Pickup artists argue that “Game” is the solution to Elliot Rodger-style rampages. Here’s why they’re wrong.
From Elliot Rodger’s Google+ Profile
Pickup artists, classy fellows that they are, are using Elliot Rodger’s killing rampage as a marketing ploy. In the comments to one of Rodger’s videos on YouTube, a company called Strategic Dating Coach offered their solution to prevent similar shootings in the future: send disturbed young men who can’t get dates to one of their coaching sessions!
While this response to Rodger’s mass killing is uniquely crass, the argument that “Game saves lives” is hardly new. To PUAs like Heartiste and Roosh Valizadeh it’s practically an article of faith.
In the wake of George Sodini’s murderous shooting spree in a Pennsylvania gym in 2009, Heartiste (then known as Roissy) wrote
If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.
The fact that Sodini had in fact imbibed in the alleged wisdom of pickup artistry, going so far as attending a pricey seminar from old-school pickup guru R. Don Steele, a self-proclaimed expert on dating young women, didn’t lead any in the pickup community to reconsider this position.
Nor has it this time. It is clear that Elliot Rodger was steeped in “red pill” thinking about women. And while he wasn’t himself a PUA, he was certainly aware of the basics of “Game.” Indeed, he subscribed to a number of PUA channels on YouTube and was a regular commenter on PUAhate, a sleazy forum devoted to criticizing “game,” not because it is manipulative and misogynistic but because it doesn’t work.
On the Roosh V forum earlier today, Roosh acknowledged that Rodger knew at least a little about “red pill” ideology – noting that Rodger referred to himself as an”alpha” – but still went ahead and argued that Game was the solution to massacres like this:
He is self-delusional and massively entitled, but exposing him to game may have saved lives.
In a followup comment, Roosh expressed his concerns for the real victims of this tragedy – Pickup artists:
I’m trying to think of ways our enemies will come after us because of this, but if anything, we’re the solution to this sort of murder rampage. This is the society that progressives wanted, where women are fully able to choose the top 10% of alpha males while shaming masculinity, leaving beta males with modest resources in the dust. Of course they will simply push a ban on guns, but this wholly neglects the cause. Seven people died because this guy couldn’t get laid … .
Other commenters were quick to agree. According to someone known as Moma,
Roosh has a very valid point. This will continue to replay over and over again. As human beings, our wiring is very basic yet primal. …
When have you last heard of a porn star shooting up a place? How many have emptied their balls in a hot lizard and then felt the urge to go and smoke 50 strangers?
According to Samseau, the problem wasn’t that Rodger hadn’t heard the Game Gospel; the problem was that he had rejected his salvation:
He knew about Game. If he had an account on PUAHATE then he knew about game. He was just a denialist. There was no helping this dude.
Roosh seconded this bit of wisdom, seeing it as clear evidence that “game denialism kills.”
Michelin, for his part, hoped that PUAs would be able to use the massacre as a publicity bonanza and a great “told you so” to all the haters.
One should write a mainstream article about this case. The argument that game could have saved lives can be an eye-opener and a smash in the face to haters of game.
Tuthmosis, the man best known for a Return of Kings post on the “5 Reasons to Date a Girl With An Eating Disorder,” reported his joy that PUAhate was getting bad press:
Seeing your enemies fall is a delicious treat you only get to taste a few times in your life. I’m savoring this delicacy with a cup of freshly brewed coffee. It’s a shame real people had to lose their lives, but I can’t help but think this will discredit a horrible website, PUAHate–and a way of thinking–that could have harmed even more men and innocent people. Beta losers will never go away, but this will wake up a few men and, more importantly, scare others.
Zelcorpion blamed “girls” and MGTOWers for giving Rodgers bad dating advice:
I bet a few girls told him that he only needs to be himself, be nice, be a gentleman, have a nice car, looks etc. – only to realize that it mattered shit. Instead of learning from the PUA-community he chose to listen to PUAhaters and some of the anti-female comments of the MGTOWs who themselves are often refusing to accept Game or even basic concepts like Alpha/Beta. I think that problem will become way worse, since hypergamy and promiscuity will only increase and most men will be left in the sexual wasteland.
