Men, beware! The woman who just texted you “happy birthday” isn’t a nice person wishing you a “happy birthday.” She is, rather, a demoness from hell. Or at the very least a creepy “attention whore tease” who won’t let you into her pants.
According to racist shitbag “game” blogger Heartiste, any woman who texts men on special occasions “is a cocktease in digital form” trying to make sure you remain one of her “beta orbiter … cuckubines,” which is his fancy way of saying “friend.”
As he sees it, these dastardly Special Occasion Texters (SOTs) have only bad reasons to text dudes on special days. The SOT may be doing some routine “Beta Orbiter Maintainance.”
She texts birthday messages to all the beta male orbiters she has accumulated over the years, and she does this as part of a maintenance program to keep her orbiters from spinning too far out of her orbit (or, conversely, too close to her planet). … She needs those suck-ups sucking up to her emotional needs, and sometimes that requires sending a tiny sliver of romantic hope — say, a birthday text — to her cuckubines.
If she’s feeling insecure, she might be trying to reassure herself that she has a few interested men “in the wings.”
Or she might be “a wicked mindfucker who gets off stringing men betas along.”
These all kind of seem like the same reason to me, but what the heck.
In any case, Heartiste strongly urges his followers not to “chomp on her bland beta boob bait.”
Amazing alliteration, asshole!
Happily, Heartiste notes, you can totally get her back for this terrible act of hers, and possibly even lure her into your bedroom by … waiting a day before texting her back. And then being a bit of a dick about it.
Don’t move immediately to pin her down for a real date. Instead, wait a day, then reply “did u wish me happy labor day? weirdo.” Or, “you’re so cute when you stalk me”. The female SOT needs to know that you aren’t the kind of desperate guy to ask “how shiny?” when she tells you to polish her pedestal. She needs to be reminded in so many words that SHE’S the one who texted YOU, not the other way around, and this reminder of her active solicitation will reinforce the implication in her mind that you are the higher value company to keep.
Nothing screams “high value” like obsessing on the internet about how to outwit women with catty text messages.
Heartiste adds a little postscript:
PS If you want to use a SOT to open the lines of communication with a prospect, one irresistibly jerkish maneuver is to text the girl “happy bday” two weeks after her actual birthday. When she responds (and she will) that you’re two weeks late, grace her with a laconic “woops”. This is a small but powerful tactic to close the organic chaser (man)-chased (woman) gap, and thus improve your odds-to-lay.
Heartiste, I hate to break it to you, but you’re not actually the first guy to come up with the brilliant strategy of trying to get with women by being an asshole.
Naturally, Heartiste’s readers have their own, equally brilliant ideas.
Peter Pan notes that:
You can always send a SOT on the day of as well… just lace it with a slightly insulting element. For instance, deliberately get her name wrong, or say something like “Happy Birthday, grandma.” They have difficulty allowing such small things pass, and will reply to see if you were joking or not.
Oh, very clever.
themanofmystery2 offers his own “witty rejoinders.” No, that’s really what he calls them.
1. “Missed me, eh? No surprise there.”
2. “I’ve been waiting all year for you to send me that. THANK YOU!!!! 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 XD XD XD XD XD … ”
NEXT LINE: “You’re gay.”
3. [No matter what the holiday] “Happy Grandparents Day to you!” followed by an image of Depends with the caption “I got you a gift” (Careful with this one if she’s over 30 and has a weak self image)
SuperFucker! added his two cents:
[R]eaching out and and reminding her of the anniversary of something unpleasant, like the day she accidentally ran over her dog, is another appropriate neg for a girl giving you the runaround. Do NOT remind her of something truly horrific, though. Subtlety is key.
Such subtlety.
Sometimes I wonder if any of these guys have ever even been in the same room as a woman.
“A few weeks letter…” should be “A few weeks later…”
Sorry, Sorceress is dumb. 😀
Wait running over your dog wouldn’t be horrific? I guess only beta males would feel terrible if they killed their own pet.
