Pickup artists, classy fellows that they are, are using Elliot Rodger’s killing rampage as a marketing ploy. In the comments to one of Rodger’s videos on YouTube, a company called Strategic Dating Coach offered their solution to prevent similar shootings in the future: send disturbed young men who can’t get dates to one of their coaching sessions!
While this response to Rodger’s mass killing is uniquely crass, the argument that “Game saves lives” is hardly new. To PUAs like Heartiste and Roosh Valizadeh it’s practically an article of faith.
In the wake of George Sodini’s murderous shooting spree in a Pennsylvania gym in 2009, Heartiste (then known as Roissy) wrote
If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.
The fact that Sodini had in fact imbibed in the alleged wisdom of pickup artistry, going so far as attending a pricey seminar from old-school pickup guru R. Don Steele, a self-proclaimed expert on dating young women, didn’t lead any in the pickup community to reconsider this position.
Nor has it this time. It is clear that Elliot Rodger was steeped in “red pill” thinking about women. And while he wasn’t himself a PUA, he was certainly aware of the basics of “Game.” Indeed, he subscribed to a number of PUA channels on YouTube and was a regular commenter on PUAhate, a sleazy forum devoted to criticizing “game,” not because it is manipulative and misogynistic but because it doesn’t work.
On the Roosh V forum earlier today, Roosh acknowledged that Rodger knew at least a little about “red pill” ideology – noting that Rodger referred to himself as an”alpha” – but still went ahead and argued that Game was the solution to massacres like this:
He is self-delusional and massively entitled, but exposing him to game may have saved lives.
In a followup comment, Roosh expressed his concerns for the real victims of this tragedy – Pickup artists:
I’m trying to think of ways our enemies will come after us because of this, but if anything, we’re the solution to this sort of murder rampage. This is the society that progressives wanted, where women are fully able to choose the top 10% of alpha males while shaming masculinity, leaving beta males with modest resources in the dust. Of course they will simply push a ban on guns, but this wholly neglects the cause. Seven people died because this guy couldn’t get laid … .
Other commenters were quick to agree. According to someone known as Moma,
Roosh has a very valid point. This will continue to replay over and over again. As human beings, our wiring is very basic yet primal. …
When have you last heard of a porn star shooting up a place? How many have emptied their balls in a hot lizard and then felt the urge to go and smoke 50 strangers?
According to Samseau, the problem wasn’t that Rodger hadn’t heard the Game Gospel; the problem was that he had rejected his salvation:
He knew about Game. If he had an account on PUAHATE then he knew about game. He was just a denialist. There was no helping this dude.
Roosh seconded this bit of wisdom, seeing it as clear evidence that “game denialism kills.”
Michelin, for his part, hoped that PUAs would be able to use the massacre as a publicity bonanza and a great “told you so” to all the haters.
One should write a mainstream article about this case. The argument that game could have saved lives can be an eye-opener and a smash in the face to haters of game.
Tuthmosis, the man best known for a Return of Kings post on the “5 Reasons to Date a Girl With An Eating Disorder,” reported his joy that PUAhate was getting bad press:
Seeing your enemies fall is a delicious treat you only get to taste a few times in your life. I’m savoring this delicacy with a cup of freshly brewed coffee. It’s a shame real people had to lose their lives, but I can’t help but think this will discredit a horrible website, PUAHate–and a way of thinking–that could have harmed even more men and innocent people. Beta losers will never go away, but this will wake up a few men and, more importantly, scare others.
Zelcorpion blamed “girls” and MGTOWers for giving Rodgers bad dating advice:
I bet a few girls told him that he only needs to be himself, be nice, be a gentleman, have a nice car, looks etc. – only to realize that it mattered shit. Instead of learning from the PUA-community he chose to listen to PUAhaters and some of the anti-female comments of the MGTOWs who themselves are often refusing to accept Game or even basic concepts like Alpha/Beta. I think that problem will become way worse, since hypergamy and promiscuity will only increase and most men will be left in the sexual wasteland.
