Leave it to the guys at Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog to find a bright side, of sorts, to a study reporting that one in five Americans suffered from some sort of mental illness in 2010, with more women (23%) amongst those affected than men (16.8%).
Since “at least a quarter of the women you run into at any given time are not going to be alright upstairs,” RoK contributor Athlone McGinn argues, and the percentage is likely to be much higher amongst younger women, you might as well use this fact to your advantage.
But first you need to accept the disadvantages. For one thing, you need to realize your powerful man-logic won’t work on these gals:
If you’re 18-25, you will in many cases be dealing with someone who is fundamentally incapable of being reliably rational.
Never mind that most mental illnesses don’t affect the ability to think rationally about most things. Someone with an intense phobia of Donald Trump’s hair, for example, is able to think rationally about everything except Donald Trump’s hair.
Maybe that’s a bad example. I’m not sure it’s entirely irrational to be afraid of Donald Trump’s hair.
And, like their sane counterparts, the crazy ladies may sometimes turn you down. But at least this time you don’t have to feel so bad about yourself.
You may think you’re a loser because you get shot down by these girls more than you’d like, but this isn’t always the case: you’re often dealing with not-entirely-alright girls with illogical criteria.
Oh, but McGinn assures us that “[t]his isn’t an excuse, mind you.” You still need to make sure your “game” is tight. Just don’t be too hard on yourself, because women (like the prices at Crazy Eddie’s electronics emporiums) are literally insane.
So what’s the great advantage of dating a woman who’s mentally ill? McGinn is a bit vague, probably deliberately, but essentially he suggests that men can keep “dysfunctional” women in line by treating them like shit:
Dysfunctional treatment is often welcomed by dysfunctional people, and many of those with mental issues fit that bill. Since we’ve already established that a very large number of young women fit into that category, you should not be surprised to see so many of them respond positively to dysfunctional behavior.
It is not uncommon for young men to adopt some of these dysfunctional behaviors, find increased sexual/romantic success with their female peers as a result, and then feel guilty about it all. Such guilt is understandable (they don’t like the fact that morally degraded versions of themselves are more appealing to girls in general than the men they actually prefer to be), but ultimately unnecessary—there is nothing a man can do about the female proclivity to welcome such behavior except adapt to it. It is the result of factors much bigger than him.
Poor pickup artists! They don’t want to be abusive, manipulative, exploitative assholes and terrible people generally. They’re driven to this awful behavior by forces beyond their control — like the fact that women are statistically somewhat more likely to suffer from mental illness than men.
McGinnis’s response above did nothing but make his original article look even worse. How surprising.
“This ant-ableist discourse is basically abuse enabling.”
No one is saying that people are obligated to stay with individuals who are dangerous and abusive. You don’t understand why we think this article is ableist.
Hey Ally, how about that troll on Feministe? Quality weirdness/creepiness/whack-a-troll material.
@Kitteh
You mean “Be the SOLUTION?” Yeah, quite a character. =S I’m just glad that feminists like her aren’t common (if they can even be called feminists, that is). Definitely one of the weirdest anti-male radfems I’ve seen in a while.
Someone I love and care about has been diagnosed with BPD and I’m not ABOUT to run away from her. She can act in ways that appear manipulative, but I set boundaries with her. She has difficulty with the give and take in relationships, but she is trying to better understand. No one could be crueler to her than she is to herself. So, pardon me, but fuck off.
@Ally – yeah, that’s her. Funny that Jill was entertained enough not to get the banhammer out right away! Be the SOLUTION reads like the Owly of radfems.
Reblogged this on Dissent of a Woman and commented:
man boobz nails it as usual.
Nope. Me and Husband have tons in common, we think alike, we laugh at the same things, appreciate the same things, to the point where we’ll refer to each other by the cheesy but appropriate “soulmates”… Us sharing our lives together is perfectly rational on pretty much any rationality theory.
The idea that rational=emotionless really comes from douches (ha!) who use “you’re being irrational!” to shut down people (usually women) who object to their douchiness.
McGinn, do you remember this quote?
“It is not uncommon for young men to adopt some of these dysfunctional behaviors, find increased sexual/romantic success with their female peers as a result, and then feel guilty about it all. Such guilt is understandable (they don’t like the fact that morally degraded versions of themselves are more appealing to girls in general than the men they actually prefer to be), but ultimately unnecessary—there is nothing a man can do about the female proclivity to welcome such behavior except adapt to it.”
