Search Results for roosh
Why pickup guru Roosh V resents women for “forcing” him to clip his fingernails and wipe his own ass
The so-called pickup artists who inhabit a large portion of this thing called the manosphere are a strange bunch: They devote much of their life to figuring out ways to appeal to women they don’t like or respect.
Apparently, for most of those who actually are out there “picking up” women and not just boasting about imaginary conquests on the internet, the sex is good enough (for them at least) to make their otherwise joyless endeavor worthwhile for them. And if the sex itself isn’t that great, well, at least they get to brag to their internet friends about how they conned some hot “slut” into having sex with them.
But what happens when the sex begins to lose its luster?
In this edition of Misogyny Theater, we hear from pickup guru Roosh V, who has some thoughts about the female Men’s Rights Activists – FeMRAs – that we’ve seen so much of in the media of late.
He doesn’t much like them. Not because they’re hateful nitwits like their male comrades in the Men’s Rights movement. But because, you know, they’re women, representatives of what Roosh so memorably calls “a gender who has no loyalty to men.”
He accuses them of pandering to men for attention, and accuses male MRAs, in turn, of being too easily ensnared by their feminine wiles. It’s a mirror image of the accusations that MRAs like to throw at male feminists, and likely to infuriate more than a few MRAs, both male and female.
All of Roosh’s bits in this video come from his recent video “The Men’s Rights Movement Is Making A Huge Mistake.” I’ve indicated all my edits with beeps.
We may be seeing more from Roosh in Misogyny Theater in the future. For the dating-guru-cum-reactionary philosopher, from his secret lair located somewhere in Siberia – no, really, he has literally exiled himself to Siberia — has announced in another video his plans to take over YouTube over the course of the next year or so.
Will he be able to do it? On the one hand, he’s a reactionary woman-hating piece of shit, which means that he should be able to appeal to YouTube’s vast reactionary woman-hating piece of shit demographic. And he has managed to build up his Return of Kings blog into a must-read site for terrible people; a quick check with web traffic monitor Alexa shows that, trafficwise, ROK is trouncing the most popular Men’s Rights site, A Voice for Men.
On the other, as you may have gathered from this video, he has about as much charisma as a sack of potatoes. Stay tuned.
I‘ve been trying to avoid reading, much less writing about, the human stain and pickup guru who calls himself Roosh V. But I couldn’t keep myself away from his most recent post, an appalling little exercise called The Most Reliable Way To Tell If A Girl Is A Slut,which turns out to be even more appalling than its title.
Roosh, you see, has figured out a simple one-question test to determine the sluttiness of any woman. Let’s let him explain:
Many girls go to great lengths to hide their slutty past, knowing deep down the low value it conveys for being a suitable long-term partner, but there is one easy indicator that should tell you beyond a reasonable doubt whether she is a slut or not.
Has she lived on her own?
I believe my response to this is best illustrated by the following video of Don Draper saying “what?”
Let me just add:
HAS SHE LIVED ON HER OWN?
Are you exclusively dating high school girls?
If she’s an adult, or at least an adult somewhere in the vicinity of your own age, OF COURSE SHE’S LIVED ON HER OWN.
Yes, yes, I know, given this economy it’s true that some young people – mostly young men – are living at home a little longer these days than in the past, but the overwhelming majority have moved out by their mid-twenties. You’re 35 years old, dude.
If she has lived away from her parents for more than a year, she has—at the minimum—slept with many men whose last names she did not know, including one-night stands that did not involve condoms.
Dude, do you even know the first names of the women you sleep with? And haven’t you bragged endlessly about how you “raw dog it” with women? Weren’t you “raw dogging it” even when you were afraid you had AIDS? (Those are rhetorical questions; I already know that the answers are yes, and yes.)
An “independent” girl, removed from the constraints of a nuclear family home and its rules, curfew, and the concern of good parents, will allow the slutty dick gobbler within her to be released.
Women engaging in consensual sex that they enjoy … with someone else? THE END OF THE WORLD. Raping women who are too drunk to consent? According to Roosh himself, it’s “what I do.”