But it took a relative newcomer to the forum by the handle of thedavidgt to raise the obvious logical objection to the Game-for-everybody solution to incel rage:
If every sexless beta in the world took it upon himself to learn game, approach girls, lift, dress well etc, would it not simply feed women’s egos and entitlement? So instead of occasionally getting awkwardly hit on by skinny fat, poor-dressed chumps, the average 7 would then be approached several times a day by extremely high value men. We’ll have a society of men working to improve themselves for women who will get lazier and lazier while at the same time demanding more and more.
In fact, the “Game saves lives” mantra is dead wrong, but not for this reason. First of all, there is no clear evidence that “game,” per se, works, except insofar as it encourages men to pursue large numbers of women and numb them to the pain of rejection. It’s possible that a few of the conversational ploys invented by various PUAs may work better than having no conversational ploys at all. But there are no magic cheat codes to “getting with women.”
There is one more disturbing way in which “game” may increase “success” with women for unscrupulous men: many of the standard techniques of “game”– invading a woman’s personal space, touching her repeatedly, trying to “isolate” her from her friends – may serve as “tests” to find women who are less likely to resist violations of their boundaries. In this way, “game” may serve as a quite effective enabler of date rape. Indeed Roosh himself has admitted to raping a date too drunk to consent.
So how much of a solution is training a guy who is already filled with a toxic mixture of entitlement and self-loathing (yes, these strange bedfellows do often go together) in some techniques that might help him to tamp down his insecurities enough to manipulate some willing or not-so-willing women into bed?
You might have simply turned a mass killer into a serial rapist, or possibly a serial killer. Ted Bundy was quite the charmer. Somehow this didn’t make him a decent human being.
Even if “game” were the beneficient form of “self-improvement” that some of its proponents like to claim it is, teaching Rodger how to be a better dater would not make him a better person. Would having a girlfriend solve all his problems? Hardly. Relationships require patience and compromise and mutual respect, and Rodger seems to have had none of these qualities. Instead of directing his narcissistic rage at “girls” at large, he would likely have ended up abusing a string of girlfriends.
The problem wasn’t Rodger’s lack of “Game.” It was his lack of humanity.
I don’t know why I copied this part rather than any other of that comment, (kittehserf?) but I had a bit of an Aha! moment.
All this stuff about blokes, Rodger being the extreme example, expecting the absolutely perfect woman to just drop into their lives out of nowhere reminds me of …
… all those people telling girls and women that they shouldn’t sit around and wait for a knight in shining armour to find their front door at random and whisk them off to happily ever after without any thought or effort on their own part.
Of course, at the time it was directed at young women who “needed” to find a husband before they got too old and were ‘left on the shelf’. This kind of advice has declined as people have gained some sense and decided that women are better off with proper education, worthwhile skills and job prospects other than lifetime unpaid housekeeper and childminder.
But the tone is much the same in this dreck directed at men. The only difference is in the ultimate intentions. For women then it was to marry early, marry well and stay married. For men it is now to get sex, get it easily, get it often, get it from as many women as possible.
In both cases, people can fantasise about getting all this wonderful bounty from life without making themselves into a desirable or worthwhile partner (short or long-term) in the first place and then get disheartened, resentful or violent when life doesn’t give them what they’ve done nothing to get.
Crikey, Johnny, so much wrong in one post.
I especially liked this: “If you pick and chose who you show your humanity towards then you’re not all that different from these hate filled people.”
I’m having a hard time distinguishing this from “If you (women I find attractive) pick and choose who you want to sleep with, and it’s not me, then you are committing an injustice, a crime, for which I will kill you” – which was Rodger’s entire rationale for his murderous hatred.
You will note perhaps that none of us actually knew the guy IRL, nor (as far as I know) did we have any dealings with him online.
Had we, we would no doubt have “shown our humanity” to him, though not as you seem to imply by giving him a pass and telling him he was wonderful and deserved those “hot blonde women” he believed he should have.
“Showing humanity” certainly includes arguing with people, disagreeing with them, laying out if you feel that something they have said or done is morally despicable or way out of line.
And, yeah, if you think people here don’t care for sick people or what you so charmingly refer to as “deranged people” you really haven’t been following.