The mentally ill are portrayed in your post/article as “irrational”. You stated that the mentally ill often engage in dysfunctional behaviors and are “not alright in the head”. “Not alright in the head” suggests that they are not in full control of their capacities. Would that not put them at a disadvantage? Attempting to gain romantic or sexual success by capitalizing on another person at a disadvantage is wrong.
You said that guilt is unnecessary in this instance. Guilt is necessary to remind us that we have violated our own moral standards. To ignore that guilt is to lower or discard our standards.
Then you employ a disgusting naturalistic fallacy to further attempt to excuse maltreatment. “There’s nothing a man can do… except adapt” Yes there is. A man can simply not engage in dysfunctional behavior. You conveniently left that part out of your article. By the way “adapting” means to “make it fit” or “make it work”. Nice try on attempting to weasel out of your own words, though.
Women have zero respect for men who beg for pussy.
In this case, “adapt to it” does not have to mean “treat these women as harshly as you can” and/or “use this to increase your notch count!”. It can also mean simply leaving them alone.
Your post doesn’t mention leaving mentally ill women alone. It does, however, claim that they respond positively to “dysfunctional treatment” and advises that men can “increased sexual/romantic success” by exploiting this. And they shouldn’t feel guilty about it, because… well, you don’t explain why. It seems to me that if someone actually does this, they should feel very guilty.
(I know, I know, that’s not the point of your post. Your point is to reassure your readers that it’s not their fault they can’t get dates, it’s just that girls are poopyheads. I’m sure you don’t know or care anything about mental illness.)
Could you specify some of the “dysfunctional behaviors” men should not feel guilty about adopting?
This woman has zero respect for any man who talks about our bodies that way, or reduces us to objects from whom sex is to be gained.
If you think it’s a choice of being a complete shit, as PUAs advocate, or “begging” for sex, then crawl off and shrivel up in a corner somewhere, kthnx.
If that’s not what you’re saying, you need to express yourself a whole lot better.
@sarahlizhousespouse: “Yes there is. A man can simply not engage in dysfunctional behavior.”
Or, as I stated earlier, opt to just “leave these women alone”.
That intentional disengagement would constitute a means of adaptation to the current environment (read: making it work for you and/or making yourself fit to work within it).
“You conveniently left that part out of your article.”
No, that bit was there. The only way to conclude that it was not is to assume that one cannot “adapt” by disengaging. I wouldn’t consider that an accurate conclusion.
“By the way “adapting” means to “make it fit” or “make it work”.”
Yes, I’m aware of what the word “adapt” means. This is not the point of contention.
The point of contention is whether or not disengagement can be considered a means of adaptation. You clearly argue in the negative, while I argue in the affirmative.
“Nice try on attempting to weasel out of your own words, though.”
Not sure what you’re talking about. I’m sticking by what I wrote. It is your interpretation of that writing that is being discussed.
My challenges to your interpretation do not equate to a discarding the original text on my part.
Hey McGinniss, why didn’t you just write “If you think a woman is unstable or vulnerable or has a mental illness, manipulating or preying on her is not acceptable. Leave her the fuck alone and get your jollies elsewhere, like any decent human being would.”
But no, you go on about not feeling guilty and then try to tell us afterward you’re really telling the proto-rapists hanging out on Roosh’s blog that it’s all about leaving women alone. Riiight.
Uh… Well the sky is sometimes blue! Hydrogen is a molecule! Walls are composed of material! Liquids can flow down hill!
I’m sorry, your complete non-sequitor just sort of throws me out of a loop.Would you have any respect for someone who begged you for use of some part of your body? Unless it’s a situation involving organ transplants, I really doubt anyone ever answers “Yes” to that.
So what you’re really saying is that “Women have zero respect for men who think of them as nothing but pussies and beg five minutes use of these walking orifices”.
Yes. Such astounding insight.
Anyway.
Suave.
Except.
Your basic premise is fine (“Sometimes, even Cassanova strikes out because you can’t really control how people think and feel, and they could be having bad days”).
But it sure as synapses ain’t “… Bother telling men to work out, dress better or gain confidence”.