In other words, a natural-born slut who lives on her own will have far more sexual partners than if she lives with parents of average skill who require their daughter to be home by midnight.
Amazing deduction, Sherlock. And if she’s a nun, she’ll probably be having even less sex. The question is: why are you, as 35 year old man, regularly pursuing women young enough to live with their parents?
Give a man leeway in living life and he does great things, but give a woman this same freedom and she fully embraces the whore lifestyle, unable to stop from getting her fill of cock.
Really? Here are some young men who have recently started living on their own; I’m not sure that what they are doing could really be described as a “great thing.” (Content Warning: Drunk dudes hitting each other in the head with boards.)
If you want to estimate a girl’s notch count, simply multiple the number of years she has lived on her own by the number 3. If she has lived on campus in college for four years and then moved to a large city for two more, you can rest assured she’s had over 15 cocks in her vagina, and god knows how many more in her mouth.
Not that anyone’s worth is determined by how many penises they’ve had in their vagina, or anywhere else, but I feel I should note that these figures, clearly pulled from the Journal of Roosh’s Own Ass, are completely wrong.
According to people who’ve actually studied human sexuality, his number is just a teensy bit high. And by “teensy” I mean they’re off by an order of magnitude. According to one 2005 study, women in their 30s and early 40s report that they’ve had only 4 male sexual partners, on average, not the 36 to 78 that Roosh’s formula would predict for women who move out on their own at the age of 18 to go to college.
There are definite exceptions for girls who are relationship minded and had boyfriends of more than one year in length, but unless she mentions this, you’re interacting with a slut and should proceed accordingly by escorting her home and asking if you can use her bathroom. Then you must fornicate with her like so many other men.
Yeah, that’s really … creepy. You lie to get into her home, then proceed as if, as a slut, she’s already consented to sex?
You may be thinking the following: “Many Western girls live alone, at least 50%. Does that mean that over 50% of American girls are sluts?” That’s exactly what it means. Independence in women drives them to disempowering sexual behaviors that oppose motherly or wife behaviors. You must be skeptical of girls who have lived alone if you want a serious relationship.
At least if you want a relationship with a creepy, judgmental asshole who thinks like Roosh.
[T]here is absolutely no need for a girl to be independent by living alone without a husband unless you want her holes to be used as a real-life enactment of 50 Shades Of Grey by many strange men.
Well, that is, if you assume that 1) all women can magically find men, whether their father or a husband, who will pay all their bills and 2) Roosh’s opinions about any given woman’s sexual life matter more than the opinions of the woman herself.
If you end up having a daughter of your own, I highly recommend you limit her financial independence before she finds a husband. Refrain from giving her Think & Grow Rich advice that would be better suited for your son. Otherwise, she’ll become a slut who gives it up to any man who dances a good clown jig.
So: prepare your daughter to be dependent for her very existence on dudes who think like Roosh.
That may be the worst parenting advice I’ve ever heard. Then again, it’s from Roosh.
Oh, dear. Our old friend Roosh – the rapey, racist expat pickup guru – seems to be having some sort of existential crisis. In a new post titled “Men Are Nothing More Than Clowns To The Modern Woman,” – yes, really – he laments the sad fact that women are no longer forced to rely on men.
There is definitely not a single woman alive in the Western world who needs a man. While in the past a woman had to put forth effort to obtain a husband who would help her survive, today she is protected by a welfare state that ensures she will never go hungry or spend one night on the street.
Well, Roosh can rest easy, because, at least in the United States, his nightmare of women not going hungry or being forced to sleep on the streets is just that, a bad dream. Presumably he will be pleased to learn that lots of women (and children) go hungry. Lots of women (and children) are homeless.
Even a child she has out of wedlock from a drunken night out will not have to suffer from her mistake, and that’s in spite of the fact that many nations already provide her with free contraception to compensate for her lack of judgement in selecting worthy mates.
A tad ironic coming from a dude who constantly brags about “raw dogging” it – that is, having sex without a condom – with drunk women he’s just met.