For at least the last quarter century, at least half my closest friends have been female at any given moment, and we’re talking dozens in total. I’ve had sex with just five of them, and one of those wasn’t even a close friend: we were just physically attracted to each other and it seemed like a fun thing to do.
But the other crucial thing is that I haven’t wanted to have sex with the overwhelming majority of the remainder. Maybe another four or five, if I’m honest – but that was just between me and my psyche: I never made a move, it was never a deal-breaker as regards our friendship, and in many ways I suspect I didn’t do anything because I felt that it might do more damage to our friendship than otherwise.
This notion that someone of the opposite sex (or, depending on predilection, the same sex) is only ultimately good for genital interaction is one of the most pernicious of all lies, if only because so many people believe it. I suspect there are biological/evolutionary/security reasons why we have an instinctive propensity to believe it, but it doesn’t make much logical sense.
I love how the GQ article is very matter-of-fact and describes the interactions and the quotes in a neutral, accurate way, and all the MRAs are still storming the comments, flamethrowers a-blazin’. “HOW DARE YOU MAKE US LOOK BAD!” “TYPICAL BIASED FEMINIST HACK JOB HIT PIECE!”
It’s like anyone who even dares to notice them receives a 100-kiloton death tantrum.
Or, in the words of Paul Elam:
Is there any act a woman can take that, according to these douches, doesn’t imply free sex? Any at all?
My favorite part of the GQ article is Paul Elam’s cock’n’balls venn diagram has Vox Day as some sort of unholy outlier beyond the pale of all other fucknuttery.
Some guy in the GQ comments seems to be obsessed with everyone being a sock puppet. NO MATTER WHAT.
And as I said on there I can’t decide if it’s paranoia or a tactic to discredit every single reply as being the work of one lone crazed feminist.
Just to check, ‘crazed’ is okay, right? (especially as I’m trying to put it in terms it sounds like he might be aiming for)?
“Women are wicked and conniving for sending text messages on special occasions. They’re just trying to string you along along with countless other betas in case she wants anything from you.
What you should do to all your potential lays is send text messages on special occasions. The goal is to string them along in case you want anything from them. Make sure to be insulting as well!”
I’d call “double standard” or “hypocrisy,” but after reading that interview with Roosh I’ve learned a few things. One of which is that he actively strives for double standards; he literally thinks women should be completely subservient to her man, and should defer to him in all things. His greatest peeve is that women are independent agents these days and therefore don’t have to struggle to please him in order to survive, that he has to try instead of sitting like a king in front of a slave, ready to haul her off to prison if she displeases him.
He thinks men are biologically destined to be planets that women orbit around, and that women are evil and conniving for doing the same simply because it’s a reversal of the natural order.
@ikanreed:
To Roosh, women exist only for sex and nothing else. Their mere existence should, in his mind, imply free sex. Actions only matter if those actions aren’t in service to a man; anything else is a sign of feminism run amok and women no longer being women.
@Leisha Young:
Oh god … oh god … they are Gollum.
Yes! I enjoyed that part, too. It could also be that he wrote Vox Day off to the side to further explain the Dark Enlightenment, but I prefer to think of ol’ Vox as in a class by himself.
Ohh, the WOMEN, huh! But don’t send this alpha birthday wishes. He can’t just let that go!
Also, birthday wishes are a tiny sliver of hope? Yeah, that screams ladies’ man. No rly. No desperation here.
Oh man. I’m just now working through the GQ comments and it’s stinking brilliant.
Jazz left a comment. He was mad that he was described as tripping about feminism and the end of the world. And then promptly proceeds to trip about feminism and the end of the world.
Self-awareness level = 0.
Kootiepatra
The comments in that article are going to be gold for David.
MRAs:
“We’re nothing like that!”