But it took a relative newcomer to the forum by the handle of thedavidgt to raise the obvious logical objection to the Game-for-everybody solution to incel rage:
If every sexless beta in the world took it upon himself to learn game, approach girls, lift, dress well etc, would it not simply feed women’s egos and entitlement? So instead of occasionally getting awkwardly hit on by skinny fat, poor-dressed chumps, the average 7 would then be approached several times a day by extremely high value men. We’ll have a society of men working to improve themselves for women who will get lazier and lazier while at the same time demanding more and more.
In fact, the “Game saves lives” mantra is dead wrong, but not for this reason. First of all, there is no clear evidence that “game,” per se, works, except insofar as it encourages men to pursue large numbers of women and numb them to the pain of rejection. It’s possible that a few of the conversational ploys invented by various PUAs may work better than having no conversational ploys at all. But there are no magic cheat codes to “getting with women.”
There is one more disturbing way in which “game” may increase “success” with women for unscrupulous men: many of the standard techniques of “game”– invading a woman’s personal space, touching her repeatedly, trying to “isolate” her from her friends – may serve as “tests” to find women who are less likely to resist violations of their boundaries. In this way, “game” may serve as a quite effective enabler of date rape. Indeed Roosh himself has admitted to raping a date too drunk to consent.
So how much of a solution is training a guy who is already filled with a toxic mixture of entitlement and self-loathing (yes, these strange bedfellows do often go together) in some techniques that might help him to tamp down his insecurities enough to manipulate some willing or not-so-willing women into bed?
You might have simply turned a mass killer into a serial rapist, or possibly a serial killer. Ted Bundy was quite the charmer. Somehow this didn’t make him a decent human being.
Even if “game” were the beneficient form of “self-improvement” that some of its proponents like to claim it is, teaching Rodger how to be a better dater would not make him a better person. Would having a girlfriend solve all his problems? Hardly. Relationships require patience and compromise and mutual respect, and Rodger seems to have had none of these qualities. Instead of directing his narcissistic rage at “girls” at large, he would likely have ended up abusing a string of girlfriends.
The problem wasn’t Rodger’s lack of “Game.” It was his lack of humanity.
Posted on May 24, 2014, in all about the menz, alpha males, beta males, boner rage, empathy deficit, entitlement, evil sexy ladies, evil women, heartiste, imaginary oppression, incel, internecine warfare, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, narcissism, nice guys, playing the victim, PUA, PUAhate, red pill, rhymes with roosh, self-congratulation and tagged elliot rodger, heartiste, incel, misogyny, pick-up artists, pickup artists, PUA, roosh. Bookmark the permalink. 1,747 Comments.
My take: I’d never as my future partner to shave, anywhere.
If they want to shave, for themselves, we’re good. But, I don’t want them to shave for me.
I don’t want my significant other to feel like something that horribly tedious is something they have to do, out of love. Love shouldn’t be tedious.
I just had a epiphany about killing people. What if most people who want to seriously harm or kill people are deterred by the fear of getting caught, being condemned as a criminal and thrown in jail? Can I patent my trailblazing new theory?
Oh, felt badges would also be cool. You can make them in the style of merit badges like this –> https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/398/878/defca767a6a79f8d3cb2232a6fcfc292_large.jpg?1361387415
Or more general like this –> https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/102775825/felt-badge-felt-pin-kids-badge-fox-pin
@Kim:
Yeah, the wafting was really weird when I first started experiencing it, but it really grew on me!
(Not sorry, not sorry at all for that.)
@Michelle:
My family is big into policing gender roles (my sister and I were once grounded for a month for dressing our younger brother up in a dress and makeup and doing his hair up in clipsat his request), and part of that is just policing all women ever. So yeah, if my nails aren’t what they consider aesthetically pleasing, they view it as their duty to chastise me. Also to constantly give me diet advice that I didn’t ask for.
Obvs my family is not the healthiest environment, and I have a lot of issues with them, and I am glad to be able to hold them at arms’ length without them thinking I’m doing it deliberately. But I don’t really want to spend all night bemoaning my relations, so I’m going to stop talking about them now, and instead exclaim about how ridiculously delicious the sugar scrub smells, especially when made with coconut oil. Like, really, really, so good, you don’t even know! And your skin feels all soft and nice and comfy after using it. It’s also nice on feet and elbows if they get dried out and knarly-feeling.
