Mighty White of You

David, my guess (although I’m no expert) would be that lots of cities are like that. It’s certainly true of Stockholm. My first real apartment (i e not a student apartment) was in a basically all black/brown neighbourhood. Me and husband were like the only white people there. After three years there we lived in a fairly mixed neighbourhood for seven years. Now we live in sort of a fairly spread-out little village in the forest thirty kilometres south of Stockholm, and of the fourty or so households comprising this village, every single one seems to be white.

OK, thanks Argenti! 🙂

I had this friend, let’s call him Peter O’Johnson, who kinda used game. He was sort of skinny and funny looking but he still managed to have a full and very active sex life. Game stuff – A scruffy mohawk that changed colors every few weeks (peacocking), an extremely scathing wit (negging) and tenacity (prime directive of the PUA.)

And those things probably helped but not as much as his attitude. He treated all his women friends the same way he treated his guy friends. He didn’t adore women or dislike them or objectify them, he was just friends with them. He had wicked snark but it was never mean and he never directed it at strangers. The tenacity was for meeting people, not just women. Someone he doesn’t know asks him about one of his tattoos and 20 minutes later he’s buying a round for the entire table. That kind of guy.

He’s fun to be around because he genuinely likes people. This translates into a lot of mutual sexual attraction. During the nightclub years, it also meant a lot of stories that ended with someone being too drunk and Peter sleeping on the couch, in a chair, on the floor, or in the bathtub. Having a reputation as the guy who is ok with just making sure you get home safe also translates into a lot of consensual and enthusiastic sex later on.

re neighborhoods: Where I was living in Pasadena was mixed white/hispanic. You had to move a few blocks to for black people. Arcadia was mixed Asian (mostly Taiwanese) Hispanic black. Where I am now is actually pretty diverse, Central American, Black, Italian, African, African American, Asian, German, Russian, French (The nationalities I’m giving are the countries they came from, not the countries their forebears left). My espresso shop is run/owned by young Korean women, there are lots small shops and friendly people.

My neighborhood is mostly mixed with East Asian people, white people, and Indians. It’s a lot like most of San Jose, although towards Alum Rock you’ll find way more Hispanic people.

Just thinking about this thread (based in part on the trollish fellow I was near last night). ObFiles argument (such as it is) is completely bogus.

No one is allowed to point out any aspect of the MRM, much less question it, until that group has completely corrected for any errors of it’s own.

Only when the MRM is the only evil in the world, can one discuss it’s evilness.

Argenti: Why yes it is! Why should ObFiles ruin a perfect record.

No one is allowed to point out any aspect of the MRM, much less question it, until that group has completely corrected for any errors of it’s own.

Yup, and following that same logic, the mrm would have to give up whining about feminism until the mrm had fixed all its own problems. Given that the mrm does virtually nothing else but whine about feminism/women all day, this would essentially mean the mrm would cease to exist.

Other than that I’m with Nobinayamu.

Seriously, though, I just finished catching up on this monster thread. Obsidian is like, everything I’ve always hated about being out on a Saturday night rolled up into one giant ball of lazy thinking, lazier writing, and too much cologne. Like a bad barbershop cipher that you can’t just leave once your edges are cleaned up. Like every dude out on U street with a chip on their shoulder who cops an attitude because “No, thanks,” isn’t good enough.

I just can’t.

I’ve heard this song before, with occasional minor variations, and it wasn’t a very good song the first time.

I am no longer entirely drunk on G&T’s, and my nascent eldritch abilities to smell technicolour and taste noise is beginning to fade once again. So I’ve got a few comments:

I hope that’s okay?

O: Fibanachi reviewed about a half dozen of my posts and by his own admission, COULDN’T find anything “rapey” about them. Dave and I have discussed my writings offlist, and he’s pretty much the same thing.

Not entirely correct.

