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.
Ronnie, I’m a heterosexual male and even I can see that that’s a load of hooey. Hardly anyone is labelled “creepy” from the moment they walk into the room – it depends entirely on what they then say and do, or how they say and do it. And it really isn’t hard to learn the basics: treat people as human beings, respect their boundaries, and take no for an answer.
Again, this is nonsense. Some of my most successful relationships were with people who either weren’t particularly attractive to me at first sight, vice versa and indeed both. The turning-on bit came later, when we’d got to know each other and realised that we had more in common than initial appearances suggested.
This is pure projection on your part. I’ve been hanging around here a very long time, and I can’t think of any of the regulars here expressing this attitude or anything that could be deemed even close to it.
Remember what I said about how being “creepy” depends on what one says or does, as opposed to how one happens to be? Well, that comment was creepy as hell – and if you don’t understand why, this may go some way towards explaining your all too evident lack of success with women.
And now you’re doubling down on the creepiness. And if you’re starting to make my skin crawl, heaven knows what effect it’s having on people more likely to be on the receiving end of your woefully ill-judged rape analogies.
“Most of you here” is the kind of sweeping statement that positively demands evidence-backed citations. Please produce some.
Well, it’s good to know that you draw a moral line somewhere. Although I’m curious as to why you felt the need to state this, when this should be the default position held by a decent human being and therefore a safe assumption? And do you really think that mass murder is the kind of thing that can be casually described as “a bullshit thing to do”?
Who exactly is saying this? What people have been pointing out – handily, with the evidence of Rodger’s own 140-page “manifesto” – is that his problems went much deeper than mere surface issues. Social skills help, but so too does not regarding women as the scum of the earth – an attitude that’s dripping from practically every paragraph (yes, I read the whole thing). And if he – or anyone – retains that core attitude, no amount of “teaching himself a few social skills” is going to help: he’ll still be a creepy serial-rapist wannabe.
But it’s easy enough to not be a creepy serial-rapist wannabe. No-one’s ever accused me of this, for instance, and I’m resoundingly average-looking and break out in hives at the thought of approaching a complete stranger in a club. But I do genuinely like women, which does rather work against the whole “serial-rapist wannabe” thing – I couldn’t even rape one person, never mind lots: I have too much respect for the notion of informed consent.
More projection. None of the regulars here have been saying this.
Yet more projection. And see above.
And more creepiness. Blech. And I’m not even going to bother responding to your gobsmackingly offensive “rape by coercion” thing except to plead with you to re-read it and just try to recognise why it’s precisely this attitude that is clearly causing women to run a mile from you. And, on the evidence posted here, quite rightly.
Creepiness is not caused by unattractiveness. It’s caused by violating boundaries. A woman might not set as many boundaries for a man that she finds desirable, but that’s how the cookie crumbles, bucko. Women, and people in general, get to decide what sort of behaviors they want to put up with from whomever they want to. They aren’t obligated to have the exact same set of standards for everyone equally, and they aren’t obligated to give anyone a ‘chance’. Suck it up, they’re autonomous people like everyone else.
Want to not be creepy? Respect the boundaries that are advertised by body language and words and basic human decency.
I’ve seen plenty of objective Adonises who were creepy, and plenty of downright ugly people who weren’t. It has nothing to do with one’s appearance, and it’s generally impossible to fairly judge behaviour as “creepy” unless there has first been some attempt at interaction, whether verbal or physical.
Indeed, it could be as simple as staring at a complete stranger on public transport, possibly from several feet away, and continuing to stare even when it’s become glaringly obvious that this attention is unwelcome. That’s creepy.
OK, racnad, you get one chance to be treated like a person genuinely wanting advice, so this is it: go forth and google ‘not creeping’, and read the whole of Scalzi’s post along with the many hundreds of comments on it.
If you actually do this you will discover that everything you have said, with the exception of the stuff about Jesus, has been covered over and over again; there is no excuse for expecting women to do your emotional homework for you, just as there is no excuse for expecting some poor woman to do your housework for you.
You are not a special, special snowflake; every advice columnist from Dan Savage to Dear Prudence will give exactly the same advice to someone like you turning up on their digital doorstep. And whilst you are about it, please bear in mind that for every guy unhappy about the fact that he seems always to end up in the friend zone there is a girl unhappy about the fact that she always seems to end up in the friend zone.
Though if you talk in the same vein as you have written here the chances of you ending up in any zone that has women on the same planet are pretty slim…
See, this is a good example of why it’s a bad idea to make sweeping negative statements. Because any book about dating for men published before the 90s now proves you wrong.
But it’s a great excuse to link to How to Make Love, a romance guide from the 1930s. The same publisher also released this guide to kissing.
I never read any books about dating for men. On the other hand, I did read a lot of first-person accounts of dating (and romance, and sex) from female perspectives. That in itself taught me one hell of a lot, not least when it came to empathising with whoever it was I was attempting to interact with.