Kim – would the Blockquote Mammoth be trampling words, or chewing them up, maybe?
There are new videos on his channel barely a day old. This can’t be the guy or it’s fake.
So the idea is, in the author’s opinion, Men should either become frustrated killers OR they should become Rapists. So basically, in your opinion, the entire species of males that like women should be wiped off the face of the earth OR they should just not ever desire women or want sex. I know I’m elaborating on your attitude (maybe) but what do you suggest? Do we just BAR men from ever attempting to improve their lives when it comes to their abilities to meet and attract women? Just because you bastardize and corrupt the actual concepts and meanings of what a “dating” or “pickup” community teaches, or you cherry pick the worst of the worst from some nitwit from a Blind leading the Blind site like Seddit (reddit seduction), and just because you feel so much fear and hate in yourself for others, that you project that onto others, assuming that everyone wanting to improve their ability to meet women are malevolent (think like you do), that NO ONE would EVER want to do so out of LOVE for women and wanting to share their lives with them MORE…. So basically men are, according to you, wanna-be rapists, or they are frustrated psychopaths that could go off on a rampage any second?
Males that want women but are not lucky in the “attractiveness” sense should just deal with it, because if they try to change their lot in life and improve themselves they are misogynist and part of a rape culture. By no means are they just men who love women and would like to improve their ability to meet, attract and interact with them.
Males who do not or can not get better with women are basically creepy, murderer types who at any moment could go on a killing spree.
So, basically, in your opinion – pretty much all men are evil. If they try to get women, they are evil. If they can’t get women, they are evil. If the do get women, well I’m sure those guys are evil too.
This idiot killer was part of PUAHATE – He was AGAINST the movement of men trying to improve themselves. He didn’t believe it worked. He was an angry victim. Instead of trying to improve himself he just hated the people who did try to improve themselves. In a way, he and the author of this blog are absolutely the same. They hate people who are trying to improve their dating lives. They both hate these individuals for the same reason – because they want to have more women in their lives. One hates out of jealousy and envy, the other out of fear and ignorance with a combination of “holier than thou” oppression of those who would DARE try to become more successful in their dating lives. Which is better?
And this is some sort of reason to excuse any aspect of his response to it?
I’ve been rejected. I’ve had women treat me shabbily. I’ve even had homicidal ideations (she was treating me really badly, and I was in both an emotional, and finacially, vulnerable situation. I couldn’t get away. It was bad). But you know what… I knew they weren’t rational responses. Killing her wouldn’t fix the problem. The fantasies I was having weren’t going to make life better.
Killing her would have been wrong. She wasn’t posing a physical threat to me. Yes, I wanted to be away from her. No, I wasn’t able to get away from her. But I knew that the ideas I had weren’t good ideas (and it wasn’t until much later that I could see them for the sort of psychic coping mechanism they were).
But what I didn’t have was an actual seething ball of hate. Absent special circumstances (e.g self-defense) their isn’t any reason to kill someone.
So what sort of empathy is there? Esp. since his idea of rejection is that women he didn’t know didn’t come up and say, “fuck me senseless, you Alpha-Stud!”.
Ronnie, pretty much nothing you said bears any resemblance to anything I argued in my post.
@Ronnie Libra
I don’t even know where to begin with your comment. It’s like it’s made entirely of straw and bullshit.
@ronnie
please. if you are pua. Stay away from me. And all women.
no, that’s not what David said. Where are you reading this stuff?
Also, care to provide an exmaple of one of those pua’s who aren’t rape apologists, Ronnie? Cuz I am not taking your word for it..
If men wanted to improve themselves they could develop an interesting hobby, or learn a new language. Pestering college girls in clubs with cheesy pick-up lines in an attempt to manipulate them into bed is not “improving yourself”.
So… Ronnie is yet another example of how many of those who think empathy for men should be more widespread have NO empathy for women, and don’t really see us as human.
Fuck off, Ronnie.
Body shaving is popular among certain subgroups of gay men. I’ve actually met some of them. There is a definite ‘wanting to look younger ‘ element. I’ve never shaved anything south of my clavicle, except for hernia surgery. I’m glad for my gray hairs; a lot of my friends never got to be as old as I am now.
Michelle:
“” But like it or not they are the ONLY people offering help to young men who feel ignored by women.”
