Categories
ableism creepy evil sexy ladies excusing abuse men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny not-quite-plausible deniability PUA rhymes with roosh

Pickup artist: Women are crazy, so it’s in your best interest to treat them badly

She's not interested? Obviously she's nuts!
She’s not interested? Obviously she’s nuts!

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.

395 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cloudiah
11 years ago

Well, at least he acknowledged he’s a douche, which is to say at best useless to and at worst harmful to anyone who has a vagina. These dudes aren’t normally so honest.

Shaenon
11 years ago

“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.

Not only are these crappy things to do to anyone, much less someone you believe has a mental illness, most of them seem counterproductive to the stated PUA goal of having lots of sex with the ladies. As soon as you become known as the guy who treats women like shit after they sleep with him, women who are up for casual sex are going to avoid you like the plague. A virgin/whore complex is not attractive.

It kind of sounds like you don’t want to have sex at all, but are just looking for ways to be crummy to women and brag about it to other guys. A lot of PUA stuff comes off like that. It’s very odd and sad.

sarahlizhousespouse
11 years ago

“I’m far too large of a ‘sexist’ to be considered anything but ‘awful’ in the liberal western context.”

Yes, the “Liberal Western Context” is the problem, not your antisocial, predatory behaviors.

Look slick, I’ve dealt with addicts and sociopaths. Rationalizing immoral behavior doesn’t fly with me. If societal norms of decency are sticking in your craw… you’re the problem, not society.

sarahlizhousespouse
11 years ago

Besides, you advocate for “adaptation”. Who gives a damn if you don’t like the context? Adapt to it or fuck off.

Shaenon
11 years ago

Well, at least he acknowledged he’s a douche, which is to say at best useless to and at worst harmful to anyone who has a vagina. These dudes aren’t normally so honest.

I know. Usually they’re all, “I’m not a misogynist! I just think women are awful in every conceivable way! Stop calling me names!”

That said, I can’t say I think much of people who brag about what assholes they are. There is, believe it or not, a third option where you just stop acting horrible.

Alice
Alice
11 years ago

“Men being turned on by a woman is not a disability.”

This.

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
11 years ago

@Thread:
Hey, you said everything I was going to say! Unfair, now I can only sound like I’m repeating the good words of wiser people q:

Yes, the “Liberal Western Context” is the problem, not your antisocial, predatory behaviors.

Look slick, I’ve dealt with addicts and sociopaths. Rationalizing immoral behavior doesn’t fly with me. If societal norms of decency are sticking in your craw… you’re the problem, not society.

This is an important little thing. Anyway:

Where did I pretend not to say that? This is what I’m not understanding.

I said in my original post that self-improvement was important but that you will encounter individuals for whom even all the right moves will be wrong and you need to deal with that.
It was clearly implied in that post that some of those failures will be due to mental issues among those you are approaching. At what point in time did I imply otherwise here?

What I’ve been saying this entire time is “hey, sometimes you get rejected and yes, sometimes that is because you’ll run into people who aren’t thinking straight”. Where did that change? Where is the “redirection”?

Where we to ever meet, you and I, people walking on our ways in the world, it may be that I would offer to buy you a drink. Having offered this drink at some local beverage dispenser that you’d no doubt know about thanks to your geographic knowledge, it’s possible I’ll buy you a beer.

It’s also possible I’ll hand you a mug full of scorpions and, with a wink, insist that that’s definitively beer (A brand I call “Sting”).

I could slip you a cup of liquid tungsten, if I had somehow managed to acquire some.

Obviously, I would feel guilty if I gave you a cup full of scorpions and you drank it and got stung by the Sting, but then I’d realize that…. Technically, I just gave it to you. You obviously choose to drink the fucking scorpions (Very alpha, that). So there’s no point in feeling guilt if you drink the cup of scorpions I give you.

But of course, it’s just as possible I’ll get you a beer! I mean, that option exists. I wouldn’t say it’s not possible that I could give you a beer. I’d leave that up to myself at the time. But if I gave you any scorpoins, well, shit, dems the way the dice falls.

This is what you’re writing.

It doens’t work like that. You don’t choose to engage in dysfunctional behaviour because your current target of it is an easier target.

