Over on PUA dirtbag Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog, a guest poster calling himself Emmanuel Goldstein (oh, how clever) offers a rather revealing take on the psychology of “players” and pickup artists like himself.
After justifiably mocking “nice guys” for assuming that “girls choose men like people buy houses” – that is, by carefully weighing pros and cons and looking for the best deal – he suggests that
[p]layers … are more like that sweet old lady with saggy arms wearing a hairnet at your local supermarket, handing out free, tasty samples.
Stay with him; it will all make sense, sort of, in a moment.
You’re not even looking at her, and she beckons you over to have a taste. Even though it’s junk food, you can’t resist. You avoid sweets, and here you are eating a tiny cinnabon. And really, she won’t mind if you take just the
tiptaste.Regardless, minutes later, you’re going home with a 96-pack of cinnabons – and you don’t even eat pastries! To be completely honest, the first time it happens, you’re a little jarred and confused about how the whole thing went down so fast. …
Now, imagine that that sweet old lady is actually a funny, strapping young man, and you buying those cinnabons is a woman agreeing to sex with him the night she met him. That confusion you felt after you bought a huge package of junk food? That’s how a girl might feel after her first one-night stand.
Yes, that’s right: Mr. Goldstein is comparing himself and his fellow “players” to supermarket pastry-pushers who cajole people into eating things they know they shouldn’t eat, and that they later regret eating.
And, oh yes, that are really bad for them:
If you remain unconvinced, just remember that our economy is in shambles because tens of millions of people bought homes they cannot afford, and that half of us are comically obese from eating too much junk food. That granny sample lady is looking pretty formidable right now.
Now, there are all sorts of things wrong with Mr. Goldstein’s analogy here. Sex isn’t pastry, for one thing, and for another, women (and everyone else) should be able to indulge in either of these pleasures without having assholes on the internet getting up in their business. (And, yes, PUAs, I’m saying that as a fat fatty.) I’m just trying to point out that by the terms of his own analogy, Mr. Goldstein is saying that sex with him is a shitty thing that’s bad for you.
This isn’t someone attacking PUAs for being miserable, self-centered sexual users who are only able to convince women to have sex with them through manipulation, leaving these women feeling shitty afterwards.
This is a PUA who ASPIRES to be such a miserable, self-centered sexual user he’s only able to convince women to have sex with him through manipulation, leaving these women feeling shitty afterwards.
In other words, PUAs are devoting their lives to making women feel bad about themselves. As a life goal, this seems a bit lacking.
The notion of women as merchandise and their bodies as commodity goes back much farther than capitalist economics.
People like An Inconvenient Truth only use phrases like “deregulation of the sexual marketplace” because that’s the language of their time.
Stay safe, blizzard-havers!
I feel like making vulva-shaped desserts and opening a store called The Sexual Marketplace. Look for me on Kickstarter.
@cloudiah
What about penis-shaped desserts? Won’t somebody think of the penises?
#INeedMasculismBecause nobody ever thinks of the penises.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/1850ov/meta_ineedmasculismbecause_is_the_best_hashtag/
Is this the thread where I can bitch about getting three feet of snow? Cause we’ve gotten three feet of snow and I have two courtyards (narrow) and several hundred feet of sidewalk to shovel. I’ve spent five and a half hours shoveling, I will be out for a third time tonight and I have officially run out of places to put the godamn white stuff!
Interestingly, I’m just now going through the process of having myself listed on the Sexual Marketplace Stock Exchange (SMVSEX). Initial IPO price is only three strips of gold-pressed lati… I mean, three dollars per share.
*For a free prospectus please contact 1-822-NOPANTS. Returns are not guaranteed and loss of principle is possible. Our brokers can also neg you over the phone if you’re into that sort of thing.
@Tulgey Logger
I was just looking at that. 🙂
@pillow in hell
I think you can bitch about that anywhere you want. It is times like this when I am so glad I live in an apartment building. I am so sorry that you have to deal with the snow directly. 🙁
Let me get this straight, you’re saying: “Feminism has allowed women to have sex with people they actually like (also have platonic male friends) and this has led to women marrying men of higher status. Therefore men must manipulate pretty women to have sex with them.”
Also, can you at least keep your definition of “the best sex” internally consistent please? If the best sex was sex with the most beautiful partner, then the (ahem) “deregulation of the sexual marketplace” would be a boon to men as the beautiful women would now be free to have multiple sexual partners and therefore more men would be able to have “the best sex”.
it’s like you know nothing about good sex
Some gal, I live in an apartment building too!
As the super.
“Simply put, feminism’s deregulation of the sexual marketplace has unleashed female hypergamy to the point where the greatest manipulators get rewarded with the best sex (read: with the most attractive women).”
Yah, that makes incontrovertable sense. Because: old supermarket ladies with swingin’ bat wings are the greatest manipulators the world has ever known. Also: it’s little buck-five cheerleader types who always eat the most Cinnabons.
Try again.
By the way, SRS and the sarcasm brigade of #ineedmasculismbecause has totally made my day.