Piffle! There have been self-help books and groups, social clubs, and such for a good long time, that didn’t involve “negging” other people, isolating them, or any of that other PUA crap.”
Before the Internet, there were NO self-help books written for men feeling ignored by women. Most self-help books in general are aimed at women, and were either along the lines of “How to Find and Marry the Perfect Man” or they were about how to fix existing relationships. Neither were of much use to me.
The first book of this type aimed at men that I could find was the self-published “How to Get the Woman You Want into Bed” by Ross Jeffries, one of the first PUAs. As you might guess from title, it was too misogynistic for my tastes. The first few chapters were OK (brush your teeth, use deodorant, don’t wear shabby clothes, etc.) but a few chapters in it got nasty. If women were that bad, why would I want to have sex with them? I even said this to Jeffries him self when I spoke to him once. But the self-help publishing industry ignored this need. Even now I suspect any book you find on this topic is written by someone considered a PUA.
Oh, I have come across some PUA videos and websites that did not teach negging or have woman-bashing.
“If more men are actually ALLOWED to express their desire for fat women, rather than force themselves to date thin women they do not prefer, that actually means LESS COMPETITION FOR YOU! It’s really in your best interest to stop telling chubby chasers that they are pervs and deviants, and just accept that they have different standards of beauty.”
Another high five Michelle! I hope you meet a great guy who appreciates everything you are.
Ronnie: I commend courses in reading comprehension. Because nothing you wrote has any bearing on anything which was written.
That said, you did speak a truth,
Males that want women but are not lucky in the “attractiveness” sense should just deal with it,
This is true. They should deal with it. But (there is always a but) there isn’t a man alive who isn’t “attractive” to someone.
Your problem is (almost certainly) how you define male, “attractiveness”. You define it as, “able to get the women HE WANTS TO FUCK, to have sex with him”.
If that’s the definition, then yes, there are men who will never be, “attractive”. If, however, you mean, “able to establish a meaningful relationship which has romantic aspects with a person who reciprocates”, anyone can do that.
So long as they can learn that other people are people, and treat them as such. If one does that, then sooner or later (and usually sooner) a person who is interested, will turn out to be interesting (or vice versa).
PUA, however, doesn’t teach that. PUA teaches men that women are objects.
Which isn’t acceptable behavior, and should be shunned.
cassandrakitty:
“Feeling ignored by women is not in fact that greatest crisis of our times.”
Neither is a woman’s discomfort when men whistle at her from passing cars. But to people feeling them emotions are very real. You’re not building any bridges by making your feelings the most important thing and dismissing the pain of others.
Alex:
“I like Racist Gonad better.”
LOL! I’ll second that.
Ronnie, you didn’t understand the OP, clearly. Um, yeah. Demonizing hetero males because they’re attracted to women? Where are you getting that from?
“Males that want women but are not lucky in the “attractiveness” sense should just deal with it, because if they try to change their lot in life and improve themselves they are misogynist and part of a rape culture.”
No. But I’m interested in what you mean by “improving themselves.” What do you mean? Learning game? I need to tell you something…there are really great men, not conventionally handsome, who manage to date, have sex, marry and even have kids. I fucked some of them, actually. You’re in denial about the these men who have rage problems. Their problem isn’t that they aren’t pretty enough — Rodger wasn’t unattractive. It’s their mindset, their toxic attitudes. Did you read any of his online journal? Why on earth would a woman be attracted to someone who thought so little of women?
“By no means are they just men who love women and would like to improve their ability to meet, attract and interact with them.”
Where are you getting the impression that this sums up Rodger, or any other man who shoots women — and men who might be having sex with women?
“Males who do not or can not get better with women are basically creepy, murderer types who at any moment could go on a killing spree.”
No. Thinking you are entitled to sex is creepy, though. Try to imagine a woman you weren’t attracted to thinking she deserved to have you in bed…because she opened a door for you once and she let you cut in line at the coffee bar. Also, she talks frequently about how men are dumb animals. Would you sleep with her out of the goodness of your heart? Oh, and would you feel sorry for her if she decided to shoot people because she couldn’t get laid. Is your sympathy still soaring?
“So, basically, in your opinion – pretty much all men are evil.”
Fella, look, these guys who do shooting sprees, they’re not all men. How could you think they represent the average dude? David doesn’t.
