>
When pick-up guru Roissy isn’t going on about herpes and hypergamy, and demonstrating his utter ignorance of both subjects, he’s apparently helping to rid the world of misogyny. At least according to one of his readers. a guy names Marcus, who offered his take on Roissy’s teachings on “Game” in a comment that Roissy highlighted as one of his favorite “comments of the month” for December. Here’s Marcus:
It sounds strange, but this blog has made me less of a misogynist. I have come to view women as elegant machines — machines for using, to be sure — that mostly do a damned good job of doing what they were designed to do. As I get more comfortable and consistent at either aggressively torquing their levers or gently greasing their gears at just the right moments, my appreciation only deepens.
All this talk of talk of torque and gears and levers reminds me a little of one of my favorite songs by T. Rex, Jeepster, in which Marc Bolan offers a strangely similar, er, appreciation of women:
Just like a car you’re pleasing to behold
I’ll call you Jaguar if I may be so bold
‘Cos you’re my baby, ‘cos you’re my love
Oh girl I’m just a Jeepster for your love – oh
Now why is it that Marc Bolan could get away with comparing a woman to a luxury car without sounding like a complete douchenozzle? Well, for one thing, he’s fucking MARC BOLAN, and his lyrics are always completely fucking insane. For another, he also compared himself to a car, specifically the Willys-Overland Jeepster. And, third, because he did it in one of the sleaziest, catchiest glam rock songs ever.
>You have to give Marcus credit. When he decides to objectify women, he goes all-in.What a shame he will never treat a woman like, you know, a human being.
>You have to admit, though, it's better than hating them. At least somewhat.
>If you appreciate the insight, wit and wisdom of Roissy/Citizen Renegade, you may also find enlightenment at my own humble tribute site…http://citizenlemonade.wordpress.com/
>If you only like your dog for his tail, then you don't like your dog. This is hatred of women because they are not discussing women. They are discussing meeting desires they have. What they need is not a pick up artist objectifying frame of mind, they need a humanist frame of mind. They need to understand the human animal, human development, psychology. But the fact that humans suffer being used is common sense and experience. Don't these men know themselves and their own natures enough to see humanity in a woman? Is it so far from them? It must be because they don't relate to themselves on any level which is an emptiness on the spectrum of sociopath. No empathy to feel even for certain aspects of self, and only desires to be met. Jeffery Dahmer slept with a mannequin, he drugged his victims and wanted to lie with them like they were mannequins. This was a huge part of what he did. Some people with autism who cannot relate to others see themselves and others as machines. This condition is more common in men. Hence these issues that MRAs lay at the feet of woman, the "other".
>"This is hatred of women because they are not discussing women."I'm not sure. There are a lot of people who think of other people as machines because they aren't really able to approach things in a holistic way. This is an issue of temperament and doesn't make someone a bad person. It's weird in the extreme that this guy only thinks this way about women. I can't explain that. But while it is jarring to hear those who think of other people as machines talk about this thought process, it is not itself troubling. It's not "normal" in that most people aren't like this, but it's not abnormal.-
>I'm just thankful that most men are not like these idiots.
>Most men are just like these idiots. Take Raul here. He is a nice and compassionate man. He has learned that his best chance of getting ahead in life (finding a mate, etc) is to be nice and compassionate (and smart I"ll add). These traits are desirable. Raul has natural game. He will successfully find a mate, possibly have children and succeed in business.An unnatural has to learn how to play the game. This is what the PUAs are doing and teaching. They are teaching these men to be desirable to women (and others) to aide them in success.Just like most things women do to attract mates are slightly deceptive, these males are being slightly deceptive. When a woman wears lipstick, she is faking a sexually aroused state in which the lips become flushed with blood. Likewise with rouge (blushing). The liquid foundation hides imperfections in the skin while the padded bra makes her look more like she is ready to have babies. The hair treatments help make her look younger and healthier. These are all instinctive mating queues.The PUA is usually a beta who makes himself appear to be an alpha male. He knows instinctively that as a beta he will be begging on the floor for scraps of shop worn pussy but as an alpha, he can have first pick.