And also, people have been hammering on college hook up culture and the dreadful ways it demolishes monogamous relationships because women are only looking to hook up for, like, 80 years.

It’s not that alpha to go “I act like a douchebag because I’m allowed to! If they stood up to me, I wouldn’t…”

Howard Bannister
11 years ago

Fibinachi, have I mentioned recently that I find your long-form deconstructions to be incisive, insightful, and to cut the trolls so deeply but subtly that they don’t even realize they’ve been destroyed?

<3

grumpycatisagirl
11 years ago

I was in the western liberal context once. I was awful

neuroticbeagle
11 years ago

@grumpycatisagirl

I was awful or It was awful? Either way Lol.

Ally S
11 years ago

Fibinachi, have I mentioned recently that I find your long-form deconstructions to be incisive, insightful, and to cut the trolls so deeply but subtly that they don’t even realize they’ve been destroyed?

<3

Seconding Howard! ^_^

Viscaria
Viscaria
11 years ago

People in this thread have said so many awesome things. I am particularly find of this:

Besides, you advocate for “adaptation”. Who gives a damn if you don’t like the context? Adapt to it or fuck off.

And also this:

That said, I can’t say I think much of people who brag about what assholes they are. There is, believe it or not, a third option where you just stop acting horrible.

kittehserf
11 years ago

Funny, isn’t it, with PUAs and MRAS. One minute, men being attracted to women is totes natural, in fact such an overwhelming force of nature that it’s evil and castrating and the end of civilisation if anyone (especially the woman involved) tries to prevent him getting his dick wet when and how he wants.

Next minute, men being attracted to women is a disability of some sort.

Seems to me our current troll thinks people liking, caring about or – gasp – loving each other, is the disability. Which says a whole lot about him.

kiki
kiki
11 years ago

you will encounter individuals for whom even all the right moves will be wrong

Tell me, given that the ‘moves’ presumably failed – ie, were ‘wrong’ – in what respect were they the ‘right’ moves?

Awesome logic, dude.

Athlone McGinnis
Athlone McGinnis
11 years ago

@Howard Bannister:
“Well, just go on congratulating yourself for your hateful poison, asshole.”

OK.

@auggziliary:
“Except you advocated “dysfunctional behavior” since mentally ill people “welcome” it.
When you get rejected, yeah it sucks, but you’re not saying just that. You’re telling men to treat mentally ill women like shit because they’ll take it due to their illness. No where did you say “leave those women alone”. ”

Yes, I said “adapt”. Adapt can mean turn up the dysfunctional behavior or it can mean disengage. The choice was left open intentionally.

“Fibinachi literally just pointed that out. It’s OK to say people will reject you. But it’s not OK to say women will reject you because they’re “crazy””

So it is not OK to point out the very obvious fact that some people have issues of their own and that these issues may impact the way they react to certain suitors at any given time (ex: maybe someone is having a bad day because of one of these issues in particular), thus potentially impacting said suitors’ chance of making a successful approach?

OK.

“I’m pretty sure calling the mentally ill “irrational”, only referring to womens’ mental issues as if only women can be “irrational”, and advocating using people’s disabilities to your advantage is awful for most cultures.”

Most cultures maintain far less concern with women’s mental health (and mental health in general) than the west. This is one of many areas in which the west is very far ahead of the rest of the planet.

“Women cannot help being attractive, so how is this manipulation?”

Being attractive in and of itself is not the manipulation.

“How do you know women are aware of their “manipulation”?”

Let me put it this way.

There are many attractive women who are very aware of the fact that they have many interested men around them. They know who these men are and they recognize that, at any given time, these men would love to enter some sort of relationship with them.

Many women in this position, when faced with the very obvious signals/approaches they get from these men, will communicate with them openly and honestly. They will tell these men that they are not interested in anything romantic and that they wish simply to remain friendly. They make it very clear to these men that they will not have a chance to establish anything romantic with them.

This is not manipulative, it is open and honest. Some of these men get butthurt and angry about having been placed in the “friend zone” because of this, but that is not down to the woman’s behavior as she has done all she reasonably can.

Now, there are other women in this position who have similarly large numbers of suitors. Unlike the first example, however, they make no attempt to communicate honestly their feelings to these men when the romantic intent they have is made clear. Instead of telling these men clearly that they’re not interested in anything, they string them along, giving them just enough to create the impression of a possible romance down the line but pulling away repeatedly as well. This keeps the men in her orbit (providing validation, doing favors, serving as “emotional tampons”, etc, etc).