“If they try to get women, they are evil. If they can’t get women, they are evil.”
No. But they shouldn’t feel entitled to sex. No one is entitled to sex.
“If the do get women, well I’m sure those guys are evil too.”
Oh stop.
“This idiot killer was part of PUAHATE – He was AGAINST the movement of men trying to improve themselves.”
Oh gosh, PUAs are a social justice group, right. “Improving themselves” means getting to fuck a lot, right?
“He didn’t believe it worked. He was an angry victim. Instead of trying to improve himself he just hated the people who did try to improve themselves. In a way, he and the author of this blog are absolutely the same.”
Um, what?
“They hate people who are trying to improve their dating lives. They both hate these individuals for the same reason – because they want to have more women in their lives. One hates out of jealousy and envy, the other out of fear and ignorance with a combination of “holier than thou” oppression of those who would DARE try to become more successful in their dating lives. Which is better?”
Errr, it’s better to be someone who doesn’t need to committ murder. Wow, you really put a lot of stock in the PUA thing, don’t you? Funny, you’d think, by your reaction, that this kid shot a bunch of PUAs out of jealousy. In reality, he shot people who had nothing to do with the movement. Some women, some men. He originally planned to shoot up a soroity house, but when he couldn’t get in he improvised. Oh, and he stabbed some people in his apartment complex. Wait, why are you getting mad on behalf of PUAs again?
Wow, Ronnie, you’re a right little idiot, aren’t you?
What’s with the fondness scrotodouchebags have for random capitalisation? It’s one of the trivial but baffling things about these idiots.
Marie,
“Also, care to provide an exmaple of one of those pua’s who aren’t rape apologists,”
I think I can: David Deangelo. What I’ve seen from him hasn’t been rapey or woman-bashing. I would not say that about Ross Jeffries or Tom Leykis.
Oh, and “spoiled rich boy who expects women to throw themselves at him and complains when his mother doesn’t marry some rich dude to make son’s life better” doesn’t actually fit the definition of “victim”.
Excuse my typos. For example, it’s spelled sorority. Heh.
What?
How about the radical notion that women are people not sex objects to be collected? That men aren’t entitled to our bodies?
You’re setting up a false dichotomy between using PUA tactics and never getting laid. You are the one who seems to be implying that sexual frustration is an excuse for murder.
Fuck right off.
@Robert
I remember seeing a guy who was performing as a supporting dancer in a drag show. He was perfectly smooth everyone you could see, including his armpits. It was the first time I’d ever seen a man with smooth armpits who wasn’t also in drag, and it was such a revelation. I hope he was doing it because he wanted to, but he certainly made an impression for me to remember him at least 15 years later.
1 of you answered the question. Get better hobbies. But then ignorance abounds once again. It’s all about creepy pickup lines and “Pestering girls in Clubs?” LOL Pestering them? Uhhhhhh… So, I should tell all the women that approached me today in the busy, popular hotspot I was at that they were all “Pestering” me.
Do any of you see how utterly jaded and far removed from reality you are?
Clubs – they are CALLED clubs as in SOCIAL clubs, as in People go there to be SOCIAL, and not just with the 1 or 2 people they go with. They go to be with OTHER people, to MEET people. I had a girl give me her business card today who I’ve never met in my life. 2 more gave me their numbers. This is NORMAL.
Abnormal is this thinking that if a man talks to a woman he is misogynistic, wants to rape her, hates women, blah blah blah.
I absolutely LOVE women and many of them LOVE me. Look around. Every one of you got here, to this blog, 1 way. Because your parents had sex. Guess what that means? They flirted with one another, unless of course there was an arranged marriage.
And I am wiling to bet that “pickup lines” or tactics or techniques were used by one party or the other.
Here’s a funny little picture:
So for MEN trying to learn tactics and techniqes to get better with women is evil. But since almost ALL women are doing it since a very early age, well hey, that’s main stream. It’s ok.
And it IS.
Every single one of you here reading this got here because of 2 people, a man and a woman, flirting. The man ACTUALLY had to get up the nerve to start a conversation with the woman WITH the INTENTION (I promise you as shocking as this may sound to you it is true)… With the INTENTION of eventually having sex.
It’s NATURAL. Sex. It’s natural and it’s normal. We exist because men and women flirt with each other.
