right and how did it end?
Alcohol = Evil
Simon, she’s an abuser, full stop.
Aww, I think I’m on moderation or something on the guy’s blog. He may now edit my comments to his hearts content, and I can do nothing to stop him! Woe is me!
… I know it was spam, but come on… You just know this guy gets his Alpha thrills from toying with trolls.
Simon: yeah that lady is crazy. There’s no condoning that kind of behavior for whatever reason.
kirby: Aw lame. Ah well. It was fun while it lasted. I’m sure he’s crying into a bucket of chicken by now.
Simon: Did you just say that, “She was drunk,” should be a defense when someone in charged with rape?
I do think there’s tipsy and then there’s drunk. If someone’s had a couple drinks and they’re a little bit silly but still walking steady, talking clearly, emotionally levelheaded–I think they can consent to sex. I’d be cautious if I’d never had sex with them before, and extra cautious if I didn’t know them well enough to know what they were like sober and how well they held their liquor, but I wouldn’t say a tipsy person can’t consent.
But I also think that this distinction gets twisted the other way far too often, when someone is raped while blackout staggering drunk, and then everyone tries to claim “they were just tipsy! What, is it rape if someone has one drink?”
If someone is drunk enough to be throwing up or acting “disgusting,” then they are way too goddamn drunk.
For what it’s fucking worth, if someone is drunk and you have sex with them, that’s not rape unless the person is so drunk that they cannot legally consent. There’s no clear line, but let’s say it happens somewhere around the point of stumbling around and puking and slurring words and of course applies to passed out drunk people as well — same as in your theft example.
If someone is drunk but not so drunk that they cannot legally consent, then it’s not rape unless you’ve used force or threats and/or they’ve put up some amount of resistance, generally. So, if the drunk (but able to legally consent) person “gives you $50,” or if they simply don’t say “no” when you ‘take the $50,” or if they say no but don’t fight back when you “take the $50,” the law typically doesn’t see it as rape.
Sucks balls, but there it is. (Different jurisdictions may vary, of course.)
Sucks even more balls when you consider that most rapists are predators who plan their rapes. They look for drunk people who aren’t going to be able to remember clearly what happened, or be believed, or be able to fight back.
The more you learn about this shit, the more ludicrous false rape fears are. Most of the US still has a “no means yes” standard, and you’re afraid/i> of false accusations?
It isn’t that fucking hard, just don’t sleep with people who are drunk enough to put a person in any doubt of their ability to fully consent. If you can’t approximate how drunk someone is, then don’t have sex with people who have been drinking and risk raping someone. Apparantly, you don’t have sex with drunk people yourself and survive just fucking fine. The fact that you think you getting off or just being lazy outweighs another person’s interest in not being raped is fucking creepy.
Common sense doesn’t say that at all. I would not take things from people who I thought would not give them to me sober. I do not make a habit of trying to steal from people or rip them off in general. For some of us, being an asshole isn’t “common sense”. Also, a person’s body is not equal to a piece of property.
Many jurisdictions will not uphold a contract of sale made while intoxicated. Giving a drunk person your car keys makes you civilly liable for injuries as well.
Because we are talking about a person who is too impaired to fully consent. They are therefore not doing it voluntarily, they are being raped. Just because boxers volunteer to punch each other doesn’t mean you can go about punching people whenever you like who haven’t fully agreed to it.
@Laviana, it isn’t only aimed at women, I certainly do not think it is okay to have “sex” with men or people of other genders who are too drunk to fully consent. As to the issue of the people who are okay with others doing sexual stuff to them while they are incapacitated, this is more analogous to people who are okay with their partners waking them up with sex (that is, beginning a sex act while the person is asleep). Some people are okay with it or like it, but you can’t make that assumption and risk raping someone, you have to know ahead of time when they are not incapacitated and get permission (a comparable case with drinking would be two sober people who sit down together and say “let’s get drunk and then have lots of sex”). You cannot assume a drunk person is one of the people who is okay with people doing stuff to them while they are drunk. So, the proper response as the other person is to not take the risk of raping someone and instead respond to an advance with something like “I am flattered, but you are rather drunk right now. If you would like, I could give you my number and if you are still interested when you sober up, call me.” While this does mean you would not be having sex with the drunk people who would be okay with you doing sexual stuff to them while they are incapacitated, it also means that you are not taking a significant risk of raping someone.
