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’m craving Girl Scout cookies so much right now. I need to maintain a steady diet of feminist cookies in order to keep my misandry levels optimal.
I wonder if the Boy Scouts will ever decide to sell “not all men” cookies. I’d bet they’d sell great.
Dibs on disappearing in a cloud of Tagalongs. Or Samoas, those are also acceptable.
Yes, Ronnie Libra, I agree. That is a very negative view to have about other people.
Perhaps you should do something about it.
Hi Fibinachi. What are your thoughts on this terrible influx of ableist abuse apologetic assholes?
The idea that only unattractive men are somehow creepy because we don’t want to fuck them can go die. It is their behaviour not their looks ffs. I don’t care how attractive you are if you’re trying to pressure me into something I don’t want to do that makes you creepy. And contrary to your bizzaro-world attractive men do get turned down for various reasons, not every woman is available or looking for a relationship (casual or otherwise) or even interested in men at all. It’s when a man doesn’t respect the choice of the woman they are pursuing that they become creepy (assuming their initial advance wasn’t already totally disturbing).
Wow. OK.
“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.”
Um, I don’t think you realize PUAs weren’t the victim here. Getting murdered isn’t the same thing as a PR fiasco, sluggo.
“…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.”
No one said socializing with the opposite gender is creepy, but nice try. You must be talking to some imaginary straw feminist instead of reading the posters here.
Then we all say this comming — because sooner or later, you guys start bitching about how women want to sleep with who they want to sleep with and waaaaah! No fair.
“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.”
That was the point, sluggo? He shot and stabbed people but OMG, what about the PUA movement, right? Jesus Christ, dude.
“You want to keep pulling these guys down.”
Meh, most of us would be happy just to avoid them.
Your train of thought throughout the following is hard to follow:
“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.”
I don’t get it, sluggo. Women are allowed to be put off by whatever puts them off. So are men. Um, you seem to have a problem with womens’ sexual agency, though. That’s icky. You’re also pretending that a stupid Cosmo article could result in predatory behavior — while pretending that women overpower men all the time. I dunno, whatever, dude. This isn’t a Cosmo crowd, you see. I’d say a good chuck of us think it’s a sexist rag.
Then you embarrassed yourself again, right here:
“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.”
Sluggo, if you want to whack off, feel free, but you don’t have to announce it.
Oh, and I suggest decaff coffee. Watch your sugar intake too.
Have a fine day,
Shiraz
racnad: ‘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!”’
Er, but, remember what eventually happens to Jesus in that particular set of stories, and ask yourself if that’s the example you really want to use as a template for interactions with possibly-violent people.
You may particularly want to consider that the overwhelming probability is that none of us are capable of coming back from the dead.
1. Not everyone here considers Jesus to be an important moral figure.
2. The issue isn’t asking questions; the issue is being an entitled asshole.
3. Fuck off, you piece of shit, and go away.
That wasn’t on the list of prepared questions. What is this, a hit-piece? You can’t quote me without my permiss.– uh. This thing is on? Ahaha I was only kidding.
Now, you see, the situation with the terrible influx of ableist trolls is that it’s a very complex situation with multiple factors that intertwine to produce a ongoing crisis of… Wait, no, sorry, that’s the political situation in Europe after this most recent election.
The trolls are just trolls. And bad ones. Just… straight up terrible ones.
I mean, really? *really* No one is arguing that, nor did anyone ever say that. Nor would anyone. Because obviously it’s rather odd. And wrong.
I mean, David did write this:
But to go from there to rape by coercion is a bit of a stretch.
I think i’ll let you field this one, Ally.
I’m baffled by a mindset that perceives mass murder as a PR problem. On second thoughts, for the people making money out of PUA then mass murder is a PR problem, hence the deluge of trolls desperate to defend their market share…
And rancid nads needs us to be the dewy-eyed Manic Dream Pixie Girls of his dreams. He’s way into policing our behavior.