She knows that many of these men who are attracted to her would be unavailable (or significantly less frequently available) to do all of these things if it were made very clear to them by her that nothing romantic was possible. Some would stick around and try to “weasel” their way into her romantic orbit by pretending that they are ok being “friends”, but many others would simply respect her wishes and move on, often to another potential romantic interest (they would not wish to remain “best friends” with someone they have strong feelings for and would probably not be in touch as often). She does not want them to go, hence the stringing along.

This is manipulative and dishonest, and it is not uncommon.

“None of those things you listed as “dysfunctional behavior”, except for the last one.”

Well, then I suppose this is an issue of semantics, then. When I talked about “dysfunctional behavior”, those were the issues I was referring to. I do consider them “dysfunctional”, but perhaps they do not fit whatever textbook definition of that word that you are using. Maybe next time I’ll just choose a different word.

“You basically compiled a list that should be titled “how to stay a virgin forever and also be hated by everyone”.”

If you think that men who engage in all of those behaviors remain “virgins forever”, then I have some oceanfront property in Botswana to sell to you.
Plenty of men my age engage in all of the above and manage to a) lose their virginity and b) find plenty of respect/admiration among their peers. It really is quite common-this is the modern college hook-up culture in a nutshell.

“You sound like you’ve never interacted with a woman, let alone even had a relationship with one.”

Wrong on all counts.

“The people I know don’t have to go through all these awkward schemes to find a partner, or have a one night stand.”

Many of the people I know DO have to deal with the dynamics I wrote about in my posts here and in the NYTimes article I linked to earlier. These things that you call ‘awkward schemes’ are merely facts of life for them, so heavily internalized that they are displayed almost without thought.

So, whose experience is more valid? Mine or yours?

@sarahlizhousespouse:

“Besides, you advocate for “adaptation”. Who gives a damn if you don’t like the context? Adapt to it or fuck off.”

That’s what I’m advocating for, but apparently that too is problematic. Guess you can’t win!

@Fibinachi:
“And also, people have been hammering on college hook up culture and the dreadful ways it demolishes monogamous relationships because women are only looking to hook up for, like, 80 years.”

Really? I was fairly certain that the college hookup culture as we know it has only really existed for about half that time. Odd, that.

Listen, I’m not saying that talk about the hook-up culture in general is new and unprecedented. However, let us please not pretend that every dynamic I speak about here has 30-40 years of direct precedent.

Modern gender roles have shifted to a place they’ve really never been before as far as the options they allow to women. Dating is significantly less common among our generation than it was among our parents, as is marriage. A lot has changed in the last 10-20 years, meaning that the modern hook-up culture (and the implications that come with it) has some unique traits that should be discussed. Let’s not pretend that this is not the case.

Viscaria
Viscaria
11 years ago

McGinnis, you certainly like to talk a lot about what women know and what our internal motivations are. I am wondering if you teach some sort of mind-reading course that I can attend, as I think it will make a cool party trick.

Athlone McGinnis
Athlone McGinnis
11 years ago

@Kittehserf:
“Funny, isn’t it, with PUAs and MRAS. One minute, men being attracted to women is totes natural, in fact such an overwhelming force of nature that it’s evil and castrating and the end of civilisation if anyone (especially the woman involved) tries to prevent him getting his dick wet when and how he wants.

Next minute, men being attracted to women is a disability of some sort.”

Wow. I’m not sure anyone could have managed to create a more inaccurate representation of my argument than that. Well done.

“Seems to me our current troll thinks people liking, caring about or – gasp – loving each other, is the disability. Which says a whole lot about him.”

No, not really.

@kiki:
“Tell me, given that the ‘moves’ presumably failed – ie, were ‘wrong’ – in what respect were they the ‘right’ moves?

Awesome logic, dude.”

Interesting. Let’s use a hypothetical to flesh this out more.

Let’s say we have a football quarterback. He is dropping back to make a pass on a passing play. His receiver all run their routes, and the defense gets into their coverage.
He reads the defenses coverage and positioning. he determines (from years of experience and practice) precisely where he should go with the ball. He makes the pass to the intended receiver. It is placed exactly where it needs to be and is pinpoint accurate.

