Categories
rapey

>Gun-loving pick-up guru allegedly shoots a woman in the face

>

Actual logo for Gunwitch’s “The Way of Gun”

A creepy, gun-loving pick-up artist (PUA) guru whose “technique” for charming the ladies is just one small step away from actual date rape has been arrested for allegedly shooting a woman in the face. 

And, no I’m not making this up. Allen Reyes, known in the “seduction community” as Gunwitch because of his love of guns, apparently got into an argument with a 20-year-old woman at a party in his hometown of Klameth Falls, Oregon. This woman is now (at least according to the latest news report I have managed to find) in critical condition at a local hospital with gunshot wounds to the face. (See here for more details, and here for Jezebel’s take on the subject.)

The man known as Gunwitch, arrested Monday, is apparently quite gun-obsessed. On his website, he notes that he’s “an avid hand gunner.” One of his PUA audio tapes is called “The Way of Gun” and — especially creepy in light of the charges he faces, the logo he chose for it features an actual gun and, well, see the picture at top right.

Gunwitch has never been what anyone would call a “nice guy.” His slogan? “Get laid, not liked.”

Unlike many seduction gurus, Gunwitch doesn’t recommend a lot of gimmicks or clever opening lines or subtle techniques of manipulation. His “technique” is simplicitly itself: lurk around in  places where lone women tend to congregate, and when you see a woman who makes you horny, don’t wait for your boner to go away, just get into a “dominant” frame of mind and start pestering her. Then, if she shows anything that looks like interest, ISOLATE her and work your magic. If she doesn’t seem interested, don’t give up, keep pestering her until she gives in or bluntly rejects you.

He goes through his technique in more detail on his web site. Let’s look at some, er, highlights.

So where’s a good place to meet the ladies? Aside from the old standbys — coffee houses, the gym — Gunwitch recommends lurking around the magazine racks:

I like the magazine racks at dept stores, where I can stand there and wait ’til some Cosmo magazine reading hottie comes into what feels to her like your space, and feels like she’s approaching, then boom I’m on it “so what ya reading?”

Learn a thing or two from someone who knew how to get the ladies “isolated” quickly: Ted Bundy:

ANYWHERE you see them you must imagine having sex with her, visualize it, feel the desire and lust. ALWAYS do this as soon as you see a woman you find attractive and eventually the state you will go into when seeing a woman will be one of -sexual- state, rather than panic or fear of meeting her. This makes approaching random lone women easier. Ted Bundy, the infamous serial killer/sociopath didn’t feel fear or panic when he saw a target. He felt rage, sexual perversion and desire to kill, hence NO fear to approach them, of course wanting to have sex isn’t the same thing, but its still more effective than feeling fear or confusion about your desires and direction.

Don’t worry about invading her personal space. In fact, make sure you do:

Since you aren’t gonna be seductive or sensual standing 2 feet away from her, you need to be within 6-8 inches of her.

Even though you’ve just met her, don’t be afraid to start groping her:

Touch her. Since touch is the first step in getting her comfortable with you as a sexual creature, you want to sneak this in slowly. A good progression is: hands, arms, lowers back, upper back, face (while whispering something to her) and hair, then thighs (hand placed but relatively stationary), and upper legs.

Don’t take no for an answer unless she really really means it:

I commonly get snubbed, the cold shoulder … or overall rejected with the women I have sex with right away, but I just persist and eventually things take a turn. 

And remember, get her alone as quickly as possible:

ISOLATE. You cannot have sex with women in public or in front of people with any consistency. If that’s your bag, try it with women you are already in a relationship with. You have to get her alone with you. ANY opportunity to isolate BEFORE going into sexual state should be taken as well of course.

If she’s with friends, stalk her like a panther stalks his prey until she is alone:

At a bar, when you see a group and want one of them, WAIT for her to leave the herd, wait for her to be coming out of the bathroom (not IN as she may have to piss bad), wait for her to go to the bar to get a drink, wait for her to be ALONE to approach, and then try to keep her from her friends.

And don’t give up:

Of course if a girl NEVER goes into sexual state for a long period of time, you just try to isolate her anyway and “make the ho say no”. NEVER eject. Always either get either a lay, or a rejection.

Did I mention that you shouldn’t give up? If you’re making out with her and she doesn’t want sex, just keep pressuring her until she says yes:

[S]ometimes, she’ll say “I don’t know you enough” ect. When this happens don’t get mad or upset ect. Just say, “I understand” or “ok, this is nice though huh?” then go back to necking and making out. Eventually go back in for the sex, if happens again say “I understand” and go back in for more kissing and making out, and repeat until it goes through. Hell even if she never gets ready, what have you got better to do than make out with some hot little number? You’ve got no real “make the ho say no” style of getting a close or getting a rejection to work with at this point, as she already has said no but MAY change her mind.

Just remember not to actually rape her:

DO NOT struggle or tug or bear weight on her at this stage, as that is considered rape. Use persistence not force, and you’ll be ok.