He’s kind of like “You girls aren’t being very nice. Be my emotional buffer then perform fellatio on me, OK? Oh! And make me your hero while nuturing me along the way! What? You don’t want to teach me to be a grown-up who can get laid? You’re bitches.”
Exhausting.
As a newbie, may I enquire whether rancid is always like this? Only I’m good with defenestrating trolls, but I’m not sure whether I can cope with people talking about Jesus at me…
Nobody has ever said that making oneself attractive is coercive rape you fuckwit. We’re talking about the coercive tactics like encouraging women to drink copious amounts of alcohol so she doesn’t have control over what she doing, we’re talking about the tactic of invading a woman’s space, we’re talking about not respecting the initial no and wearing down resistance until she gives in out of guilt and fear.
If enthusiastic consent is what you’re looking for, no manipulation is necessary. No coercion is necessary.
Wtf? This is disgusting. Criticizing PUA is not in any way shape or form like rape. You are truly despicable.
So, you have a problem with the notion of women only having sex with men* we desire? You claim PUA isn’t about coercion and manipulation but this statement reveals otherwise.
* Yes, this comment is heteronormative as hell, but misogynist manospherians like Ronnie don’t ever seem to acknowledge that other kinds of relationships exist.
@stevie
Nope, he’s always like this. The whole “you should be nicer to men/ you should coddle men’s feelings more” ect. I don’t know if he’s done Jesus before.
Rancid is pretty new. He’s only been here a few days. He came charging into a different thread, demanding dating advice and victim blaming women for being harassed because we don’t feel safe taking our harassers aside and gently walking them through how not to be a creep.
We’ve repeatedly asked him to fuck off but he’s decided he likes it here and is now pooping in other threads. The Jesus thing is a recent addition. Hopefully it doesn’t stay. Nothing against any (non-troll) Christians who post here, but it isn’t my cup of tea.
The Jesus is new. The condescending ‘But you should be nice to me because I haven’t used bad words yet, even though I’m spewing wretched bile’ is totally Rancad’s default style.
And women don’t like those advances because they don’t want them and they want their boundaries to be respected, not because they think they’re ugly. Also, do you know that lesbians exist, and that we don’t want to be approached by men ever? Then again, maybe you’re one of those dudes who thinks that we’re only lesbians because we “haven’t had the real thing yet.” Blech. Go away, creep.
Racnad, i’m pretty sure jesus wouldn’t troll random people on the internet.. ;P
WWJT: Who would Jesus troll 😀
Er… Content warning for Christian discussion?
Er, here, actually:
Matthew 1: 22-23: Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Context- Peter was arguing with Jesus about him predicting the whole cruxifiction and ressurection this and Jesus did the equivalent of “Get the hell out of my face. I know what I’m talking about, and this is hard enough without you trying to talk me out of it.”
So, yeah, Jesus didn’t politely play nice with people who came up to him and demanded him to change his point of view. He didn’t even take shit from Peter, one of his most devoted disciples. Not everyone on this board is Christian and your idiotic argument isn’t even applicable to the ones who are.
Bugger, matthew 16, not 1. 6 key is sticky.
What you wrote about rape is a ban-worthy offense, Ronnie. So, if you do choose to come back, expect not to last long. Additionally, I was genuinely surprised by how disgusting I found the persona you presented here. However, I don’t think there’s an award for being significantly more awful than expected.
To all the trolls dropping turds in this thread, fuck off. You are what’s wrong with the world. You bending over backwards to demand compassion for a hate-filled man who shot people because he hated women and hated that women had sexual agency and didn’t just throw themselves at his feet.
You are trying to blame his actions on something, anything other than the killer himself stated his motivations were: hatred of women. And to do that, you are demonizing the neuroatypical, because you just don’t want to face that a cis het white man could possibly do anything wrong. No, he must have been “crazy” or been on the autism spectrum. Never mind that the neuroatypical are more likely to BE victims if violence than to commit violence.
johnny:
“Won’t somebody please, please think of the murderous misogynist asshole who killed a bunch of people because he hated women because they wouldn’t automatic sleep with him!”