>I would bet a lot of money that Marcus actually has no real experience operating real heavy machinery, and is probably a bad driver who couldn't tell you how to change a tire.
>Of course it's hating women. Marcus is delighting in the idea of saying women aren't human. That's hatred, and if you said it about men, it would be obvious that it's hatred.
>Bump bah bump bump … I"m just a love machine and I don't work for nobody but you …Men are such tools.What about referring to men as stallions?God why do women hate men so much?
>How do you PUAs feel about politicians treating you the same way — like easily-manipulated votes? It's dehumanizing.I look at you talk about women "manipulating" you. You never seem to put the shoe on the other foot and think that it should be just as valid for men to be manipulated by women. Instead, you rail against it and demonize women who epitomize to them the very strategies that maximize the woman's benefit.If you believe it's normal for men to want to spread their seed, then it's normal for women to demand value to submit to this. Women who do this are smart players.Women who submit to PUA tactics and give it away for less than its value are bad players in the genetic lottery! And I think some of you PUAs realize this, at least subconsciously. You end up with a Groucho complex — "I wouldn't want to be with any woman who would want to be with me." Hence disdain for the women you actually bed, a neverending search for someone who will accept you and is still worthy, which by definition cannot exist.
>Ditto!Except you just put value on pussy which is prostitution. You're saying that a good player in the genetic lottery charges much much more for pussy than a poor player.BTW, most PUAs don't want to spread their seed, only the woman's legs.
>witman, if PUAs don't want to spread their seed, they are fighting nature. Bad PUAs!You are confusing value with money.Don't you guys make a big deal about wanting a woman who is nice, smart, attractive, and some kind of trophy? Not just the pussy, of course all you have to do to get that is pay money.Any woman who has more than just a pussy shouldn't let a PUA manipulate her into sex without concomitant value. And by concomitant I mean someone who's nice, smart, attractive, and some kind of trophy to her, if that's the game they are playing.You won't get any more meaningful respect from her than you give to her. If she is "low status" for you, then her admiration for you means (in your heart) about as much as that from a dog you feed sometimes and don't kick too often.That she is a real person and shows more respect for you than you do for her makes her the superior being in that transaction.
>"Don't you guys make a big deal about wanting a woman who is nice, smart, attractive, and some kind of trophy? "Are you talking to me like I am a PUA? I am out of the running. I have been married to the woman mentioned above for 12 years now. "Any woman who has more than just a pussy shouldn't let a PUA manipulate her into sex without concomitant value."What you seem to be missing is that a PUA is projecting these traits through training. You'll not be playing into a PUAs arms but rather a nice guy who will commit and love you. Do you think PUAs where buttons that say "Hi, my name is Soandso and I'm going to pump you and dump you"? No, they are going to act like they want to be with you forever and that you are the most cherished being on the planet. Hell, the odd PUA might actually have ramped up his game to get a mate. You'll never know.
>Sorry, that should read wear, not where. (at least I spelled it right)
>"The PUA is usually a beta who makes himself appear to be an alpha male. He knows instinctively that as a beta he will be begging on the floor for scraps of shop worn pussy but as an alpha, he can have first pick. "Shop worn pussy? WTF?The only thing good about PUA tactics is that basically they make men advertise that they would like to get laid, so women who would like to get laid can go to them and women who do not avoid them. I don't know why people tend to assume that PUAs are manipulative, instead of considering that probably many of the women they "pick up" are actually interested in random sex and there is no easier way to get sex than to follow a PUA.
>Witman, perhaps women tend to be suspicious of PUAs because they (as you say) only want to spread women's legs, but then refer to them as "shop worn pussy" if the women agree to do so.I think that most women prefer to sleep with men who see sex as a fun, mutually-enjoyable experience, rather than one where the man benefits and the woman is degraded.