The receiver drops the ball. The play “failed”.

The QB did all that he needed to do on this play. He read the coverage correctly. He made the right choice based on that coverage. He made the perfect pass needed to get through that coverage…

…but he failed, because his receiver (for whatever reason-perhaps he’s nervous, perhaps he’s hurt, perhaps he’s got something else on his mind) could not catch the pass.

Did the QB make the “wrong” move?

TL;DR: Is it logically possible to make what are objectively the “right” moves and still not see the preferred result?

Athlone McGinnis
Athlone McGinnis
11 years ago

“McGinnis, you certainly like to talk a lot about what women know and what our internal motivations are. I am wondering if you teach some sort of mind-reading course that I can attend, as I think it will make a cool party trick.”

You and your friends here like to talk a lot about what men at sites like ROK know and what their internal motivations and backgrounds are. Plenty of speculation has been offered within this thread to precisely those ends, regarding myself and others who frequent sites like ROK. None of you know me or any of those men personally, so should you teach a mind-reading course that I can attend? I too could use a few new party tricks.

I do not need to be a mind-reader to know that manipulative and/or dishonest women exist This isn’t rocket science and what I’m saying isn’t that profound, unrealistic or unheard of. Stop pretending that it is.

Alice
Alice
11 years ago

@Viscaria

Athlone totes knows what women think, are, and want. Hot women, anyways. Which means we don’t count because we are all fat/old/slutty/hideous/cat ridden hags past our prime (and by prime I mean aged 25). Or at least we must be those things if we are feminists on Manboobz. So our experiences as women don’t really count.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

McGinnis, that’s a lot of words to justify your means to getting your dick wet. And for the love of little green apples, why call it a relationship? PUA is “pussy-begging” for a one-night stand, all dressed up in silly hats and manipulation.

God, why are these dudes so fucking verbose? I guess they think if they type a lot, no one will see that the emperor is not only nekkid, but morally bankrupt.

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
11 years ago

Modern gender roles have shifted to a place they’ve really never been before as far as the options they allow to women. Dating is significantly less common among our generation than it was among our parents, as is marriage. A lot has changed in the last 10-20 years, meaning that the modern hook-up culture (and the implications that come with it) has some unique traits that should be discussed. Let’s not pretend that this is not the case.

Definitively!

So when do we stop pretending that phrases like “The options they allow to women” and the need for “Dysfunctional behaviour” is a natural part of this “hook up culture” that has so radically changed many things?

The Times have posted an article about how young men and women are not getting married, not dating but are hooking up about once every 2 or 3 years for the last 80-90 years.

No, really

You’re absolutely right in stating that many things are different today and that dating is significantly less common among some segment of the population (and signficantly common among others). And a lot has changed in the last 10-20 years.

A lot always changed in 1 or 2 decades. It’s a lot of time, and the world moves quickly.

What really gets my proverbial goat going is that I, as a young college aged man (Hi. You’re probably older than me), has to somehow also accept “unique traits that should be discussed”, when those unique fucking traits are, without fail, without fault and without any divergence from the same old plot, always going to be:

A) “Some women abuse people around them by manipulation, and that means its only fair for me to do the same to everyone

B) “Women have way more options in todays dating market, on account of FeminiFacePhonism, and that means I have to act like an asshole to get laid”

C) “They’re crazed and dysfunctional anyway, so be making everything worse isn’t being shitty, it’s merely adapting to the environment.

Sir.
Modern gender roles have shifted to a place they’ve never really been before as far as the options they allow human beings. Homo sapiens sapiens have set foot on the moon and established, by virtue of luck and explosions, a semi permanent orbital fixture. I can write this missive to you, and it will be transported over an entire world, and then, using harnessed electrons and light deciphered into a format you can read.

A lot has changed in the last 10-20 years, meaning that modern culture (And the implications that come with it) has some unique traits that really should be discussed. Let’s not pretend this is not the case.

And let’s neither pretend that “Discussing it” merits something as strange as anyone having to accept [

This is manipulative and dishonest, and it is not uncommon.

]
you directling stating that a group of behaviours is manipulative and dishonest also somehow means you get to treat dysfunctional people in a dysfunctional way.