I’m pretty sick myself (cancer) and have found nothing but decency here, barring a few trolls.
“I’m pretty sick myself (cancer) and have found nothing but decency here, barring a few trolls.”
bluecat. I think you missed my point. It’s easy to show humanity towards a cancer patient, and I wish you all the best, however, that wasn’t the kind of sickness I was talking about.
Someone who has a mental sickness, the kind that causes them to express hatred for one group or another is a lot more difficult.
If I came on here and made a bunch of angry comments about women, or some other group I doubt I’d get much compassion. I’d probably get a lot of hatred and mockery, and the people delivering it would feel morally superior and totally justified in it. You see it here in this blog directed at various different groups of people. I’ve seen comments that are absolutely wrong, but they are heartfelt. They found their way to justify it.
My point is that humanity is easy to show to someone that isn’t directly threatening towards something we believe in. It’s a lot more difficult to show humanity and compassion to people who are angry and hate filled, yet do they not need it?
If we are morally superior to these people that are so often reported as being full of hate and disgust like misogynists, racists, etc. then why is the response also hatred, disgust and other pejorative labels.
Wouldn’t the morally superior act be to stop using labels at all or tarring everyone with the same brush? Wouldn’t a morally superior person try to examine all aspects of a person? Just because “they” don’t seem to do it doesn’t really justify us doing it.
Wouldn’t the morally superior act be to look at this person and try to understand why they feel that way, what is missing in their lives, and how to bring it to them. I admit, that takes quite a bit of work. None of us are Jesus or Ghandi. It’s not all that easy for us, but wouldn’t it make sense to at least try a bit harder at it?
This thread is about a man who threatened and took women’s LIVES, yet you expect us to be compassionate toward them?
Do you expect PoC to be compassionate to the KKK?
NOTHING was missing in Rodgers’ life except his desire to have a woman as a trophy. He wasn’t even that interested in the sex.
When you talk about empathy or compassion, how about expecting it of the men who treat women as things, as fuckdolls, and treat us to their murderous rage when we act as the autonomous human beings we are?
Fuck you and your what about teh menz feels apologism. You’re demanding compassion for a mass murderer who was motivated entirely by misogyny, who wanted to kill most of the women on the planet in his precious revolution. Fuck off forever.
Kittehserf:
GGG’s current blog has the initials T.I.B.
I doubt it’s a coincidence.
“Wouldn’t the morally superior act be to stop using labels at all?”
Yeah, Johnny. How about you stop with the ableist shite ‘n’ onions there – about “sick people” – I see you meant mentally ill people – and “deranged people”? AAAAND the armchair diagnosis. Labels, much?
Seriously, we should have compassion for someone who not only expressed hatred for us, desired to kill us all, insisted we should have no rights to decide who we have sex with, proposed putting us into concentration camps… and then set out to kill us and any men we seemed to like more than him? Seriously?
And thank you for your good wishes (even if it was easy for you – would hate you to try something difficult).
But now stop apologising for misogynist mass murderers, OK?
Johnny
On the whole, showing compassion towards someone whose hate is backed up with a truck load of weapons is not a very successful survival strategy.
And if you really feel compassion then there are rather better places to direct it than here; I’m pretty sure that the families and friends of those who died are in need of emotional support, so why aren’t you providing it?
I appreciate that empathy is not your strong suit but even the most cloistered individual would have to grasp that the people who are suffering are finding their lives even harder, thanks to the slime balls intent on blaming everything and everyone for the murder of their loved ones, apart, of course, from the person who murdered their loved ones and was encouraged to do so by said slimeballs.
I appreciate that the term slimeballs may not be one you wish to associate with yourself but until you stop acting like one it’s likely to stick…
What a bunch of ridiculous douchebag lounge lizards.
No shit, Sherlock. And we’re supposed to feel bad about that?
Oh, sweetie, women have been told for hundreds of years that we’re supposed to be the compassionate, sympathetic, empathic ones, pouring soothing balm onto every unpleasant, angry, hostile piece of male shite that comes along. Well, fuck those gender straight jackets.