Anything required for a woman’s survival or pleasure can be easily achieved without her having to put forth commitment, sacrifice, or labor. She can shave her head, gain 50 pounds, and disfigure herself with tattoos yet still have many suitors to—at the minimum—have sex on demand.
Such a terrible injustice, that women Roosh finds unattractive are actually able to have sex.
Her food and shelter will be provided by a state which has embarked on an extraordinary effort to compete with men for her devotion and loyalty.
So instead of looking for women who say that they “need a man,” Roosh has begun to focus on women who say that they “want a man.” Unfortunately, when he’s asked women if they want a man, “[o]nly in a few instances did a woman outright say yes, and these usually happened in Ukraine.”
Huh. Not sure that’s a real scientific poll there kiddo, as I imagine that very few women are going to answer “yes” to that question when it’s asked of them by this guy:
Anyhoo, so all this has given poor old Roosh a sad. Because women who don’t need men, who actually have options in their lives, are less interested in jumping into traditional long-term relationships than those with few options in life other than hooking themselves to a male provider.
And so, Roosh has sadly concluded, the typical young women of today
will treat you as a distraction to her more important job, girls’ nights out, and social networking validation happy time. Men have become an utterly replaceable and expendable commodity in a girl’s life. Her interest in a man is not unlike her interest in a new television show or Apple product … .
Huh. Or perhaps this is because you’re dating women at least a decade younger than you, in their early 20s, and this is how people in their early 20s often approach dating?
When I look at myself in the mirror, I don’t see a man who has improved himself over the years to be the best that his genes allow—I see a glittery skirt that a girl encounters in the mall.
You see a what now?
Is the skirt too expensive or is it on sale? Is there only one left of her size or is the rack full of them? Does she already have something similar or is it totally novel? Does her friends think it’s cute or just alright? After trying it on, does it flatter her body or make her look fat?
Dude, this metaphor really isn’t working for you.
We are like glittery pieces of fashion to women—items that she truly doesn’t need. Not only has she already collected so many of them, but she can easily obtain more within walking distance from where she lives. She can even browse online from home while in her pajamas through a nearly unlimited selection.
Oh no! WOMEN HAVE CHOICES!
We are not men in the traditional sense—we are clowns.
Well, some men are.
With our tight game we have to be entertainers who create drama and excitement in a girl’s life, just long enough so that she spreads her legs and makes sexy noises, and even though she did commit such an intimate act with us, she will soon lose interest or simply get bored, and then move on to the next shiny cock that catches her eye.
Gosh, who would imagine that the women you have one-night-stands with after meeting them in a bar would treat you like a one-night-stand?
Also, if your penis is actually shiny, you might want to check with your doctor about that.
The other side of this coin is that we no longer need women. We don’t need them to maintain our home or cook good meals for us. We don’t need them in an age where having children is no longer important or valued.
That is true. Men are not incapable of cooking. I can even manage a grilled cheese sandwich once in a while. And, no, you’re not obligated to have kids. Heck, as a man you can get away with not having kids and not even have to take a lot of shit about it.
Whatever natural connection that once existed between the sexes has now been severed. Neither sex needs each other so we dedicate ourselves to corporations, entertainment, and base pleasures instead, and this is a great tragedy that most people believe is a sign of progress, a cause for celebration.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I think Roosh think’s he’s had some sort of profound insight here. All because the 22-year-old women he spends his life pursuing don’t seem interested in properly genuflecting to him as a real man.
For the next girl I meet, I’m not going to ask her if she needs a man, because I know she doesn’t. Instead I will simply ask her if she wants a man, and if the answer leans yes, I will perform like the good clown I am so that she is entertained enough to have sex with me. Either she or I will eventually get bored and the relationship will end. Then I will simply repeat my performance on a someone new, because I’m a skilled clown, and that’s exactly what women today want.
You do that, Roosh, honey. Just try to make sure she’s actually sober enough to consent to your “performance” first. I know you have a little trouble with that.