“And so at least it should be a defense because I’m sick that sober people have to give much thought about how intoxicated exactly someone is before they can assume consent.”
Wow, life must be so hard for you, not just being able to assume that drunk people consent to whatever you’d like them to consent too. Observe as this tiny violin plays just for you.
My running list of Brandon comments just gets more and more picturesque. He keeps ending on such great notes. This time it’s “You see it as sexual exploitation. I see it as sexual protection.”
Uh oh. Did I break the italics?
Sorry in advance if I did. Damn rage.
I think ppl are talking past each other again xD
Simon, what specific kinds of situations are you imagining when you’re talking about this…
Even with your money scenario… if somebody is drunk and gives you 50$ it’s not the same as if they’re drunk and barely able to stand and you take their wallet,and say “it’s okay if I borrow this right?” and take their slurred confused response as consent.
But I also think that this distinction gets twisted the other way far too often, when someone is raped while blackout staggering drunk, and then everyone tries to claim “they were just tipsy! What, is it rape if someone has one drink?”
Exactly. These discussions always turn into “so if she had one drunk and grabbed my hand and said “let’s go back to my room and fuck!” and is enthusiastically consenting the whole time, therefore it’s RAPE!!!!?????!!!111??222″
-_-
I think it’s being twisted in that way because a lot of people know damn well that they’re in the habit of fucking people who’re too drunk to know what they’re doing, and they don’t like having it pointed out to them that this is ethically unacceptable. It’s a classic overreaction out of defensiveness.
FWIW, some screen shots of before and after of Ubermensch’s comments sections.
I often wonder why “just let them sober up and then call them in the morning and you can have sex after” isn’t an option. I wonder how much for some ppl is “because they wouldn’t consent if they were sober”. >_>
It’s seriously either this or that they don’t want consensual sex; they want to rape. David Lisak has done a lot of studies on rapists, and they’re pretty fascinating. A quote from him:
“The most common rape is a non-stranger assault where the victim is picked out by the offender at a party, at a bar. The degree of acquaintance between them is usually very, very incidental. It is really just the perpetrator finding a particular individual who they’re going to target. And so if they’re in a bar, if you’ve got a predator in a bar, he’s not going to look for the most sober individual in the bar. He’s going to look for the most intoxicated individual. In fact, he’ll look for the individual who is not only intoxicated but seems to be doing outrageous things.”
Or even “fall asleep cuddling them, wake up in the morning, commiserate over your shared hangovers, and then have sex if you both feel OK”. There are many options available, as long as you don’t approach sex like it’s a military incursion into hostile territory.
@ Ami
There are many options available, as long as you don’t approach sex like it’s a military incursion into hostile territory.
*GASP*
WHAT OTHER WAY TO APPROACH IT IS THERE? o:
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX IN SITUATIONS WHERE EVERYONE IS DELIGHTED TO BE THERE AND IS HAPPY ABOUT THE SEX AFTERWARDS?
Lies. Evil feminist lies.
@felixBC:
I totally have some more screen shots, if you’re interested. Not sure how to transmit them though…
Ubermenchandplay is kind of picky in what he edits, removes etc. Most of my comments are unchanged, but he did delete one. Apparently he can handle being called out for endangering somebody’s safety, but he can’t stand that I pointed out Johnny_B’s use of imaginary people to make a point in his 5:42pm comment? I don’t get it.
All’s fair in love and war, I guess.
@Moewicus:
He’s deleted three or four of mine… Yet some snark has been left standing for some reason.
@CassandraSays:
No, in my life I have very few contact with those people and I’m happy for that.
One of the five precepts of Buddhism is to abstain from “drink that causes heedlessness”.
I’m not a Buddhist, but “heedlessness”, could there be a better word?