Sorry, poppet, you don’t get to pull that crap here. We see exactly what are you are trying to do. And you’re saying we’re the unjustifiably morally smug ones in this conversation? /snortle
Oh Ronnie… you have a fixation. It’s baffling. No one here said men are evil.
None of us think men and women shouldn’t flirt.
None of us think sex is bad, or people who like it are wrong.
What we do think is society sends very different messages to men and women about it, and the effects of that are toxic.
We also know that PUA is a culture which is predatory in nature, and evil at it’s core. You, for some reason, don’t see it that way.
On the flip side, you feel the need to tell us that women LOVE you. Sure they do. Why the need to boast of it? Why the need to tell us you have the ONE TRUE WAY, and we are nasty and hate men, just because we say the way of getting laid you tell us is so important*, is utter tripe, and abusive of women.
And it is abusive of them. Even if the individuals who use it aren’t (and most are), the idea that one can “find the right formula to make women want you” is inherently abusive, because it denies women agency. It says they aren’t able to make up their own minds, and that one can force them to desire sex.
That’s evil.
*I have no idea what to make of your weird thing about people being born. PUA has zip to do with people having babies. PUA is a Western, Primarily US thing. The US is 300 million people in a planet of more than 7 billion. In my lifetime the US has increased by less than 100 million, and the world has added more than 2 billion. It’s not that the rest of the world isn’t fucking, it’s that an entitled group is upset they aren’t getting to fuck whom they want; and a different group (like Roosh and Heartiste and the like) are preying on them.
@AM
So you think that Pecunium talking of how he ,like pretty much everyone else, has had moments when he thought of committing violence & chose not to (because, you know, it was wrong) is equal to Schweitzer actually attempting to murder his fiancee?
You’re reaching so hard, you’re going to strain something.
I’ve never really seen pecunium mansplain any of the women here. He’s made mistaken assumptions before and unintentionally said things that some people (rightfully) found objectionable, but I haven’t even seen him mansplain a female troll so far.
Nice straw Pecunium you’ve built there. Your Hugo analogy might work if a.) he’d actually done anything more than think about doing anything, and b.) if he were trying to be Boss Feminist like Hugo.
There’s nothing keeping you here, you know.
” he doesn’t seem to understand that “I love fucking women” is not the same thing as “I love women”
They aren’t the same thing, but they aren’t mutually exclusive either.
AM: So, Pecunium the mansplainer admits to daydreaming about murdering his ex, but still the clique just loves him. I’m getting shades of Schwizer here.
There is a difference… a big difference. I didn’t try to kill her. I knew what I was thinking was wrong.
Hugo decided the best (best!) course of action to deal with his depression was to kill her (and himself too). There is no parallel.
People have violent thoughts. That doesn’t make them evil. Acting on those thoughts is the important distinction.
johnny thinks a dispute over art = rage against all men. He brings that irrelevant detail against the continued history of lethal attacks on women.
What’s the matter son, don’t you have something more recent. We have Lepine, Sodoni, Rodger, the guy who killed a young woman for refusing to go to the prom with him. We have people who said, “I hate women” and then went to kill them.
You’ve got nothing.
If I came on here and made a bunch of angry comments about women, or some other group I doubt I’d get much compassion.
This guy threw drinnks at women who didn’t come up to him and say, “wow, you’re hot, wanna go out,” and then had the temerity to go out with men who did talk to them.
Nope, not gonna show a whole lot of compassion for him.
He had a friend who showed a lot of compassion for him. He ignored that friend, because that friend didn’t agree that women were evil.
As to the claim that you’d not get much compassion were you to come here and say things… I offer Mr. Al. He came here and got advice, compassion, the offer to meet in person. He got it even after he started to abuse people. He got it for more than a year. He created an alter-ego, who got much the same.
racnad got useful advice (which he ignored).
People here are compassionate to assholes. Not forever, but the amount of slack we give people who turn out to be recondite shitbirds is actually pretty generous.
If we are morally superior to these people that are so often reported as being full of hate and disgust like misogynists, racists, etc. then why is the response also hatred, disgust and other pejorative labels.