I could not find you directly advocating rape (“When you want to get off, bang someone over the
head and…”)

I could find many things that were rapey – because rapey would imply a certain sense of, well, rape. It’s a descriptor.
For instance, this:

Sure, fuck it. This isn’t advocating rape, this is merely hinting at it strongly. Tell me, how does a practicioner of this style deal with an anti slut impulse? Does he just blast through that as well?
Think carefully now.
O: Usually, the latter. Although again, I don’t personally make use of this particular style myself.

That is literally rape. If someone says “I don’t want to sleep with you because I don’t want to be seen as a slut” (The anti slut impulse, in PUA parlance), you say “usually the latter”, which would mean “blast through it”.

How does someone blast through someone else saying “I don’t want to…”?

Rape.

But to be fair, you also said this is not something you, the O-Files, personally use. So you don’t advocate, in that instance, rape. But it is tremendously, incredibly, utterly and entirely rapey.

We could get into the notion that Game, as practiced by most people and talked about by most attendents is a constant use of low key psychological manipulation, dressing up and tearing down of others in order to fuel a sense of personal capacity and notch counts and that the inherent notion that women cannot, in any way, improve themselves beyond their looks because their personalities don’t count is, in fact, somewhat rapey. It reduces them to vessels of vaginas , and not for their own use, but explicitly for you and yours.

But that would be me reaching, and I try not to do that.
—

O: Well, among a great many, is the fact that while Feminism makes its case that the “Patriarchy” has and continues to seek to control or otherwise regulate Female sexual behavior, the Feminists themselves are in fact seeking to do the same wrt Male sexuality. For example, the sheer enormity and reaction in response to the Pickup movement, is one instance; another is the stiff resistance to Roe For Men; another is the campaigns against street harassment and the like; another is the resistance to the legalizing of prostitution; another is the attempts to block Men who who wish to marry Women from overseas, and so on.”

In order:

The sheer enormity and and reaction to the Pickup movement is because in many cases, that same movement advocates and promotes a viewpoint that is directly a contrast to any kind of world wherein women are not treated as targets. That’s not regulating sexual behavior, that’s regulating rape and the argument that preying on someone’s sense of self is a good way to get laid.

Paper abortions and actual abortions are quite different both in context and situation, and it is a significantly intricate subject. Much resistance to the idea comes from the notion that what you wrote earlier – men should have no obligation to take care of children they don’t want or desire – is gobblelydook of the highest order. Less resistance can be seen in other sources, which you’re going to have to google yourself. Sorry q:

Regulate male sexual behavior by campaigning against street harassment? See, this isn’t rape – but it’s very rapey. You are saying that an inherent part of male sexual behavior is street harassment, that harassing people going about their lives by calling “NICE TITS!” is something so utterly male that attempting to talk about it in any way is trying to control the entirety of male sexual behavior. This is wrong.

Feminists are generally for legalized prostitution, as doing so improves the conditions of the people working in that sector. They are not FOR this because it helps men get laid, but because it helps the people in the job get, for instance, medical benefits.

No one is trying to block men from marrying women over seas. Also, the very concept of this thing could make me argue with you for about 20k words. But I’ll boil it down to a few:

Women are not a resource. Ovaries are not like oil. Do not, ever, hint that they are. You just did. Please, please do not. No one is trying to block men from marrying *anything* (except sometimes other men).
—

O: Ask Fibanachi; he’s taken some time out to actually review at least some of what I’ve said…

I did. You are actually not too bad a writer. But it was very… dark. And having read a fair deal of your blog, I’m going to say that I disagree with a fair few bits of it. But that I’ve also found that your levels of world building is very different from mine, which is interesting. In that normally you assume other people at least live in the same reality as you do, but I would more say that ours happen to be parallel.

—

O: Why? Because I asked a very simple question? Oh, and by my count, that’s approximately 7 guys, including your dear old dad. Hardly anything scientific, or even statistically significant – yes?

This isn’t entirely correct. It’s approximately 1 person nominating approximately 7 guys. If this holds, then each of those 1 guys would be able to nominate 7 others (that’s 8 people for 56 totals of short men dating). It’s also worth noting that in this situation 3 were described with the words “ladies men”, which implies a series of dates taking place with multiple partners. What I just did wasn’t scientific, but it was statistically significant given our sample size and source.