Or that, by virtue of some conniving slippery reasoning, are allowed to just be a general sleaze to anyone else. You even bloody say that specifically women who string someone along and abuse them are being manipulative and dishonest, and yet, yet, YET; your persist in this curious delusion that that somehow allows you to do the same, engage in behaviours likewise, give a tit for a tat as if “Hah, we all know some bitches do it first, so now I’ll do it harder, better, more, because my negs are better than hers” is somehow anything approaching a couragous and noble stand against the vile feminist craziness of the world.

It ain’t.

It really, really ain’t.

But I’m all in favor of people hooking up. Go right ahead. Enjoy yourself.
Just… try to avoid doing it while making the world a worse place by tricks ill and low? Especially when you readily admit those aren’t even neccesary.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

and what I’m saying isn’t that profound

No shit, so go somewhere else and say it.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Although part of me hopes he keeps going, because I have some new makeup recommendations.

Viscaria
Viscaria
11 years ago

@McGinnis, I actually can’t say much about your internal motivations! I can talk about the things that you’ve said, though, and how they make you a total asshole. Like all the seriously fucked-up things you’ve said about women like me! And how, while you claim you are not outright advocating treating mentally ill women badly in order to have more partnered orgasms, you have stated that you don’t see anything morally wrong with doing so! Exclamation points!!

@Alice, hah, I know right?

Fibinachi
Fibinachi
11 years ago

AND ONE MORE THING, was raged at the bar, way past the time anyone of a decet mind had long since left for other places.

Interesting. Let’s use a hypothetical to flesh this out more.

Let’s say we have a football quarterback. He is dropping back to make a pass on a passing play. His receiver all run their routes, and the defense gets into their coverage.
He reads the defenses coverage and positioning. he determines (from years of experience and practice) precisely where he should go with the ball. He makes the pass to the intended receiver. It is placed exactly where it needs to be and is pinpoint accurate.

The receiver drops the ball. The play “failed”.

The QB did all that he needed to do on this play. He read the coverage correctly. He made the right choice based on that coverage. He made the perfect pass needed to get through that coverage…

…but he failed, because his receiver (for whatever reason-perhaps he’s nervous, perhaps he’s hurt, perhaps he’s got something else on his mind) could not catch the pass.

Did the QB make the “wrong” move?</blockquote

Your hypothetical is so flawed I can't even being to properly parse it.

The QB reads the coverage, makes the pass, vectors inbound, sees positioning and the reciever drops it… because if the QB was trying to nail the hot reciever, said QB should have been analysing the reciever all this time.

If I’m in a bar (as I sometimes am) and I’m looking for people to meet (On those days I don’t hate the world), I don’t spend three minutes scanning the walls and the plants and the angle of the lights in order to find out if I can go talk to someone about the thing they’re doing.

I look at them.

You.. IN… You.. But I? The? How? HOW? In one perfect, neat analogy you’ve made every single thing so crystal clear that its like a shining beacon of understanding ramrod straight through your entire philosophy.

Your concept of getting a good play going between partners is that you throw a ball (A sex-ball, if you will) and someone else has to grab it and pick it up?

Sex is this thing you pass to other people and hope they catch correctly, with all the pressures they have, because you’ve made sure that their schedule was clear that day, that the weather was great and that the DOW index rose three points? I mean, if they drop the sexball then, it’s really their damn fault… you checked the weather forecasts and looked at the angle of the paintings in the room

Mate, while the QB is in the zone passing sexballs to through the defensive positionining of cockblockers and orbiters, the reciever is occupied having a dialogue with some cute cheerleader from the other team

I think my analogy sort of collapsed in on itself there.

Just… No. Sex isn’t a ball pass, your partners aren’t recievers and they can’t fumble the ball. They’re not targets you throw things at and hope they pick it up right, pre-supposing they had a clear shot, becasue the defense was gone.

Although I like the implicit idea that both people in this case are on the same team and looking to.. score… a touchdown.. with the .. ball they pass between each other.
That’s maybe the only part of your hypothethical that’s true about sexual relationships. It is more fun if you get each other off q:

—-

SIdenote, I’m out of caffiene. So ends my long sojourn of lengthy posts this time. THIS TIME.

1 5 6 7 8 9 16