Because they are hateful and disgusting people.
Wouldn’t the morally superior act be to stop using labels at all or tarring everyone with the same brush? Wouldn’t a morally superior person try to examine all aspects of a person?
Depends on what you mean by “examine all aspects”. If you mean, weigh them in the balance and see if they are decent human beings, sure. If you mean, “look for one little scrap of decency to excuse their treatment/attitudes toward women”, no.
Wouldn’t the morally superior act be to look at this person and try to understand why they feel that way, what is missing in their lives, and how to bring it to them. I admit, that takes quite a bit of work. None of us are Jesus or Ghandi. It’s not all that easy for us, but wouldn’t it make sense to at least try a bit harder at it?
Ah, that is what you mean. The answer is no. We do try, but only so much. The onus isn’t on us. They are the one’s who have to change, and they don’t want to. People like you, with your, “Valerie Solanas was evil too” and “they just need understanding” make it a lot easier for them to not need to change.
I often think What Would Jesus Do? And I recall that he treated the money changers to the lash, chasing them out of the temple for their wicked ways.
titianblue:
“I went onto Amazon and search for “self help” in books and got a ton of books not aimed specifically at women. Also “self help relationships”. Also “self help dating”. Curiously, the first PUA book only turned up on the first page of that final search.”
Having been married for several years, I no longer follow the self-help dating segment closely, but I can tell you that in the early 1990s there were NO books aimed at men who have trouble dating women until Ross Jeffries came out with his. And it was self-published, which meant I had to get it mail-order.
I did the Amazon search, and it appears that most of the books are aimed at women, though you can’t really tell from the cover if a book is PUA or if it the advise is helpful to the young men we’re talking about.
#6 On my search is called “Having Sex with Strangers: A Men’s Guide to Online Dating” Sounds PAUish to me.
#9 is “Mastery with Women & Dating” by David DeAngelo, who I believe is considered a PUA but does not take a misogynist approach in what I’ve seen and read of him.
[CN: abuse]
Being hateful towards violent, cruel people is NOTHING like being a murderous racist and misogynist.
One of my abusers in my childhood was a very frightening racist, misogynistic white man. He would bring loaded firearms to the house and play around with them, try to force me to fight a kid I know for his own fucking amusement, make sexual comments about me that have scarred me so much that I’m terrified of sex, physically assault my sister and threaten her with murder to get what he wanted from her (and she was 16 and he was 25), and one time nearly beat my older brother to death.
And you’re telling me that my deep-seated hatred for people like him is exactly like being abusive, hateful, and bigoted? Fuck you.
“I often think What Would Jesus Do? And I recall that he treated the money changers to the lash, chasing them out of the temple for their wicked ways.”
I don’t recall the line in the Bible where someone asks Jesus a question and he responds “Fuck off you piece of shit and go away!”
Ugh, I’m so tired of this “become the thing you hate” trope! No! Ally is 100% right when she says
The discussion on the skeptic facebook page I saw has drifted to ‘yes but stereotyping is wrong’ (because it was noted that this is often perpetrated by white men), and to ‘feminists and anti-racists want to take all our jerbs! They want to become the thing they hate and enact retribution!’
I can’t help but wonder if that is because that is what they (need it be said? white men!) would do if they got half a chance.
Damn, this day! Fuck all of them.
@Michelle
I dig your leg hair tips. 😉 I had to stop shaving b/c it became to physically painful for me, too, and i used to hate it. Now I feel more comfy tho.
racnad
hmmm i wonder if that’s because it’s not a serious issue?
links plz
street harrassment = threatening creepy can escalate
being ignored by people who want to date = not going to harm you ever.
seriously what is it w/ you?
Also, there is no *reason* to harrass women from cars. There are reasons to ignore people who want to date you (like you dont know they do, youre not interested, they’re creepy, etc)
i’m not caught up yet but posting now b/c this is gonna get long if racnad keeps dropping his wrongness in this thread
Fuck you Johnny. You charged in here to tell us how wrong we were to be concerned with the male entitlement in our culture. You tried to make the case that this wasn’t an extreme result of the toxic stew of the manosphere. What you don’t even seem to realize because you are so willfully privilege blind is that you displayed the exact male entitlement that we’re so concerned about and you disbelieve exists.