O: Excellent idea! Given that 50 Cent owns Vitamin Water, it would be interesting to see if indeed, Feminists drank it, thereby supporting Patriarchal/misogynist business enterprises and thereby contributing to the perpetuation of such entities and consuming their products. You know what, Argenti, you’re right – this survey thing is a science, indeed! You’re a genius!

Argenti is actually a genius. I am often in awe of the sheer capacity to Math displayed time and time again.

However, you make an interesting point. I’ve studied economics. I’m going to rant now.

The external costs of our decicions are always incredibly interesting, and its one of the more complex subjects you can ever get into, since it pretty much underlines most talks about ethics and behavior in most ways. In this specific case, I would say that you also have to qualify for knowledge – for instance, I didn’t know that 50 cent was a spokesperson for Vitamin Water (I didn’t know there was a brand called Vitamin Water). How many feminists drink this product and do so *knowingly*? How many people drink it specifically to support 50 cent? If I do it because I support 50 cent, and I think Fiddy is a great dude, but I also dislike his music, am I still to blame? Maybe I played through Blood On the Sand, his latest videogame, and had such a tremendously good time doing it that I want to support him, but I don’t want to pay into the inherently silly otion of Thug Life 4 Eva?

If I buy a McDonalds product, am I to blame for the continued destruction of the amazon rain forest because the Soy they use in their products come from Brazil? And if not, how many burgers will it take for me before I am?

Your attempts at making it seem as if you are personally responsible for the actions of other people unrelated to you is weak, and I find it a little funny, so I’m going to be amusing now:
If you link to Roissy’s blog (you do), are you supporting his views on race, sex and pugs? Are you supporting the inherently terrible notion that certain racial groups have better blow job lips? By linking to his site in specific instances, do you agree that black men are inferior to white men?

:]
—

O: I am indeed advocate of Game because it is a mating strategy for Men. It is rooted in the insights and empirical findings of Evolutionary Psychology. My personal sources in that regard include Prof. David Buss, author of The Evolution of Desire and Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Mystery’s book, The Mystery Method, has as its subtitle, “How To Get BEAUTIFUL Women Into Bed”. In Neil “Style” Strauss’ memoir, The Game, Mystery says the following:

“Well, look at you”, Mystery said. “You look average. People think if they look generic, then they can seduce a wide array of women. Not true. You have to specialize. If you look average, you’re going to get average girls. Your khaki pants are for the office. They’re not for the clubs. And your sweater-burn it. You need to be bigger than life. I’m talking over the top. If you want to get the 10s, you need to learn peacock theory.”
-Mystery, “The Game”, pp. 22

Now – say what you will about the idea of ranking or scales and so forth, but one thing is for certain – Mystery, clearly, is NOT saying that “all Women are the same”; he is clearly talking about a particular subset of Women, AND, he is talking about meeting them in a particular context and set of circumstances (the niteclub setting). Again, feel free to criticize away, but let’s at least acknowledge what’s actually being said here.

Game is not a mating strategy.

Game is a nebulous concept that offers purported guidance in how to get laid. Sometimes, they give out specific mating strategies (your example – be bigger than life, be over the top, get laid that way).

A specific mating strategy is one specific behavior, or, at best, a larger collection of them within the same group. (Altruistic v selfish, peacock v muscles, dance v fighting).

What Game is, is the same tired old thing setting Men up to be Men and women up to be Women and that’s all it is. Someone tried to draw Europeans to the newly discovered Americas by printing out thousands of pamphlets that promised that the Native American women would mate with any man they saw, sometimes right there in the fields.
The back of magazines have been trying to sell promised, sure-fire ways of getting some sex ever since we’ve had ads. You can even find examples here on ManBoobz.

It’s cool that it exists, and some of the advice is actually pretty neat (Again, specifically your example, yes, being larger than life can be fun!). I was on Neil Strauss’ mailing lists for a while.

Reading The Game made me a better person in most measurable ways. But a lot of the attendant beliefs that crop up what you call Game is not only terrible, they’re sad, destructive things that will eat your soul.