 Somehow I don’t have a lot of trouble thinking that the allegations against him might just possibly be true.

On the discussion forum for his “Witching Hour” podcast, though, while many of his fans seem genuinely shocked by what has happened, at least some of are defending him, or otherwise making light of the shooting.

One started a topic called “Shoot to Kill,” and declared “Thats my man.”

Another chimed in with a little ditty:

Shoot to kill, Klamath Hills
too many podcasts and too many pills yeah!
Shoot to thrill, pickup skills
Jerkin off to Barry Kirkey gonna fire at will

(Barry Kirkey is another PUA guru who has done podcasts with Gunwitch.)

Still another offered this take:

Im sure Gun has a perfectly good reason for shooting that girl in the face

This last comment struck some on the message board as utterlly hilarious.

I’ll update this, or perhaps do more posts, as the story develops.

Big thanks to the Man Boobz reader who alerted me to this story.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

78 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
snobographer
9 years ago

>Lorena Bobbitt was one single case more than twenty years ago. Valerie Solanis more than 20 years before that. Skim a police blotter any random single day for more violence committed by men than you can shake a dick at.

Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>"His techniques are vile because they invade other people's boundaries. It's only a sociopath that does not get this and wants a fucking bar graph and a pie chart. Coercion is wrong, and taking advantage of the nature of many females fear of directly shaming a man, this is repugnant, and THIS is why men deserve to be directly SHAMED, because they think this kind of boundary degradation and coercion to get INSIDE another person's body is wrong."The other part of my response I think got caught up in the spam filter (Dave – I think it has something to do with posting external links? Google/Blogger seems to have been cracking down on this – I've noticed it a lot) but anyway, this statement demonstrates exactly how you think the "average man" thinks its ok. Most men do not think like Gunwitch, hun' – just like most women aren't an abyss of evil and hatred like Andrea Dworkin. But good job buying the party line and all. I'm sure you're making someone proud.

Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>Snobographer -As a man go to the police and tell them your girlfriend just beat the shit out of you and see what kind of reaction you get. Any wonder the police blotter isn't going to paint the whole picture for you?

Babyface
9 years ago

>who was that chick who set her husband's crotch on fire?

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Deezee, perversely, your comment about my relatively hands-off moderation was caught by the spam filter, but it's up now.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Also, yeah, I think links do increase the likelihood of getting spam filtered. But not all the time.

snobographer
9 years ago

>Deezee, most police are men, and not typically the most liberal feminist of men. If there was a pandemic of female-on-male violence, it's very difficult to imagine they wouldn't be strongly sympathetic about it.

M
M
9 years ago

>"But this topic really isn't about me or you. His techiques are "vile" to your perspective beacause of a reason you still haven't provided outside your own experience. Give a critique and we'll talk further."You need a detailed explanation for what's wrong with this guy's techniques? Really?

Dr. Deezee
9 years ago

>Snob -Are you a dude? Ever tried telling your dude friends that a chick just beat you up?

avpd0nmmng
9 years ago

>There is a video made by the guy on youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc5pl0e5lvU

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

>Strangely, I think I caught a glimpse of the mask coming down …"Jerkin off to Barry Kirkey"Why does it strike me as totally obvious that a PUA-wannabe would fantasize about masturbating to another dude?

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"You need a detailed explanation for what's wrong with this guy's techniques? Really?"—MI honestly think you find them vile because shooting someone in the face is vile. But hell, that's just me. I thought the Bundy comment was fishy but like I said; if he hasn't committed the crime it may have raised an eyebrow but it wouldn't seem as incriminating.

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>Blah . . should have read "if he hadn't committed the crime."Damn sleep deprivation.

M
M
9 years ago

>Well that's an assumption on your part because his later act has nothing to do with the vileness of his pickup method. You really don't see what's wrong with his "teachings"? Really?

snobographer
9 years ago

>Fishy? The Bundy reference? Imagine what you'd call it if a female dating guru touted Valerie Solanis's philophy.

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"You really don't see what's wrong with his "teachings"? Really?"—MAnd you wouldn't give a run down as to why? Really?

magdelyn
9 years ago

>What a f*cking piece of shit that mutherf*cker is. What, on God's green earth would justify shooting an unarmed women in the face? I'd kick that coward's ass, and I'd do it in a dress and high heels.

Sam
Sam
9 years ago

>"who was that chick who set her husband's crotch on fire?"Inner monologue: Don'tsayyourmomdon'tsayyourmomdon'tsayyourmomdon'tsayyourmom…

snobographer
9 years ago

>I just remembered George Sodini was into the PUA community too.

M
M
9 years ago

>"And you wouldn't give a run down as to why? Really?"Why do I owe you a rundown as to why seriously invading another human being's personal space, treating them like an object to be isolated and stalked, and putting your hands all over strangers who very likely are just going about their days vile? I seriously do not understand the lack of basic human empathy on display in the comments section of this blog. If you cannot understand *on your own* what is wrong with the kind of behavior this guy endorses in his pick-up techniques there is just no hope for you at all.