Why not cure the real problem?
But no, everybody else has to accommodate to people who suffer from self-inflicted heedlessness.
Since we will never agree on this one and you take this way to personally, I’ll rest my case.
Always these personal attacks. What do you know about me? Close to nothing.
Today I learned that not raping someone is accommodating them.
Geez, talk about bending over backward and going out of your way.
What I know about you, Simon, is that you’re oddly resistant to the basic notions of how one lives appropriately as part of a community. It’s funny that you should use a Buddhist quote – I can see why the religion wouldn’t work for you, given its focus on compassion.
Regarding demonizing sociopaths: If that’s how my post read, I didn’t intend it. I know not all sociopaths are malicious, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise, just to state that Brandon’s posts here seem utterly lacking in empathy, as well as several other characteristics typical of sociopaths.
I learned that predator rapists who use alcohol instead of force aren’t “the real problem.” Women who drink alcohol in the company of other people are. Who knew!
Simon is wise in the ways of the world, and in Buddhism.
Luckily for him if he spouts off this kind of nonsense in front of an actual Buddhist their devotion to compassion might give them enough self-restraint not to yell at him.
But no, everybody else has to accommodate to people who suffer from self-inflicted heedlessness
So you believe we should not “accommodate” them. What should we do? :3
@Brandon: I don’t expect you to care what I think of you (though it would be nice if you’d learn to spell my name before you engage me). I’m just hoping that if enough people post to tell you how fucked up you are, you might eventually realize that if everyone’s response to your posts is “What the fuck” then it might be you who has the problem here.
Ami, I kept meaning to say this but getting distracted by Brandon’s, well, Brandon-ness:
I looked up “awesome” in the dictionary and your picture was next to it.
I’d add Ami’s picture to the Wikipedia page for “awesome,” but I am tech illiterate.
Lauralot: Brandon isn’t the problem. He’s a brilliant dude, who works in the financial sector, knows all about the law (which is why he knows that one can totes replicate all the legal benefits of marriage with a few contracts), understands world finance (Gold baby!), and is so studly that no woman in the world can attack him without doing more damage to herself than to him (and that only if he restrains himself).
It’s all about Brandon, and what problems there are in the world stem from people not realisig that.
OMG, those Dos Equis ads are about Brandon!
Brandon knows what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.
And here I thought they were just a retread of those annoying Chuck Norris jokes. Unless those were secretly about Brandon too.
When talking to the police, other than as witness to a specific incident’ at the time of the incident, the best advice I can give (speaking as a trained interrogator), have a lawyer.
I am willing to speak to them, on any matter, if I have a lawyer. If I don’t have a lawyer, I won’t.
If they insist, I tell them I am willing to answer any question as soon as my lawyer is present. If they try to continue, I leave; giving them the number of my lawyer, should they wish to continue communication.
Brandon has a beard, behind which is yet another beard. The second beard is false, and conceals a video camera that can tape anyone having sex anywhere in the world.
Holding that camera is a fist.
If you can see Brandon, he can see you. If you can’t see Brandon, he is filming you having sex.
@Moewicus: Is the first beard named Ashley? :D
If you are filming Brandon having sex, we still don’t know how he feels about that, since he refuses to answer the question.
That beard! How it giggles.
The giggling is the worst. And when it asks to be spanked, it sends a chill down my spine. That beard haunts me, gives me nightmares every night.
Also, Brandon: If it were about “sexual protection”, you would have no problem seeking your partners’ consent to be filmed. Since you are hell-bent on doing it without their knowledge or consent — and since we’ve pointed out umpteen ways in which this wouldn’t even be effective as a defense against an FRA — clearly, you would be doing it for kicks, to derive enjoyment from humiliating and sexually abusing women who have done you no wrong.
That thing about you being a “productive” member of society — bullshit. Being a productive member means you contribute something, which is against your principles. Most of your life, you’ve lived on your parents’ dime. That “job” you had at your father’s law office — that was charity. To the extent that you have any education, the lion’s share of it was financed by the taxpayers. Since you only earn enough to pay for your basic needs, you rely on others to finance the infrastructure that you use every day and to pass and enforce laws that protect you from people life yourself. The least you can do to repay everything this society has done for you is not commit crimes or gratuitously harm other people.