It very much is
“You’re often dealing wiht not-entirely-alright girls with illogical criteria” and “wrong moves in the eyes of someone who isn’t mentally alright”.
Trying to pretend you don’t mean it when it’s what you wrote is… Inconsistent. I think you’re failing your congruence test.
And again:
Suave, smooth, well spoken.
Except:
Now, sure. You can come here and tell us: “Oh, when I wrote that, what I meant by “adapt” was “Not interact with people like that”.
You can certainly do that. You are, in fact, doing that.
… But come now. Is the conclusion to your 5 point method of understanding what american female mental issues mean for you really going to be: “It means don’t interact with women, that’s how you adapt”.
… Or is it going to be:
Such guilt is understandable … but ultimately unnecessary—there is nothing a man can do about the female proclivity to welcome such behavior except adapt to it
ie:
Dysfunctional treatment is often welcomed by dysfunctional people, and many of those with mental issues fit that bill. Since we’ve already established that a very large number of young women fit into that category, you should not be surprised to see so many of them respond positively to dysfunctional behavior.
Dude.
… Come on.
Irrational chicks with mental issues are easier to push around because they accept dysfunctional behavior, and it’s their own damn fault, so as a young guy, you shouldn’t feel bad for emotionally manipulating someone… It’s their own fault anyway.
You might as well say it as you think it is, instead of pretending you’re being more sophisticated than you are.
@Shaenon
“Your post doesn’t mention leaving mentally ill women alone.”
It mentions the need to “adapt”. Disengagement is a form of adaptation, as is intentional exploitation.
“It does, however, claim that they respond positively to “dysfunctional treatment” and advises that men can “increased sexual/romantic success” by exploiting this.”
Statements of fact, yes.
“And they shouldn’t feel guilty about it, because… well, you don’t explain why.”
Yes I do:
“It is the result of factors much bigger than him.
Self-improvement is important, but knowing your environment is crucial too. You can’t help everyone, but you can help yourself to better deal with those around you.”
TL;DR: The problem goes well beyond them and cannot be stopped by them.
“(I know, I know, that’s not the point of your post. Your point is to reassure your readers that it’s not their fault they can’t get dates, it’s just that girls are poopyheads.)”
LOL sure.
“Could you specify some of the “dysfunctional behaviors” men should not feel guilty about adopting?”
-Disregarding anything a girl says that you don’t find interesting.
-Refusing to take any girl on a proper date.
-Refusing to call/contact her save for the occasional booty call.
-Barely acknowledging her presence outside of frat basements/house parties/club dance floors
-Flirting with other girls even when you know she is around.
-Sleeping with girls who come onto you who have boyfriends.
This list could go on.
All of these things exist well outside of the scope of reasonable, “gentlemanly” behavior that most men are raised to consider legitimate, and all of these things clash with the model of traditional dating. They are the norm, however, among college-aged people (a group to which I belong, for the record). This article did a fairly good job fleshing this concept out a bit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/fashion/sex-on-campus-she-can-play-that-game-too.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&from=homepage&
” Their relationship, she noted, is not about the meeting of two souls.
“We don’t really like each other in person, sober,” she said, adding that “we literally can’t sit down and have coffee.”
…
“Now, she said, she and her best friend had changed their romantic goals, from finding boyfriends to finding “hookup buddies,” which she described as “a guy that we don’t actually really like his personality, but we think is really attractive and hot and good in bed.””
Basically, men who adopt the “dysfunctional behaviors” I reference are becoming the guys that these college girls are talking about here (the “hookup buddies”). They are in very high demand (to a point at which many girls will reject men who do not carry their traits) and commonly are by far the most sexually satisfied group on many campuses. This is part of why I do not fault men for becoming them, as many (often unintentionally) do.
@kittehserf:
“Hey McGinniss, why didn’t you just write “If you think a woman is unstable or vulnerable or has a mental illness, manipulating or preying on her is not acceptable. Leave her the fuck alone and get your jollies elsewhere, like any decent human being would.””
I’m not going to tell men to ignore what may very well be the majority of the female populace in their given location.
I instead tell them to adapt. That can mean disengaging and just leaving many (or most) girls in a given location alone or intentionally making moves to up the notch count by adopting dysfunctional behavior (read: becoming what could be considered by many to be “a douchebag”). That’s up to them.