>Ellen,That's a good point. I'm fully in support of men and women who want to have casual sex finding each other and having a good time.I do have to wonder, though, if your average PUA would be much fun. They don't seem to address their partner's pleasure at all- at least from what I've seen, they see the game as all about what they can get from women, and not what they can give in return. There are exceptions, I'm sure. But if I were a woman out looking for a casual good time, I might look for someone who doesn't see me as a non-human.
>I'm not saying I agree with PUAs, I'm just giving you my take on the situation.
>Perhaps you should be clearer, Witman, because your comments here sound exactly like you agree with these guys.
>I agree with the premise that a man needs to appear more confident in their approach to women or they will give off a creeper (beta) vibe and scare them off. I don't agree with objectifying anyone.
>Witman, calling women "shop worn pussy" is pretty objectifying and just plain mean-spirited.
>"You have to give Marcus credit. When he decides to objectify women, he goes all-in.""What a shame he will never treat a woman like, you know, a human being."Guess what? Males are entitled to have liberated sexuality too. The problem with feminuts is that they believe they are entitled to attempt to regiment male sexuality. But if males want to tell women what to do with their sexuality, its against female liberation or its being patriarchal. All it comes down to; you feminuts need to stop acting like the gender police. We can operate our sexuality however the fuck we want. Deal with it you matriarchal control freak
>booboonation, I realize this probably wasn't your intent, but your comment is pretty insulting to autistic people. People with mental disabilities–including autism–are, in fact, much more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators. Suggesting autistic people can't help but dehumanize others is itself dehumanizing to autistic people.
>Guess what? Males are entitled to have liberated sexuality too.The problem with feminuts is that they believe they are entitled to attempt to regiment male sexuality. But if males want to tell women what to do with their sexuality, its against female liberation or its being patriarchal.All it comes down to; you feminuts need to stop acting like the gender police. We can operate our sexuality however the fuck we want. Deal with it you matriarchal control freakNick, I am trying to make sense of your angry screed.Firstly, you cannot 'operate your sexuality however the fuck you want'. For example: if expressing your sexuality involves coercion of or violence towards women there are statute laws that can put you behind bars for attempting it. Society has determined reasonable limits on sexual behaviour.Surely we can agree that there are reasonable limits on what men can do and that coercive or violent behaviour should rightly be restricted?Secondly, if you objectify women, and they discover that you objectify them, you should be unsurprised if you get rejected. Women are entitled to say no to creeps who treat them not as humans but as things.Surely we can agree that women have the right to say no to people who treat them with little respect? Also can we not agree that it's up to the women themselves to determine whether someone is showing proper respect?Thirdly, yes men *are* entitled to be sexually liberated. Men should be able to indulge in sex for mutual pleasure without shame or guilt. However, this is not a license to run rampant with your cock. My view is that relationships and sex should be done in a spirit of mutuality. Where a relationship involves an imbalance of power, or in which one partner controls another, this is not healthy. I might even call it abusive.Surely we can agree that relationships in which one person controls another or in which there is a great imbalance of power are not good? Does it not then follow that we should point out and criticise those behaviours when we see them?This is where the animus towards pick-up artists comes in. PUAs don't seem to be big on mutuality. Rather, they tend to be controlling types (see Marcus's quote about manipulating women) who are in this for their own selfish gain.Surely we can agree that a philosophy of manipulating and controlling people for sexual conquest is not healthy and may in some circumstances be abusive?Fourthly, it seems to me that the grand feminist conspiracy against teh menz (which doesn't exist, but I'll humour you for the moment) is not out to stop men having sex or dates. However, it takes a dim view of men who are controlling, coercive, abusive, violent towards women or fail to treat them with sufficient respect. PUAs, on the whole, tend to tick at least a couple of items on this list.Is this really so unreasonable a position?