Here’s a little video for Roosh to watch the next time he’s feeling down.
Manosphere drama: Roosh Valizadeh reportedly arrested in Poland after “violent confrontation” [UPDATE: It's a hoax]
UPDATE 2: And Roosh has officially admitted it:
Tuthmosis and I conspired to prank the internet that I was in jail. The picture used is from the German DDR museum. …
I expect many of you to be annoyed, and I hope Tuth and I didn’t betray your trust with the prank, but the security and viability of the forum was never compromised and the picture was just too good not to use. Credit goes to Tuth for his “new rules” (http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-33639-…#pid667804 ), which—if you were in on the joke—was quite amusing. I also did not expect the story to be as believed as it was, since there are many flaws in the picture that suggest it’s not a real jail cell, but on the other hand, the prospect of me going to jail is not unexpected. If you are pissed off, I recommend you read Tuth’s bulletins to see the humor in the prank (the “bill me later” option was my favorite).
I do sincerely appreciate the thoughts of concern of my Polish imprisonment. Now of course I really will be jailed and no one will believe it because of this false jailing accusation. In case of a real “involuntary absence” from the forum, I trust Tuth to continue moderation efforts. For many years he has selflessly helped me maintain the community we have and not actually gone mad with power.
On a positive note, we managed to troll the tub of estrogen Manboobz and his readers.
Interesting that the people who fell the hardest for his hoax were his own fans. Also, I’m not sure that me posting something that essentially said “here’s something that looks a bit fishy that’s being reported by someone who may well be lying” really counts as “being trolled.”
Before I go into any details here I want to say that all of this is coming from Roosh’s forum and hasn’t been confirmed in any way. So treat it with however much skepticism you deem appropriate. For all I know this could be some bizarre publicity stunt to promote Roosh’s blog and his reprehensible Return of Kings website.
But according to Roosh’s pal “Tuthmosis,” who says he is getting his info from a friend of Roosh in Poland, Roosh has been arrested after some sort of violent “confrontation.” Here’s his description of what allegedly happened:
Roosh had a violent “confrontation” in Poland
He was apprehended by Polish authorities
He’s being (or already has been) charged with some sort of crime and being held in jail
In a followup comment he offered additional details about the alleged incident:
Confrontation was with Paul/Andre, his gypsy stalker
Didn’t start violent, but escalated quickly
Witnesses pointed to Roosh
There were “serious injuries”
Roosh is definitely being charged with something
In response to some skeptics who suggested this might all be a hoax, he wrote:
I too was hopeful this was some sort of joke–even if it meant me having egg on my face–but I just got a message from a second source. This is a guy who does back-end work for ROK and I’ve personally met, so I have no reason to doubt him.
Roosh is definitely being charged with a (serious) crime. The gypsy apparently took a nasty beating. What’s more, witnesses (who may be acquaintances of the gypsy) claim that Roosh was speaking epithets at him and may have used an object to strike him. I don’t know what the Polish laws are, but these circumstances apparently add to the severity of the crime. I got a couple of calls out to see what his legal prospects are, but the language barriers and time difference are making information hard to come by.
Naturally, Roosh’s fans being a bunch of racist assholes, the alleged ethnicity of Roosh’s alleged stalker led to some lovely generalizations about “gypsies” and this comment, from “Walter White,” who suggested that anti-“gypsy” bigotry might just get Roosh off the hook:
Scary stuff. I’ve travelled extensively in the region, and gypsies aren’t well thought of in Eastern Europe. Sounds terrible, but that’s the way it is. I guess an analogy for Americans would be like if a white dude got into a fight with a black guy in the 1940’s in the South. As wrong as it may be, the white guy would be given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe Roosh will get the benefit of that with regard to a fight with a gypsy. Then again, he’s not a Pole – so he’s not gonna get much “home team” advantage.
I guess we’ll see, huh?
That is, assuming this isn’t all a publicity stunt.
Odd that Roosh appears to have emerged apparently unscathed from such an allegedly violent confrontation. His hair isn’t even mussed up.