Your example – If you want to get 10’s, you need peacock theory!

Not only is it important to be larger than life, you need to be larger than life to get beautiful women, because beautiful women will only care about you if you wear a dazzling outfit and distract their lady brains with your sparkles.
How miserable is that?

From your linked blog piece:

In any event, the main reason as to why Feminists hate Game – aside from the simple fact that it works – is because, as Champ rightly observed, it fundamentally threatens everything the Feminists believe about how the world works. Indeed, Prof. David Buss himself has been assailed and attacked by Feminists because his researches and findings do not comport with their sociopolitical ideologies. EvoPsych as an entire field of discipline is vilified wholesale by the Feminist Lobby, and for good reason – again, because if what Buss and others say, based again on their findings, are indeed true, it would then threaten the very existence of the Feminists. Their shrieks, while woefully misguided, are nevertheless justified.

No, once again, the reason people disagree with you is not that ”It works” and people are terrified of your new raw, sexual charisma. The reason people disagree and assail you is because you, in getting from:

“I can’t get laid”

To

“I can get laid!”

Take a short cut through:

“Women are naturally submissive, and this is something men crave, their diplomas are worthless in the sexual market place and the only thing a woman can do to get more attention from men is to look pretty, because nothing she does otherwise will have any impact on boners, since men are just wired that way. Women have lots of feelings, and their feelings are manipulated like this…”

—
From your linked blog:

11. Why cant Men just be themselves?

A: Because if they were “just themselves” they wouldnt need Game to meet most women today.

As a result of decades of attempts on the part of the White Upper Middle Class Feminist Lobby – a subsidiary of the Cognitive Elite, I might add – Men all over today have been, in a word, whipped. Game, then, restores balance to the Force – just the way the ladies secretly like it.

The reason people cannot just be themselves is that if they are themselves, people like you tell them they’re whipped. The reason people cannot just be themselves is that you’ve invented a word called “whipped”, to describe a state of affairs where in a man is not manly and dominant and in control, but instead listens to other people and pays attention to a woman. What a whipped guy, huh.

The reason people cannot just be themselves is that when you tell them “Just be yourself!” most people will respond “But I have no idea how”, because very few people are inherently aware of the things they do that make them them. It takes a certain kind of mind to look at the constellation of behavior that makes up a personality and figure out exactly which ones make this guy different from that girl.

The reason people cannot just be themselves is because if they do, you break into their conversation and start talking about the sexual market place, how the white upper middle class feminist lobby and the cognitive elite is ruling the world and trying to make it a worse place, how bitches just need to be backturned on so they go mental, how women lose their entire selves the moment they turn 40 or 30 or whatever it is that day.

The very reason people are so neurotic is because you, and the people like you, tell them their lives, their degrees, their desires, their jobs, their houses, their plans matter not and the world is an uncaring, ceaseless thing wherein the only imperative is “reproduce”.
The reason people cannot just be themselves is because rape is just not pragmatic.

“Even if you do, in fact, oppose rape because it’s a violation of bodily autonomy, the fact that you jumped straight to the lack of necessity of rape as a reason to not support rape is telling. It shows me that your belief about women a right to bodily autonomy (at least in this case) is at best an afterthought.”
O: Should I value someone’s life more than my own?

Depends on your ethical view.
But how did you get to that from the other thing?
Their bodily autonomy is important, irrespective of any value you place on their life. Unless… of course… you’re just respecting their personal autonomy because it’s the easiest way to get them to sleep with you. Then the moment it wasn’t, rape could the better option.

But Obisidian, that would be devious! That would be callous and focused on the self! That would be… Perfectly in keeping with everything so far q:

Fibinachi thinks I’m a genius *blushes* I may have the maths, but you’ve got the languages! And yeah, you just put them to excellent use!

Survey should be up and running shortly, kitteh is being so kind as to give the final draft an error check and then I’m emailing the link to David.

Fibinachi is my hero.

Can’t wait to take yr survey, Argenti. I will click all the things (applicable to me)!