@kirbywarp imgur.com worked really well, you don’t even have to register to upload images. I know it’s just one sad little blog, but changing comments really bugs me. He wants all the perceived benefit of having people publicly agree with him, but if they don’t, he gets to force them to do so. I’m rather fond of the social contract, give and take and respect and all that, and there’s definitely a social contract that you don’t change what people say to make them look bad.
I am now convinced that Brandon is a randroid. And the more of his posts I read, the more I am reminded of this brilliant essay by Gin and Tacos.
For a moment I read that last comment as “Brandon is an android” and thought, well, I can see why you’d think that, but isn’t he a bit illogical for an android?
Amused: From various posts, I agree. He is certainly a Randian Fellow Traveller.
I was responding to DSC; I don’t remember you saying anything on the subject?
See, the thing is that it’s possible to not be an asshole to others even if you don’t have any empathy whatsoever. You can reason your way to being just.
GUYS GUYS GUYS I figured out who/what Brandon is!
He’s a group of creative writing students tasked with collectively coming up with the most plausibly odious character ever. Soon they will come clean and tell us we’ve been pwned.
(BTW, the creative writing class is led by Brett Easton Ellis, who will probably make Brandon a supporting character in his next book, “The Nauseating Upper-Class Narcissist and All Of His Friends Who Are Exactly Like Him Only More Annoying”.)
Only if you include the wellbeing/interests/harm to others as a central part of the equation. If you, you are just acting in a way that superficially appears to have some shared features to genuine ethical and justice considerations.
I think there are good policy reasons not to punish sociopaths until they commit harm, but I do not like them and I think caution is warranted. I feel similar ways about pedophiles who have not yet molested.
“If you” should be “If not”
I haven’t read an Ayn Rand book cover to cover. I tried reading Atlas, but it was so damn dry and boring I couldn’t even bother finishing it. I also don’t subscribe to her philosophy of objectivism.
And just for shits and giggles, I took the empathy test at OKcupid. Strangely it summed me up pretty well. Friends, family and loved ones = empathetic. Complete strangers = could give a fuck less.
http://www.okcupid.com/quizzy/results?quizzyid=2240560109112545646&resultid=2
darksidecat:
What I’m saying is that it’s possible to recognise on an intellectual level that the wellbeing and interests of others are important, without instinctively feeling emotions in concert with their emotions.
Also, if all we have to go on is peoples’ actions, their outward behavior, how does it help to call one set of motivations “genuine” and another set of motivations “superficial”? If everyone acts appropriately, and considering that I have no way of really knowing what goes on in someone else’s mind, the distinction between “genuine”/”good” motivations and “superficial”/”bad” motivations is irrelevant as far as society is concerned.
You “on’t like” all of them? As a group? No matter what each one has or has not done? That’s a pretty hardcore dismissal. Do you believe that someone who has no empathy can be ethical?
kristinmh:
I thought he was an AI that was attaining self-awareness for the very first time.
Huh, I almost didn’t notice this:thanks for coming to the conclusion that people with mental disorders shouldn’t be locked up unless they hurt people, I guess, but the fact that you’re even entertaining the idea of punishing people who haven’t done anything for having a disability is, I’m sorry, kind of fucked up.
Brandroid the Angry Robot with Malfunctioning Logic Circuits! (Kid’s show? Or maybe Adult Swim show ’cause of all the voyeuristic videotaping and rapey creepiness and total lack of coherent moral system?)
I don’t think anyone here actually has been considering punishing people with disabilities. And I do think it’s fair to give someone who literally could not care less about the welfare of other human beings (especially someone as gleeful about it as Brandon) a little more side-eye than a person who likes washing their hands a lot or something. Any action beyond having a little caution would be punitive, I suppose; at least that’s how I read the “punish” line, to mean nothing beyond caution would be appropriate or right.