Disgusting. Morally reprehensible and disgusting. Apparently, showing more compassion to a hate-filled murderer (who murdered because of his hatred) than to the victims is the “humane” thing to do.
Ronnie Libra:
Fuck off, Ronnie. Fuck off with asshole equating rape with having your ass handed to you in a debate. And fuck off with thinking that men’s appearance/attractiveness has anything to do with being a creep. Creepiness is about behavior. Behavior like, I don’t know, treating women like interchangeable objects that you just need the magic formula to use to make them dispense sex. Like acting that women having any say or preference to who they are attracted to and have sex with is some terrible, grave injustice.
Disgusting. Morally reprehensible and disgusting. The OP is about a murderer who murdered people because he hated women. He hated that women had agency and got to decide who they were going to have sex with. He hated women and did not see them as human beings but as objects that he shod he given.
racnad:
Damn. It’s really interesting how you completely ignore the multiple women who have told you in multiple ways, “No, go away.” It’s almost as if you are jut choosing to ignore those women’s “No, go away.” Hmm. I wonder why that is? (Not really).
But kudos on cramming so much wrong into so few words. So, lets see: you are equating a man not getting sexual attention from women with the fear and threat that women feel when random strangers harrass them in public places while those women are simply going about their business? See, here’s a clue: the idea that men have the right to harrass and make sexual remarks to women who are simply minding their own business and going about their day is massive fucking privilege. The idea that men are entitled to attention and sex from whatever woman they choose, regardless of whether or not the woman is interested in them, is massive fucking privilege. They’re not equivalent, they’re the same thing.
Now, kindly fuck off and go away.
RE: David DeAngelo as an example of a non-misogynist PUA.
Eeeeeerm… Not exactly. Sure, DeAngelo likes to say he only wants men to find “the one” and hold on to her using PUA techniques. Sure, sometimes he may sound like an okay guy who genuinely wants to help confused men. Some of his advice actually promotes finding joy in things other than dating, remembering to take “no” for an answer, and he has, on occasion, expressed sympathy for women. But not being an overt rape apologist doesn’t yet make you a non-misogynist. I haven’t seen him praise “direct game” or other overtly rapey “technique”, but he still calls for emotional manipulation and relies on exploiting socially structured gender roles to score points. Plus, all the evo-psych… *shudder*
Personal anecdote: Even during my horribly embarrassing Nice Guy(TM) phase, I only exhibited bitter, misogynistic thoughts after coming across DeAngelo’s “advice”. That’s PUA philosophy at work: even the less hateful advice will say that as a “beta”, you’re not attractive to women, so buy my book* to learn to navigate the endless labyrinth of value tests those pesky women put you through to learn whether you’re a high-value alpha or a clingy, time-wasting beta shlub.
I was all like: “Really? Is this a thing women do? What the actual fuck? This doesn’t make a lick of sense!” Of course it didn’t. Did I mention I was hopelessly young and naive at the time? I mean, this guy has a website and everything, why would he lie?
Thankfully, it didn’t take me long to realize that none of that shit meshed with how the women in my life actually behaved. So, rather than doing what MRAs do and reject reality, I chose to reject the philosophy. Because it was demonstratively wrong.
The PUA philosophy is, at its core, misogynistic. It relies on the idea that women are incapable of understanding attraction, that they treat dating and relationships as a game, and that they are totally at the mercy of a man with the right cheat codes. So, based on my own assfax, I don’t believe it’s actually possible to be a non-misogynist PUA. It goes against the very philosophy, kinda like treating women as human beings goes against all MRA type thinking.
*In case anyone was left wondering, no, I didn’t buy his book. I mean, I did hate myself a lot during that time, but not that much.