Women are always expected, especially by misogynists like you to put the needs of men ahead our own and always make ourselves available to them at all times. You expected us to value our own sense of safety and comfort so little that we should coddle the fee-fees of a man who feels genocidal rage towards us.
That is male entitlement. Even as you try to distance yourself from this murderer, you take on the exact same attitude as him. That we exist to cater to the needs of men.
Fuck off and may you be trapped in a pit of centipedes.
@johnny
No, funnily enough, mental illness does not cause people to be violent. FFS
If you’re asking me to care for men who hate me, fuck you.
why should I give two fucks about guys who hate me? tell me that. So I can meet your standard of ‘humantiy’? Not interested. Fuck off.
Hey, johnny, I have a ‘mental sickness’ so how about you show some humanity towards me and stop acting like mental illnesses cause murder, k fuckhead?
Do you even know what context is? It’s their actions. There are systems of oppression. You can’t just say ‘oh, women hate men (who murder them!) it’s just as bad as men hating women’ because men hating women has a different affect. Men killing women, in this case.
yeah god forbid we use words to describe things better ditch all the labels.
why the fuck do you think I care what the ‘morally superior’ thing to do is?
So you want us to act like mommies to the men who hate us. FUck off.
@kittehs
Well, given johnny’s examples, I bet he would. *gag*
@titanblue
Gosh, one thought about murder, attempted murder, I can barely tell the difference! /sarcasm.
“Apart from anything else, lots of us are attracted to men. I personally would find it rather inconvenient if men as a group stopped being attracted to women. If they stopped being creeps about it, that would be awesome, but no men wanting to sleep with women at all? Nope, that would not suit me at all.”
Interesting. Here’s a funny video that illustrates the difference between creepy and sexy.
https://www.cloudy.ec/v/09b18e827769e
Sure, it’s a funny skit, but it’s also true. You want to have sex, but you want guys to not be creepy. The only guys that are creepy to women are the ones that make advances that the women don’t like. But the SAME advance can be made by a different guy who the woman thinks is sexy and all of a suddenly that guy is not creepy but sexy.
So the logic here is, only guys sexy to you should try to talk to you. The rest should just sit home and (as some other commenter brilliantly stated it) masturbate.
So this is less of an issue about how pickup is wrong and more of an issue of you wanting to ONLY have selection of males that turn you on. The rest be damned. Kinda selfish, don’t you think, that you would pretend you actually care about all this misogyny nonsense just because you want to live your life without the possibility of some “lesser” male DARING to have the audacity to talk to you and flirt with you? Oh, God forbid that men who you deem unworthy have desire for you. They must all be serial rapists, or want to murder you on some level. Of course the guy that you find sexy is amazing, hot and sex-worthy. There can’t possibly be a middle ground of just normal guys that you don’t find attractive… 😉
PS – I noticed in another comment you are using what many PUAs consider reframing. You seem to be trying to “frame” my comments as sad and angry as a way to discredit them. You’re using PICKUP tactics on me. So you must want to rape me or rape other guys. You are a closet rapist, by your own standards. Just saying.
“I’m sorry, I’m still in awe that ronnie thinks hetero males are being demonized for being attracted to women — based on an OP about a murderer who killed people. I mean, what’s going on here? Is lack of sex worth killing for? Is that’s ronnie’s conclusion? Is that why we seem so umsympathetic to him? That we think lack of sex isn’t a good reason to go on a kill rampage for?
There’s a little more going on than that. These guys could masterbate, which is good fun, or go to a sex worker, which would solve the lack of sex thing. The problem isn”t a lack of sex. These guys, Sodini/Rodger, embraced toxic notions of masculinity, that dictate they must have women who their peers want to fuck, that they must fuck A LOT in order to feel like a man — and if they don’t, they’re defective. Ronnie’s getting mad at the wrong people.”
