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.
That’s not what you said, though.
So that somehow makes it all right?
Being denied bodily autonomy, the right to equal wages (just two examples that happen in the so-enlightened West) are okay, because it’s not militant misogyny? Being disbelieved when we’re raped, being blamed for it, are okay because that’s just bog-standard misogyny, not the “militant” kind?
Two women every week in the UK.
One woman every week in Australia.
Those are the murder statistics for women killed by their intimate partners.
You think misogynistic men aren’t a threat?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I can’t remember if this was Ronnie or Rancid, but it’s typical of lots of trolls, not just the ones whose names contain an R.
This statement elides, removes, vanishes away like Magic! … the selection process that men use. Let’s presume that a social club is a place where everybody is expected to consider, if not follow up on, the sexual appeal of everyone else. (Yeah, I know, but stay a moment longer.)
How come these men who complain of women’s choices and boundaries never, ever, refer to their own choices and boundaries? The boundary they themselves set by choosing, choosing for themselves, not to approach a woman randomly regardless of whether she is or isn’t “desirable”. Why do the R trolls, and all the others, choose to approach only one or a few women in a venue where there are dozens if not hundreds of women? If women are supposed to be willing to welcome the attentions of any and every man regardless of their personal lack of interest, even their feelings of repulsion, how come men get the privilege of refusing to approach some or many women, the choice to disregard women they find unattractive or even repulsive?
It’s a mystery.
Anybody else notice that racnad is 1: demanding we give him advice on how to hit on women/not be creepy, 2: while he claims to be happily married?
Wow, you guys are being mean for no reason at all.
pecunium.
Yup. Life seems to abound with mysteries today.
Cassandra, I know what I said because I’m the one who said it. I was merely trying to help Stevie understand that most men don’t share the same beliefs aS this particular group of knucle draggers.
It is kind of funny how they get so incredibly angry with women for applying pretty much the same selection criteria that they do (well, plus “has a personality that I like”, which most of these guys probably don’t care much about). It all makes sense when you realize that they don’t think women are people, though. We’re the toys they’re choosing among – the toy isn’t supposed to have the ability to decide whether or not it wants you.
@Erin
look, when your reaction to violent misogyny is “well at least all men aren’t as violent as the could be” it’s not a reassuring thing.
I’m worried for my safety, some of the time (esp around weird men in isolated places). Your telling me “not *all* men kill women” is going to make me feel condescended, not reassured. IDK how it made stevie feel tho…
Apparently you don’t know what you actually said, Erin, given the multiple people are reading it in a way that you’re now saying you didn’t intend.
Erin, I don’t recall your name so I don’t know whether you’re familiar with the regulars here.
Several of us have been raped. Several of us have been abused by violent men. Many if not most of us have endured the threat of violence from men we do know and men we don’t know.
The fact that most men are not nasty, violent, rapists doesn’t help a lot when we’re all too familiar with the reality of those who are.
@ Fade
The reason “not all men are like that” isn’t all that reassuring is that it only takes one who is to be a danger to you/your loved ones, at least from my perspective.
Kittehserf, when did I even imply that any of what you said is alright? And no, these guys who we are discussing are not as big a threat as you’re making it to be. Want to know why? Because they’re shut ins who are more afraid of girls than we are of them. They’re just a bunch of shit talkers on the internet, for fuck’s sake.
Erin what exactly are you trying to accomplish here?
I think I’m Gert with a side order of more Gert.
Erin, you are ignoring the larger social context in which these “shit talkers” operate — one that validates much of what they say. You are also ignoring the extent to which these “shit talkers” validate and provide cover for genuinely violent abusers, who see their attitudes and behaviors normalized.
And you are doing that on the worst possible thread, at the worst possible time. Please stop.
To use another analogy. There’s a reason I used sharks as a metaphor earlier – I’m shit scared of them. Now, I know that the ocean is full of both sharks and people, and that most of the time the sharks swim right past the people without biting them. I know that most sharks have no particular interest in eating me, humans not being their preferred food source and all. Problem is, it only takes one hungry shark that figures that I may be worth taking a bite of to see if I’m edible to kill me. Telling me that most sharks aren’t actively swimming around looking for people to eat isn’t all that reassuring, because again, it only takes one. Statistics, otoh, are a bit more reassuring, because they do indeed reflect the fact that shark attacks are in fact incredibly rare.
Attacks on women by men are not rare, and therein lies the problem with the “not all men are like that” argument as an attempt at reassurance.
Just saw the other thread and am now sorry I bothered addressing Rancid, only because it’s obvious he doesn’t actually want advice.
mi9ldlymagnificent, I completely get that. I was in no way trying to give misogynists an out or whatever the hell these other girls are accusing me of. I am completely against the MRA and PUA movements and think they’re all horrible people.
Yeah, I did. I’m inclined to go with Stevie’s notion – he’s married to a blow-up doll.
Whatever his marital status, he’s got Buckley’s chance of ever not being creepy.
@Erin – fuck “you’re being mean”. Have you even bothered to read this thread? We’ve had days here and all over the web of NAMALT and Rodger-was-crazy and what-about-the-menz. There are probably THOUSANDS of men screaming about how terrible it is that he didn’t get the hot blonde girlfriend he wanted, how women should put out, how it’s all feminism’s fault.
Then you come in here with more of the same shit about how men are nice and not like that.
Ever read about Schrodinger’s Rapist, hmmm? How the fuck is any woman supposed to know what man is like that, when they all grew up in misogynistic cultures and all benefit from it, whether they know it or not, whether they want to or not?
@mildlymagnificent – yes, exactly. Listen to these same men complain if they get hit on by a woman they don’t fancy.
Never occurs to them that they can be risking their safety or their lives by turning her down, either – because mostly they’re not. Women have to think about that all the damn time.
I was trying to make Stevie feel better about her daughter. That is it.
But we’re talking about men who aren’t “shut in”. The ones who are going to work and pubs and clubs and shopping and catching trains and buses with the rest of us.
The “shut-ins” might not go anywhere or do anything, but people who are out and about with their laptops and phones can read this poisonous dreck wherever they are.
Another bit of logic that’s obvious when you apply it to anything else. Nobody’s going to run out and buy a bunch of peanut butter after being reassured that not all the jars contain salmonella.
Oh, just like Elliot Rodger, you mean? Or Thomas Ball? Or George Sodini? Or (pre internet) Marc Lepine? Or any of the others encouraged and coddled by the abuse advocates of the MRM?
These guys don’t just exist on the internet. You seem to think the ‘net is separate from the rest of life. These men interact with other people. They are the same ones who stalk and harass and attack women.
You can live in your happy bubble if you want, but kindly don’t try underplaying the prevalence of violence against women, or pretending that “militant” misogynists aren’t operating on exactly the same spectrum as all the rest of them.
THIS IS A THREAD ABOUT A MASS MURDERER.