@chibigodzilla – I was just going to bring up the “best sex” thing too. It’s deeply sad that Troofy and the OP and the rest of these guys have only one criteria about what makes sex good and that criteria has nothing to do with their personal preferences and everything to do with their perception of the “objective” attractiveness of their partners. It’s not even that they themselves inherently value the level of attractiveness, it’s that they want other men to regard them highly for having had sex with a person who is defined *by other men* as “hot.” The entire PUA subculture is basically entirely about men wanting other men to like them and think they are important. *refrains from joke about homosocial undertones*
I imagine everyone’s definition of “the best sex” is different. It could be sex with the person(s) you love the most, sex with the person(s) who most turns you on, sex with the person(s) who are eager to act out your most deeply cherished fantasy. Hell, it could be sex with the person(s) who happen to be there and consenting at a time when you are so horny your brain is melting.
Notice that none of those definitions regard sex as something you manipulate Person A into doing in order to get Person B to think you are hot shit. PUA or not that’s a crappy way to live.
Meanwhile, the entire idea that women can choose a sexual partner like I chose meat at the grocery store today remains one of the stupidest beliefs of the MRM. Leaving aside the whole “men are people with preferences” issue, there’s the risk of violence, diseases and unwanted pregnancy that women have to consider at all times. Even if a woman existed who was so universally attractive that every single hetero/bi male on earth would be willing to have sex with her (and she doesn’t), she’d still have to deal with all those risk factors.
I thought there was a whole thing of the not-so-attractive people being better at doing sex cos of all the gratefulness? But the best sex now, apparently, is related to the conventional attractiveness of the features surrounding the vagina you are penetrating?
It’s weird, the guy makes it sound like a woman’s participation in, and enjoyment of sex with a man is not what makes sex good, but rather whether her face/ass/boobs/tummy is nice for him to look at, while he pounds away like a over-enthused dog on a leg. So it’s actually not even about the act of sex, it’s about – i dunno – conquering a ‘hot chick’? No that’s actually the saddest story that ever there was. That surely could not be what he means, could it? Could it? Oh…
Perpetually Unfathomable Assholes
Why do they make douchebag part of the requirement to being a womanizer. Are they so pathetic that they feel they must resort to trickery to get laid? I know plenty of manwhores who are very honest about their intentions and women flock to them. It’s not like they’re all the epitome of male sexiness, either. There’s a certain charm in a man who can honestly tell you he’s only talking to you for the sex.
PUAs are the type of guy who’d delude himself into believing a woman had sex with him because he tricked her, not because she is smart enough to know he wanted a one night stand and she agreed to it. They like to pretend all women are powerless sluts in the face of the PUA, maybe due to some cognitive dissonance.
@An Inconvenient Truth
It’s inconvenient that you have a distorted view of history. In the face of arranged marriage, you weren’t picking your mate. People did not go on dates, it was a contract. It was only a few centuries ago that dating even remotely became a thing and it was empowering for women. Before the dating game it wasn’t unheard of for men and women to secretly hook up before marriage or outside of marriage. I’ll also let you in on a little secret, women used birth control and abortifactants since before the time of Mesopotamia. Birth control usage is even mentioned in the bible. This reduced the cost of sex at a time when pregnancy was potentially a death sentence. While women were encouraged to be modest, nobody listened.
You know what’s funny about the whole “hypergamy” BS that feminism is to blame for? Before the widespread effects of feminism, when women were still the property of men and couldn’t own property, vote or choose their husbands, their marriage to a man was *always* hypergamy because the man was of higher status than the woman simply for having a Y chromosome. So if anything, the rise of feminism *reduced* hypergamy.
By that definition, wouldn’t jacking off to a picture of a supermodel be the best sex ever?
I cannot fathom the idea of having sex with some creep trying to manipulate me. Because there’d be no doubt at all that a PUA was a creep. All their bullshit about negging and manipulation is the opposite of meeting some guy you like, enjoying a conversation, being attracted and ending up in bed. Not that casual sex has ever been on my agenda, but liking and being attracted to the person would be the absolute minimum requirements if it were. Skeevy creeps in bars – even in the unlikely event that they were OMG gorgeous to look at – wouldn’t get anywhere. They might get a drink thrown in their faces, they might get me laughing loudly at them for being sucked in by PUA bullshit, they might get me asking loudly if they really think rape is okay if they go about it this way, but they would not be getting any sex out of it.
Aaaaand cue evopsych bullshit about how “most attractive” = “best genes” and men are slaves to the urge to spread their seed and blah blah blah
All that stuff about spreading the seed (like they actually want to be siring children!) makes me laugh. Mr K has something like 100 000 descendants over the three and a half centuries since his time (there’s been a book published about it). How many surviving children did he have? Two.
eyyy, it’s Choofles! Making as much sense as ever!
also, seconded on the #INeedMasculismBecause hashtag. Hilarity.
PUA is not based on any real science. Most of their EvoPsyc theories violate the scientific method and make it their bitch. It assaults Psychology and Evolutionary Biology.
I think that people honestly believing in this crap irritates me more than their misogyny.
And yet again, we have this strange assumption that “most attractive” is some universally acknowledged and agreed quality. That everyone could easily order a group of people according to their attractiveness and that order would always be the same.
For all they bitch about female hypergamy, pickup “artistry” seems to essentially be an act of men gaining status by engaging in a superficial ceremony (they don’t seem to actually enjoy the sex) with a high status female. <_<
As a pedant, I just wish they'd stop saying "hypergamy" when they mean "having many sexual partners." If they used something more like "hyper-polygamy," I'd allow it and they could still pretend to be intellectuals.