*proceed to act just as described and worse*
They are so wrong it’s embarrassing.
http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131230203739/glee/images/3/31/Artie_eating_popcorn.gif
I also love how they claim they are being misrepresented—not because the author actually made stuff up, or left out crucial context that entirely changes the meaning of what he reported—but because he didn’t lay out MRA doctrine in exquisite detail and then affirm every last bit it.
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Haha! That’s exactly what I thought when reading the article + comments. The reporter went to the convention and talked to a few of the AVfM people, and the article simply tells what happened and what was said. And they still think it’s a hit piece. Is it even possible to write an article about the MRM without MRAs deciding it’s a smear campaign? Apparently even they are disgusted with their own words and actions when put in print.
I’m not sure how one is supposed to cover people who think grown men should be allowed to rape 12 year olds and threaten to disown their daughters if they report a rape without making them look terrible. To everyone who isn’t a manospherian, those are horrible things.
I read a bit through the commentaries on Heartiste’s blog post and this was some dude’s reply to “Amy” who jokingly admitted she is guilty as charged:
I’m glad we women are taught about our true natures and motivations, since we have zero idea ourselves, by condescending machos whose only real knowledge seems to be that of Greek Alphabet (or first few letters of it).
It all comes full circle. They *think* they know what women want better than women themselves, so they misinterpret “the signs”, and when they are reprimanded they whine about false accusations and women not knowing what they want. *Sigh.* I’m just glad I’ve met very few idiots like that outside of Internet.
P.S. I’m testing how to quote in these comments, I have never done it before, so my apologies David if the quote doesn’t work. I can’t edit it later.
@Ælfscýne: The blockquote mammoth rampages through here several times a day. No big if you bork your quotes.
I spotted it Lea, but I didn’t think any worse of you for it!
@WWTH,
I think that they realize how horrible what they’re saying sounds. So they know that when the author of the GQ was writing those things and explaining the interactions that he and his female colleague had wit them, he was disgusted with them. It’s just such obviously repugnant behavior that the author didn’t have to say that their beliefs and behaviors are repugnant. He just has to explain that that’s what they think, and disgust will follow. MRAs recognize this on some level. Hell, they might even know that they’re wrong and just not care.
*with, not wit
>woman shows one of these texts to her friend<
"This is from that dude I told you about last week."
"You, you mean that weird guy from the club? The 40-year-old emo kid?"
"Yup."
"Holy shit, you weren't kidding. He really IS a dork!"
"Tell me about it. He seriously thinks this sort of shit is gonna get him laid. Should I block him?"
"Nah. Keep him around for entertainment value. And be sure to pass those texts along to all the rest of the girls, too!"
And thus a would-be Alpha Male™ becomes a beta-orbiting cuckubine. Who doesn't even get cucked for all his trouble.
This is my favourite bit of the GQ article: “journalists who “cherry-pick” quotes such as “cuckoo for cocoa penis puffs” out of context. It was supposed to be at the Detroit DoubleTree, a swank downtown hotel, but the feminists protested, and since the elite hospitality industry is pretty much in the thrall of feminism, or because the feminists floated death threats, or because a member of the men’s movement floated death threats so people would understand that the feminists are floating death threats even if they did not, in this instance, float any death threats—for one of these disturbing reasons, A Voice for Men was told by the DoubleTree to “go elsewhere.”
They just cannot leave the references to black men having sex with ‘their’ women alone can they?! And NO death threats from any feminists. Quelle surprise.
Ahem. Should be just “You mean that weird guy from the club”. Typo Mammoth, AVAUNT!
A woman sends a mild, thoughtful message to a friend, the same kind of message she might send to any of her female friends or her cousin or her grandpa. The recipient, a man, believes that this means she is willing to have sex with him (or, more accurately, she is willing to let him do sex at her) at a time of his choosing. The bad person in this scenario is… the woman, who is failing to meet the man’s expectations. I don’t… how?