Oh, and talking to female friends helped enormously too. You know, people of the opposite sex that you like to hang out with, with no pressures or expectations on either side? Thankfully, the “friendzone” wasn’t a thing (or at least not a defined thing) in my first decade of dating, so it never occurred to me that there was anything unusual about having women as just friends. In fact, I still don’t think there is.
katz:
From that kissing guide:
My thoughts exactly, Mr. Takei
Reblogged this on My life's nether and commented:
“Game” is a delusion, and its proponents constitute a cult of “alpha” worship. Like any cult, this organization is quick to reassert its self-righteousness after reality comes in and exposes its irrationality to the world. The ideology of pick-up artists and men’s rights activists *probably* had something to do with Elliot Rodger’s chauvinism, which certainly inspired his violent actions last Friday.
“”Before the Internet, there were NO self-help books written for men feeling ignored by women.”
hmmm i wonder if that’s because it’s not a serious issue?”
The media isn’t motivated by what is or isn’t a serious issue, it’s motivated by what it thinks will make money (Kardashians?). In the early 1990s the media discussion about dating diffulties on Oprah Winfrey and magazine articles was mostly women complaining about how all the good men were married or gay, and all women found find to date were jerks. There was supposedly a “man shortage” and the media perception was that single men had their pick of all the lonely women to date. Self help books are mostly purchased by women, so it’s not surprising that the publishing industry saw no market in books to help men date.
“”Oh, I have come across some PUA videos and websites that did not teach negging or have woman-bashing.”
links plz”
I’ve read this guy does not engage in women-bashing and other sleazy tricks, but I’ven’t dug too deep. Let me know if you see otherwise.
http://www.doubleyourdating.com/cms/david-deangelo.html?
“”street harrassment = threatening creepy can escalate
being ignored by people who want to date = not going to harm you ever.””
If it does escalate to rape or other violance, it is an extremely serious thing, but that’s not what I’m talking abuot.
I’m not going to dismiss as invalid the feelings or emotional pain women have about certain situations. Why do you insist on dismissing as invalid feelings some men have?
“Oh, and talking to female friends helped enormously too. You know, people of the opposite sex that you like to hang out with, with no pressures or expectations on either side?”
I did that too back in the day, but all I got was “You’re a great guy and there’s someone out there for you.” Not very helpful.
“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.”
The definition of creepy is subjective and the line between flirting and creepiness is grey. There are some behaviors that 100 percent of women would find creepy, like telling someone you don’t know about your sexual fantasies with them. It wouldn’t matter how good looking a guy was if he did that. But women like it when men they find it flirt with them and often find it creepy if a guy they don’t find attractive says and does the exact same things.
In the gray area, creepy behavior is defined by how a woman reacts to a guy, not by what a guy does. If a guy at a party tells you you look like an attractive actress, is that creepy???
“Creepiness is not caused by unattractiveness. It’s caused by violating boundaries. A woman might not set as many boundaries for a man that she finds desirable, but that’s how the cookie crumbles, bucko. Women, and people in general, get to decide what sort of behaviors they want to put up with from whomever they want to. They aren’t obligated to have the exact same set of standards for everyone equally, and they aren’t obligated to give anyone a ‘chance’. Suck it up, they’re autonomous people like everyone else.
Want to not be creepy? Respect the boundaries that are advertised by body language and words and basic human decency.”
Unfortunately women don’t spell out their customized boundaries for each man they meet and pass it to them. Men won’t know they’ve crossed a boundary until they’ve already crossed it. And body language isn’t consistent from woman to woman. Some women are outgoing and flirty, while others are reserved. If I guy likes a women and would like to get to know her better, he has to take a risk. If he recognizes he crossed a boundary, he should back off.
How can a guy know in advance if woman’s standard for what is creepy or not for him is different from her standard for other guys in the room?
“Before the Internet, there were NO self-help books written for men feeling ignored by women.
See, this is a good example of why it’s a bad idea to make sweeping negative statements. Because any book about dating for men published before the 90s now proves you wrong.”
Well, the books you mentioned were not in any of the bookstores I shopped at. Have you read these books and do they contain advice useful for the modern era?
idk, Rancid, you’re just loosing your touch. that was really boring to read.
Rancid, thanks for providing what nice guy syndrome tm looks like for any fellow newbies who might be around!
Uh, depends on how he does it? I’ve gotten comments (from family) that I looked like an actress, but that was a comment on clothes, and from people I know. It depends on his mannerisms (is he talking to me already, is he in my boundries is he sending me off-signals). Either way, my reaction won’t be because of his looks because 1) that’s not something that usually happens and 2) i am a lesbian
So, now we can tick off ‘respecting women’s boundries is too dang hard’ from troll boy.
Don’t invade personal space, don’t keep talking to her if she asks you not (*cough* what you’re doing here *cough*) back down if she looks uncomftorable.
not the first time I’ve said this to you, but if you don’t know, don’t risk it. I’d rather women feel safe than men get dates.