Putting words in my mouth. More reframing. Pickup tactics. This Shiraz is trying to rape me. I’ve never been raped by wine before. Well, technically, unless you count 3 day hangovers as rape. Then yes, I have been raped by wine. But misogynistic wine would be a new one.
For the record, again, that murderer guy was part of PUA-HATE. He was not a pua. I didn’t even know of him till yesterday. I hear even puahate didn’t like/support him either so he wasn’t even part of the PUA or ANTI-PUA community. He was just a lonely kid who played victim instead of picking up his bootstraps and trying to better himself as a person, which to most of you here, would be damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.
Yes, I totally agree it was a bullshit thing to do, murder people. Murder is wrong no matter what the reason. But in this case many of you are saying, “He’s wrong for murdering, but if he tried to improve himself, teach himself a few social skills to try to connect with women, well then he’s a creepy, serial rapist wannabe so fuck him for that too.”
In other words, to me, despite all your rah-rahing and flag waving and creative coloring and labeling, what I REALLY see is crabs in a bucket. You want your cake, you want to have sex with desirable men, but the rest of them be damned, and fuck the rest of them if they want to try and improve. You go so far out of your way to do this, you even deliberately corrupt the .5% of information you have about the dating/pickup community just so you can try to force those you do not approve of as having no chance to succeed.
You want to keep pulling these guys down. “Oh well, he wants me but I don’t approve so he’s creepy. Oh well he is trying to find a way to improve himself socially and become more desirable with women, what a creepy rapist!! Oh well he can’t get women, so now he’s a fucking murderer!!! See ALL men, except the ones I think are sexy, are fucking creepy rapist wannabes!” And then you go back to reading your Cosmo article on 26 ways to make the man chase you.
“Yeah, Ronnie’s post was basically that rape by coercion is the default, the good thing we should be grateful for, or teh poor menz will be forced to use even more physically violent rape, or murder us.
And men like him wonder why women avoid them.”
You guys are all trying to rape me. This is more reframing pickup tactics. I feel so dirty right now just reading all your rapeyness towards me.
So, consensual sex is now “Rape by Coercion”. So your father courting your mother is Rape by Coercion. Women putting on make up, shaving their legs, putting on sexy outfits that highlight parts of their bodies like legs, shape, cleavage and then attracting males in this way is Rape by Coercion.
Any woman that has ever read an article in cosmo and tried the tactics therein are commiting rape by coercion. Any woman that has sat with her friend for hours and discussed men in their lives and traded advice about them with each other are participating in “rape by coercion.”
Again, many of you are so far removed from reality it’s not even funny. Men and women interacting is NORMAL. It is what makes the world go round (well not literally because I know at least one of you would probably comment on how I literally thought that “rape” was what caused the world to spin). So many of you have these Jaded ideologies.
But that doesn’t matter to you as long as you are getting the sexy men in your lives that you desire – the rest of the men can go back to their hovels in the world of the Morlocks to be creepy wannabe rapists as far as you’re concerned. And, if you’re not getting the men you want, then ALL of them are rapists.
Crabs in a bucket. This is simply shallow hypocrisy at it’s finest. Instead of educating yourselves on what you are talking about, you can make snap judgments, blanket statements, twist meanings, cherry pick – just as long as you get what you want at the end of the day. Because GOD FORBID someone who is not you, or does not meet your approval try to have success in their lives.
Also, a resounding chorus of fuck yous for Ronnie is in order.
Stop conflating PUA with healthy flirting and sex with enthusiastic consent.
Many (though by no means all) of us enjoy heterosexual PIV sex. That includes myself. Nobody is suggesting men aren’t allowed to be attracted to women.
Men can be attracted to and pursue women while still seeing us as human beings and treating us with respect. Men can and do have sex with women without manipulating or coercing women into it.
Also, stop assuming every woman goes to a club or bar because she is looking to meet people. Sometimes women go to dance, have a few drinks or spend time with friends. Not every woman in a club or bar is looking for a man. It’s fine to approach a woman, but you must respect it if she says no. A lot of men don’t respect nos in these situations because they wrongly assume women there are looking for a man and that isn’t necessarily the case. The presence of booze or a DJ does not give you license to stop acting respectfully.