@Fibinachi:
“Trying to pretend you don’t mean it when it’s what you wrote is… Inconsistent. I think you’re failing your congruence test. ”
Frankly, I’m not seeing the incongruence, so perhaps you can break it down for me.
I said that self-improvement is important and that men cannot expect to gain attractive women merely by virtue of being male. I then went on to say that even if you do everything right according to the whole self-improvement mantra and are, objectively, on point, you will occasionally run into individuals who will blow you out for irrational reasons due to their own issues and no fault of your own. Chalk those losses up to the game and move on, but expect them to happen and don’t take them personally.
What is the issue here?
“Now, sure. You can come here and tell us: “Oh, when I wrote that, what I meant by “adapt” was “Not interact with people like that”. ”
Not what I’m saying. What I’m actually telling you is that the word “adapt” can imply more than one action. Disengagement is one example of a possible adaptation. The adoption of dysfunctional behavior with the intent to increase one’s “notch count” is another.
What I challenged was the notion presented by the post on which we are now commenting which claimed that I believed “adaptation” necessarily meant exploitation. There are other ways to adapt, which this post did not include. I felt it reasonable to explain that.
“… But come now. Is the conclusion to your 5 point method of understanding what american female mental issues mean for you really going to be: “It means don’t interact with women, that’s how you adapt”.
Dude.
Come on.”
For some men, yes, it means limiting their interaction with women (not necessarily all of them, but many of them) for at least some significant period of time (or for good, in extreme cases). That’s basically an MGTOW philosophy and plenty of folks in the manosphere (including ROK) abide by it.
“You might as well say it as you think it is, instead of pretending you’re being more sophisticated than you are.”
The argument I’m presenting here is not particularly sophisticated or disingenuous. I don’t see the need for much confusion.
you, Macginnis, are full of shite. Instead of coming around here trying to be all mealy-mouthed and pretending to be a decent human being, own that shite. ‘Cos we can see right through your specious arguments and semantic nit-picking. You are a shite-bag.
@Dvarg
Every day people love other people when it would be totally in their best interests not to. But they love them anyway, because you can’t just turn love off. WOuld you stop loving your husband if he died, or was put into a coma by an accident? If you wouldn’t, then that love is irrational. But it’s that irrationality is what makes emotions so valuable.
Yes, some jerks will say being irrational is bad, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t right about the irrational part. I mean, there have been studies done that show that most people are irrational most of the time. And at least 1 case study done on a guy who lost the emotional part of his brain. He was incapable of making even the smallest decision – not even what colour pen to use.
Kim – speaking of people with brain damage, did you see “The Secret World of Dogs” the other night? The part about the Falklands War vet who had brain damage much like that, and whose healing was started by a dog (an assistance dog with an attitude problem, no less!) was amazing.
Say, d’you think APhony McSkeeverson is trying the famous PUA gaslighting on us? “I didn’t say this, I said that!”
‘Course, if he is, he’s overlooking that it doesn’t work when we can, y’know, scroll up the page and see what he wrote.
Dude, you don’t open with a teal deer. What kind of pick-up artist does something that stupid?
(Answer – most of them, apparently.)
That what you said was:
because
Pretending that what you were actually saying is “Hey, sometimes you get rejected!” is all well and good.
But what you said was “Hey, sometimes you get rejected because bitches be crazy so don’t care about those irrational folk!“. Your nicely reworded redirection comes afterwards, now you’re covering up your initial blanket statement of “Possibly 50 % of women I’m interested in are insane, so it’s okay for me to treat them in a dysfunctional manner!”.
It’s still incongruent and inconsistent, because your goals move based on what people here say.
Aren’t you supposed to have godly frame control and steadfast opinion?
So how about writing what you mean, instead of what you could mean if words might have meant something else given the variability of open ended circumstances and really, what you mean isn’t what I assumed and anyway, adapt can mean a lot of things! See! It doesn’t have to be being abusive, it could also mean not talking to women!
Yes yes, all well and good. And I could actually be a ferret in a suit, hypothetically, in another universe. Doesn’t mean much in this one. q:
Don’t worry, shiteater. We’re not confused in the least.
I see that you aren’t actually arguing against exploiting mentally-ill women, you just see it as an alternative means of adaption.
Hmmm…nope, you’re still awful.