A new post at Return of Kings, Roosh V’s site for terrible, terrible men, has me wondering: Do Red Pillers all harbor a secret wish to have sex with their dogs?
In the post, regular RoK contributor Max Roscoe reports on “10 Things My Dog Taught Me About Women.” His conclusion? That aside from that whole sex thing, he prefers his dog. Man’s faithful canine companions, he explains
are incredibly loyal, protective, and offer unconditional love, and will in some ways be more consistent, reliable, and rewarding than a woman. It’s often said that sexbots will be the end of the modern feminist. Dogs provide most of the positive benefits of women except sex, and owning one can benefit a man greatly.
Roscoe apparently dreams of a glorious future in which women can be replaced with a more pliable combo of sexbots and dogs.
Until the sexbots arrive, though, heterosexual men — or at least those heterosexual men who are unwilling to have sex with their dogs — are stuck with women.
But all is not lost, as Roscoe offers a number of useful suggestions on how men can make their girlfriends or wives more like dogs.
As Roscoe sees it, proper training is key for both women and dogs.
A well trained dog will know when it misbehaves, and will sense the disappointment or anger of its owner when it breaks the rules. Likewise, a woman should be trained to behave properly. Since Western civilization has abdicated its role in training members of both sexes how to behave politely and what proper roles are, men must take up this duty on our own.
Unfortunately, Roscoe notes, even well-trained dogs and women sometimes misbehave, making “slight corrections” necessary. All men need to do to get their women back in line is to become paranoid, controlling creeps.
Tell her to hit the gym when she’s gotten a bit out of shape, but don’t wait until she’s gained 20 pounds. Give her a limit on how much alcohol she can drink. Tell her she must inform you who she is going out with and where.
Women aren’t just like dogs; they’re also like children.
As we know, women are essentially large children, and like a teen who will gradually test the limits of his boundaries, a woman will push the rules to see how much she can get away with. Treat her like a father would his child, and let her know she is not to behave this way in the future. She will not only stop the harmful actions, but come to respect you even more.
So how can men tell if their wives or girlfriends are good dogs?
By their shiny coats. Dogs should have “well groomed hair” rather than “a matted, dirty, coat full of debris.” Same with women!
A “quality” woman, Roscoe proclaims, should
groom herself well, with long, feminine hair, trimmed and painted nails, and conservative clothing.
And she should have “clear, radiant skin,” rather than a “body mutilated with shrapnel and graffiti.”
She should also, Roscoe argues, know her place. Just as a dog is naturally “subservient to its owner,” so “a woman is naturally and normally the submissive partner to the man.”
This is the case, Roscoe explains, even if she has short hair.
No amount of short haircuts, business suits, you-go-girling or education can reverse the natural role than women play in the world.
But don’t bother to try to explain this to women. Hell, don’t bother to explain anything to them, because women, like dogs, don’t really understand human language. It’s all “blah blah blah Ginger” to them.
You can talk in a kind voice to a dog, and he will understand your loving happiness, and reciprocate, but beyond that, dogs are incapable of understanding you, interpreting your thoughts, empathizing, or using logic.
Likewise, it is a waste of time to get into deep discussions with women, expect them to rationalize or understand things, or even to truly empathize or love a man. … While a dog or woman can respect and honor you, and make you feel good, they cannot truly understand you, or love you the way you love them.
I’m thinking that Roscoe should not only be kept away from women, but from dogs as well.
…and how oppressed they, Teh Menz, are by all the fat and the hair dye and the feminism. WAAAAAAAAA!
Very alpha, much male, so wow.
@SFHC
I imagine so, but to the point where they don’t even expect us to say no to them?
We’re all missing the most important point about Cal’s post. Which is the word ‘mammalian’. It is an adjective. The noun form is ‘mammal’. He is talking about mammals. Not mammalians. I just can’t get past it. Mammalians… Mammalians…
Ok, I’ve used positive reinforcement to shape people’s behavior. I’ve used it on untidy people in my home and students I’ve taught, that shit works
*but*
You can’t punish adults, it doesn’t work on dogs, cats or people, it’s just fucking abusive. (Of course I don’t mean bdsm, fellow kinksters, kink on)
Now that I know that people use it for game I feel a little dirty.
There’s an experiment we used to do every semester in one of the counseling classes I did tech for, you’d partner up with someone and pick a behavior you want them to do, something random like flipping hair or scratching an ear.
Half the participants would say “bad” in a stern voice every time the subject didn’t do the behavior. The other half would say “good” when the behavior was done. This would continue for about 10 minutes.
People who were told “good” figured out the desired behavior. People who were told “bad” rarely figured out the behavior and started exhibiting signs of anxiety, anger and frustration, and this was only after 10 minutes.
”and conserative clothing” yeah because alll women who might wear a nice short dress or a summershorts are evil whores….lmao
Why do they care so much about the clothing? As if ist not common to show off a little somtimes. You can keep it sexy and classy and a woman can still be, believe it or not, a good person while showing more skin than you like.