Angus Johnston
9 years ago

>By the way, a bunch of the quotes Deezee posted in his 5:37 link last night are fakes. Seems worth mentioning.

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"If you cannot understand *on your own* what is wrong with the kind of behavior this guy endorses in his pick-up techniques there is just no hope for you at all."—MNo hope? That's what feminism provides. No hope.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Angus, you're right about the quotes. I haven't gone through them all, but the quotes from Judith Levine are out of context and completely misrepresent her views. She's a pro-sex feminist who's written about anti-sex hysteria, not an anti-sex radical feminist. One of the quotes is clearly a summary of what someone else believes, not a statement of her beliefs. Another, the "man-hating" one is from a book she wrote trying to understand misandry, not an endorsement of it. Here's a recent piece of hers on "sexting" hysteria that will give a much clearer view of her thinking about sex. http://www.judithlevine.com/2009/05/decent-exposure/I've seen quotes from her in other "oh no evil feminist" lists passed around by MRAs that similarly misrepresent her. This does not give me much faith in the accuracy of the rest of the quotes on these lists. (I know a few of them are real, but beyond those old chestnuts I'm inclined to doubt.) Whether you agree with her or not, Levine is absolutely positively not a Dworkin-ite radical feminist.

witman
9 years ago

>@Booboonation"Again, you miss the point and bring up Lorena Bobbit. Does this type of thing happen DAILY? NO if it did, I would be a SICK MF for saying, gee I guess there may have been a good reason, or whatever. "So just because women may (I said may following your logic quoted) more frequently give men "good reason" to do what they do, this is somehow the man's fault? Just like the Bobbit thing is the man's fault because men don't give women reason's often enough to make it a problemWTF, You are a sick MF Chauvanist Pig!There is no reason to Kill, harm, mutilate, etc another person except in cases of self defense or in defense of another. A sleeping man is not a danger and that Bobbit woman should still be rotting in jail for her heinous crime. Anyone harming another should be in jail for these heinous crimes!

DarkSideCat
9 years ago

>"So just because women may (I said may following your logic quoted) more frequently give men "good reason" to do what they do, this is somehow the man's fault? " Again with the ridiculous fucking victim blaming. What you say here does not follow in any way shape or form from what Booboo said. And booboo never blamed Bobbit's victim. Booboo's point was that finding one case of a woman committing a terrible crime against a man does not prove that rates of violence by women against men are equivalent or comparable to rates of violence by men against women. It is like how if I could find an example of a Jewish person torturing a Catholic in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition, it would not prove that anti-Catholic violence by Jews was equivalent to, as widespread as, etc. violence against Jews by Catholics in that time. To say that these cases (an individual Jewish perp vs the Spanish Inquisition) are not equivalent is not to justify the former, the same principle applies to the Bobbit case. "that Bobbit woman should still be rotting in jail for her heinous crime." And he should be in jail for raping her, or for his domestic abuse conviction against his third wife. You are awfully quick to condemn violent female criminals, but not male ones. Was Lorena right to revenge attack John? No. But I fail to see how his crime that night against her (rape) or his third wife (assault) was less heinous than hers against him. There is a difference between feeling sympathetic and thinking a crime is justified. There is also a big difference between discussing violent crimes by the victim against the perpetrator before the incident (immediately or long term and ongoing) and assuming a victim's economic class, job, clothes, drug habit, etc. means they were 'asking for it'. I find male perps whose victims committed violent crimes against them sympathetic (it is rare but this does happen, but is far more common in cases of male-male murder than male-female murder), but I don't think that justifies their actions either.

The Biscuit Queen
9 years ago

>No one here that I have seen has condoned the shooting. Trying to show that most PUA folks would not condone this is not the same as condoning the shooting. Trying to show that PUA has little to do with MRAs is also not the same as condoning the shooting. Trying to show that feminists sometimes do the same thing (celebrate or at least discuss their own violence, a good example being the SCUM manifesto which is required reading in women's studies courses) is not condoning the shooting.Apparently the feminists here take any dialog which does not consist of "we damn the shooting, the gunman, the movement he was part of, and any slightly related movements which deal with men" as condoning the shooting. Pretty pathetic.

Raoul
9 years ago

>@M, 1/8/11, in response to Deezee:"Why do I owe you a rundown as to why seriously invading another human being's personal space, treating them like an object to be isolated and stalked, and putting your hands all over strangers who very likely are just going about their days vile? I seriously do not understand the lack of basic human empathy on display in the comments section of this blog."It might help to reflect that people of certain turns-of-mind have always regarded basic human empathy as a fatal weakness. Indeed, empathy could only undermine a man's muscular resolve in a world where the highest purpose he can realistically aspire to is to get his through wise adaptation to a timeless and venerated status quo – though it be written in a bizarre code mingling scripture, biology, history, and anger raised to a first principle.

militaina
8 years ago

Reblogged this on literacyworx and commented:
I would consider using this as a reading for young girls on relationships at church. Seriously.