That is the real world. Not this jaded mess where men who are trying to improve their lives are ALL trying to Rape women. That’s a blanket statement and a fallacy. So many men out there are GREAT GUYS who maybe are shy, or they grew up a little socially closeted, or maybe for whatever reason they have low self-esteem. But they are still GREAT people. And there are women out there who DESERVE great guys. Beautiful, amazing, women who are sick of douchebags and losers who would love some of these “socially inept” guys if these guys could ever get up the nerve to NOT ONLY strike up a conversation with her but to actually show his genuine, interesting side and to also take a genuine interest in her.
Is that EVIL? To want to learn that? Is it EVIL for a guy who is a great guy in every way, but maybe falls short in the social ability department, to try and improve that part of his life?
So CHERRY PICK away 1 guy who was admittedly AGAINST that possibility, who instead embraced being a victim. Cherry pick idiots from Seddit. Cherry pick MEANINGS and TWIST THEM from a SMALL MINORITY of concepts from the “pickup community.”
However, in the real world, Flirting, pickup, dating, people socializing, whatever you want to call it – it’s NORMAL. It’s when sites like this start to paint their own jaded meanings upon them all that they become corrupted and people become infected with fear and ignorance. Soon something that is not only NATURAL to our species, but is VITAL to our continued existence is considered, by many who have let their minds become infected by this nonsense, to be evil.
Kim – reminds me of seeing Michael Flatley in Lord of the Dance. I almost thought he had a plastic or wax chest on, he was so hairless smooth.
My husband shaves his pits in the summer… they’re not constantly smooth, but every so often, out comes the razor, and away goes the hair. He says otherwise he feels too sweaty and hot in the heat, and he feels like his pit hair makes him smellier when he’s sweating a lot (I haven’t noticed a difference myself, but hey, it makes him less self-conscious).
Mr C has zero hair on his chest, and none at all on his torso other than pubic hair (which sometimes gets removed too). It’s really not as unusual as people might assume, and some of us like it that way.
Has he ever had anyone comment about it to him dustedeste?
It’s funny, I’ve always found the opposite – rare occasions over the years I’ve tried shaving/depilationg the underarms, I’ve felt sweatier and less comfortable. I wouldn’t try it these days, it’d just chafe. Plus I get some snarky pleasure at the thought of any twerp on the tram thinking “Ew ew woman with armpit hair oh the horror!”
I definitely feel comfier in hot weather with less hair. That’s how Mr C started doing it too, heard me saying that I felt more comfortable and decided to try it himself.
Not as far as I know, Kim. Honestly, I didn’t even notice until he pointed out he was doing it. He mostly wears tshirts, though, so it’s not very visible unless he’s at the beach. And if we’re at the beach, it’s usually the nude beach, so no one’s really gonna comment on someone’s body hair there, really, haha.
Maybe it would be a thing if he played sports with a bunch of dudes or something, but he’s not a sport-playing guy, partially for disability reasons, though he does love watching him some soccer, or hockey if the Canucks are playing.
(I wonder if tales of men shaving their pubic hair/pits might be another good troll-banishing tactic?)
That sounds like a plan.
I’m sorry, I’m still in awe that ronnie thinks hetero males are being demonized for being attracted to women — based on an OP about a murderer who killed people. I mean, what’s going on here? Is lack of sex worth killing for? Is that’s ronnie’s conclusion? Is that why we seem so umsympathetic to him? That we think lack of sex isn’t a good reason to go on a kill rampage for?
There’s a little more going on than that. These guys could masterbate, which is good fun, or go to a sex worker, which would solve the lack of sex thing. The problem isn”t a lack of sex. These guys, Sodini/Rodger, embraced toxic notions of masculinity, that dictate they must have women who their peers want to fuck, that they must fuck A LOT in order to feel like a man — and if they don’t, they’re defective. Ronnie’s getting mad at the wrong people.
@ Kittehs
I also have a bra advice question saved for next time we need to do a little fumigating.
@ Shiraz
Apart from anything else, lots of us are attracted to men. I personally would find it rather inconvenient if men as a group stopped being attracted to women. If they stopped being creeps about it, that would be awesome, but no men wanting to sleep with women at all? Nope, that would not suit me at all.
Me neither, Cassandra.