I think they want women to cover up their legs in summer as well and NEVER show any cleavage at all. This is horrible.
Childless women are selfish harpies, who should be avoided because they reject their natural maternal instincts, which are actually completely fake because women are incapable of loving or protecting anyone. How do MRAs never work themselves into contradictory rage-strokes??
“A well trained dog will know when it misbehaves, and will sense the disappointment or anger of its owner when it breaks the rules.”
This dumbass doesn’t know anything about dogs. Dogs don’t know that they’re “misbehaving”. They don’t conceptualise the world the way we do. People misattribute fear reactions in dogs for guilt all the damn time. Fido doesn’t “know what he did”, he’s cowering because you’re screaming at him.
I do find Roscoe’s article ironic, because I’ve often fended off online creeps by telling them I already have a hairy, smelly creature who lies around all day and expects me to clean up after him, and if I wanted another I’d get another German Shepherd.
Women are like koalas. They’re cute and spend most of their lives either sleeping or eating leaves that are poisonous to most other species. They also can drop down on you from the trees and maim you into a bloody pulp. They’re surprisingly violent.
Women are like cats. Never mistake our silence for submission or acquiescence…it could be indifference, it could even be disdain, and in some cases, it’s literally just the calm before we get fed up and swat you with our claws out.
Women are like platypi. They lay eggs and have venomous claws, and most biologists originally believed them to be a ridiculous hoax.
Has anyone else seen this? Mercifully they don’t seem to have any hostages.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/01/02/3735576/150-armed-militia-members-take-over-federal-building/
I don’t think they’re going to be happy until they’ve killed someone.
I know quite a few dommes in the BDSM community. I wonder if knowing of their existence would make an MRA’s head explode? I can always hope so.
It’s also a community built on, above all else, consent. If someone (male or female) is going to be submissive to a dom/me and follow their rules, the couple agrees that’s what going to occur. The dom/me doesn’t take it upon his/herself to force another to submit. The whole assumption that being submissive and controlled is what all women want makes me want to throw up.
They wouldn’t to have a thing to do with me anyway. Not only am I extremely dominant and wouldn’t put up with their crap, I break the No Shrapnel Rule with my piercings. Oops.
Can I just say as a (kinda) woman witch whose Mirror Animal is the Crow (one of them at least. The other is deer.), this makes me SO happy? XD
“Women are like crows…they remember the faces of their friends, and those who have done them wrong.”
“Women are like crows…they recognize the benefits of teamwork.”
“Women are like crows…they like to play.”
“Women are like crows…they’re very intelligent, much more so than most people had previously given them credit for.”
Sorry to change subject but I have a flying dog.
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w35/Gaian87/dog%20fly_zpskjp3yksu.jpg
Holy shit.
This is probably a step too far for them. Their whiteness has protected them thus far, but I don’t know if it will protect them from this.
I hope it won’t. They should have been hauled off to prison the first time.
And the lack of media coverage really makes my jaw drop. Seriously, this started three-and-a-half hours ago?
cleverforagirl
But, that’s because the “good” was for a “positive behavior.” It’d be just as confusing if you flipped it.
Let’s say flipping the hair was “bad”, so you had one group that said “good” for everything that person did that wasn’t flipping the hair. And another group that said “bad” when they did flip the hair. The “Bad” group would be much less confusing.
I also hope it won’t, but I’m also realistic: they are white and from rural America. That means they receive preferential treatment.
This might be too much, but who knows. I hope they are all arrested as the domestic terrorists they are, but I won’t be shocked in the slightest if that does not happen.
…How does one have sex on Facebook? Is this a new game?
I can’t wait to see the
Cishet White Guy Defense Forcemedia try to spin this as all 150 of them being “Mentally ill lone wolves.”Some of them are sons of Cliven Bundy. Because of course they are. The feds never should have turned tail and run when Bundy and his extremist buddies pulled guns on them. I get that the federal government is a little skittish after Ruby Ridge and Waco, but it’s ridiculous to just let right wing militia terrorist types do whatever the fuck they want.
BTW, is anyone else suddenly getting logged off when they leave the site? It didn’t used to be that way for me.
Yeah, you PUAs know all about women and all about dogs. Really.
Just remember: There are laws against violence directed at women and laws against cruelty to animals.
And some judges are totally fine with throwing the book at offenders.
SFHC,
They’re sure as fuck not going to call them terrorists. Even though that’s what they are.
I’m confused as to what they’re even protesting. Where in the constitution does it say Americans have the right to commit arson on federal land. It’s almost like they’re entitled asshats who think no rules should ever apply to them!
I live with dogs. Dogs live with me. I ask them for exactly 2 things, and those are do not fight, and do not poop/pee in my house.
I have always been skeeved out a little bit by people that “own” living, breathing, sentient beings. Mostly because those people are the ones that use “ownership” as a reason to abuse those that they “own.”
The arson (the first time) was to cover up their poaching. I suppose that’s a constitutional right, too.
The media seems to be dodging the issue altogether. There’s still no mention on Yahoo or CNN. HuffPost had a short article.