Racnad
I can’t decide which is worse; you being a creep or you being a bore. On the other hand you are a real contender for boring creep of the year, and we’re not even into June yet…
WTF. No. It’s creepy if accompanied by:
Don’t invade personal space, don’t keep talking to her if she asks you not (*cough* what you’re doing here *cough*) back down if she looks uncomftorable.
I wonder if any man has ever died due to having been rejected by a woman.
There is evidence that women have died as a result of having rejected a man.
There’s probably a conclusion to be drawn here. Hey, Rancor, wanna give it a try?
Ack. Of course you need to take out the “don’t”s there and that’s the creepy behavior.
Oh, shut up. Respecting people’s boundaries is easy. If you can respect a man’s boundaries, surely you can respect a woman’s boundaries.
Racnad, I’m going to be generous and give you a hint. Respecting boundaries doesn’t mean you don’t accidentally violate them, once. It means that once you know the boundary is there, you immediately back off, and respect it.
However, I suspect you already knew that, just as I suspect that you aren’t as incapable of detecting boundaries as you claim to be.
I suspect you know perfectly well what you are doing when you violate boundaries, and you are trolling on purpose.
I cannot be absolutely sure, but your insistence on moving goalposts and demanding advice on getting laid on an article about a bloody murderer who thought he was entitled to get laid is ridiculously and blindingly inappropriate, which leads me to my pronounced lack of confidence about your supposed benign motives.
Just stop it. Troll a thread about communication, or go away. Quit whining about invisible boundaries on a thread about people being murdered.
If you have any semblance of a concience, start using it now.
Dating advice for men that isn’t misogenistic exists, and has been pointed out to you. Any advice that treats women like a ‘game’ with secret codes isn’t it.
Okay? Use your own brain and keyboard. Use google, or dogpile.
Just get off this thread.
That thing I said earlier about boundary respecting? You using this thread on hatred and murder for your whinging is a boundary.
racnad
fine, i’llbite.
why does it *matter* that there were no books for men not being able to date women if it’s not a serious issue?
ps we’ve already seen deangelo. not a non-misogynistic pua.try again.
YOu know what? YouARE dismissing it, by comparing it. If I am afraid someone willattack me or rape me that’s the same thing as you not getting adate? what kind of logic is that?
ps EVERYONE gets rejected it’s not a uniquely male thing.
they probably didn’t have the heart or sense of security to tell you that youare an enormous asshole who makes women feel unsafe
Only if you purposely try to makei it so to cover for the fact that you try to disrespect people’s space.
take it as the same body language you take from everyone else ffs.
a “soft” no = no. never. stop asking me.
disinterested “hmms” = go away
“Yes that sounds like a great idea” with a smile = she might actually be interested in talking to you/ going out w/ you, assuming she’s not being sarcastic
lol
guys, i hate to break it to you, but there are NO good teen sci fi novels with disabled protagonists. I mean, there weren’t in the bookstores *I* shopped at.
Robert
‘Well men have died from time to time, and worms have eaten them, but not for love.’
I’m pretty sure that Shakespeare had a better grasp of these matters than Racnad…
Robert:
Oh no, see, racnad’s already explained that all those instances of men harming/killing women after being rejected don’t count, because we don’t know exactly how those women rejected those men. Because, see, they might have just been rejecting those men in the wrong way, so it’s really their fault. Thus, women don’t really have any valid reason to fear rejecting men or anything.
Give me a minute and I can find the thread.
shorter racnad: OMG WHY ARE YOU INVALIDATING MENS EMOTIONAL PAIN!??!? I would never do that for women except the gazillion times i’ve already done it.
ps, easy boundary tip: Pretend that every woman around you is a sith lord who wants to maintain a low profile in the republic (this means she can’t go around offing people willy nilly but still itsn’t gonna let anyone disrespect her).
If she would kill you for doing it anyway, it’s creepy.
@Racnad
Well, I can tell you the tactic my fella used on me – he had conversations with me. Just, like, about stuff (sometimes, even about stuff we disagreed on). I was working at a video store, he’d come in and rent a few movies and we’d chat. I had no romantic interest in him at all, but I enjoyed talking with him and we’d hang out for a bit… chatting. One day, I realized I was attracted to him and I asked him out. We’ve been together ever since (17 years now).
He didn’t use lines, or touch me, or get too close into my personal space. He didn’t wear anything special or try and impress me (or ‘neg’ me or whatever else). He just chatted with me (note: not chatted TO me or AT me, but WITH me). He took a risk that I’d not be interested in him – he didn’t let that stop him though from becoming my (genuine) friend before we got romantically involved.
I’ll contrast this with another video store customer who was interested in me and would chat AT me, without listening to my replies or even looking me in the eye, who would poke fun at little things like my tattoo (‘negs’), and who would often stand really close to me when I had no way to move away from him (and if I could back away, he would move closer). Then he sent me flowers out of the blue. This was creepy because, based on my interactions with him, he hadn’t paid much actual attention to me as a person AT ALL and perhaps didn’t really care about my comfort level, or certainly not about what I may have had to actually say. I felt like a non-person to him, an object he wanted, and that. was. creepy.
(also – he was nice looking.)