Bras and pubic hair and pies, OH MY!
Bras and pubic hair and pies, OH MY!!
Bras and pubic hair and pies, OH MY!!!
No bears for me, obviously.
I also have a bra advice question saved for next time we need to do a little fumigating.
Splendid!
::rubs hands::
Ronnie seems to think (confession: I skimmed his teal dear rant) that “being attracted to women” is the same as “harassing and raping women”, despite his “do you want us to be rapists” nonsense.
The (sour) joke being that men are not demonised for rape or harassment, let alone for being attracted to women.
Ohhh, you’re lucky I already finished my tea, cassandra! Otherwise I’d have to send you an invoice for keyboard cleanup!
Just make sure the pubic hairs don’t get into the pies, please!
::barf::
I did love the fact that there was no “have lots of great sex with women who actually like you” option in Ronnie’s rant. I also noticed that, like many of the misters, he doesn’t seem to understand that “I love fucking women” is not the same thing as “I love women”
Sing a song of sixpence, a pocket full of rye,
Four-and-twenty pubic hairs, baked in a pie,
When the pie was open, kittehserf began to spew,
And wasn’t that a dandy dish to give tonight to you!
There ya go, Cassandra. I noticed that too. But did Ronnie?
**shakes head**
I was just looking at a blog piece about a doco on incels. One of the little creeps said the cameraman seemed to be a feminist; cameraman said “I think women are people” and the incel started raving about how he’s been brainwashed. Oh, and the trio interviewed seemed to think women only have sex because the guy wants it, we don’t actually have sexual desires of our own.
It’s no wonder misogynists like this like to think rape or murder are the only options. They really do hate us that much.
I hereby nominate dustedeste for the position of official blog bard.
It’s a catch 22, though, isn’t it? Women generally don’t want to have sex with men who don’t think we’re people, so in the experience of the seduction fail trio women having no sexual desires of our own would appear to be true. Scientific method and all – they’ve never seen it, so they assume it doesn’t exist. The female libido is like a purple unicorn from their perspective.
I found one! Sure the eyeballs are filled with catnip but I’m sure Mammotheers eyes have sufficient catnip on them.
dustydeste, you are an evil person! XD
I’m not sure I like the look that cat is giving us, though. I suspect she may be planning to eat the eyeballs.
Eyeball kitty! <3
@kittehserf
Eeesssh. Yeah. That’s the problem. They have to convince/con/manipulate women into having sex. ‘Cause god forbid women have sexual agency.
Well I think I’ll end tonight on that high note :P
Oh wow: another board, another incel comes out with this gem. NOTE: he’s ableist, too, of course.
Source
GGG isn’t so unusual among this lot, methinks.
(Blinks)
Well, you can’t say that their theories aren’t elaborate.
Ah – it might actually be GGG on that board. Someone mentioned Croatia being less patriarchal than they thought if “tib” is so miserable there.
I’m thinking of using elaborating as a euphemism now. ;)
I got too creeped out and had to nope away for a little while, but did anyone else see the implied threat in Ronnie’s post? It seemed like he was implying that we should be grateful to PUAs for *only* trying to manipulate and coerce women into sex because the only other option is for men to rape and murder us. It felt like a do what we want or you’ll be sorry statement. If we complain about PUAs and turn them away, we’ll leave them no choice but to turn to rape or murder.
Maybe I’m being oversensitive because this whole thing has me upset, but that’s how the post read to me.
“…They are worse than feminists…”
Um, hello? We’re the good guys.
OK, goodnight, everyone.
@Cassandrakitty
This comment genuinely cheered me up after slogging through all the Roger aftermath. It’s the healing power of snark!
Yeah, Ronnie’s post was basically that rape by coercion is the default, the good thing we should be grateful for, or teh poor menz will be forced to use even more physically violent rape, or murder us.
And men like him wonder why women avoid them.
This doesn’t mean that I have to wear my underpants on the outside like a superhero, right?
No, weirwoodtreehugger. Ronnie’s very effing confused — and misguided. In short, be afraid, be very afraid.
Misogyny has always been a protection racket. Do what we say or we’ll hurt you.
Well, it depends … are they underpants worth showing off?
You have seen my shoes and my bras, right?
(Um, that sounds kind of bad. You know what I mean, dammit.)