By David Futrelle
Roosh V is feeling guilty about the pickup advice he used to give.
The former PUA, who recently embraced the stern God of Orthodox Christianity after getting really high on ‘shrooms (true story), is feeling so guilty about it he’s now stopped selling all of his old pickup guides — but not because they contained advice that seemed to many, myself included, to encourage date rape.
No, he’s feeling guilty that his pickup guides, intended to help men in their quest for casual sex, might have actually helped men in their quest for casual sex.
Last Spring, Roosh stopped selling nearly a dozen of his “Bang” books, which offered both general pickup advice as well as brief guides on bedding women in particular countries in Europe and South America. Now he’s taken down his most recent (self) published pickup manual, called Game, as well as several other books, including the unfortunately titled memoir Poosy Paradise, because he claims to have just now discovered that they, too, are full of fornication.
In a blog post yesterday announcing his decision to stop selling “Game,” Roosh outlined the deep moral struggle he underwent before making his recent decision. While as a newly minted Orthodox Christian he was bothered by all the sin contained in the book (and the other books he just stopped selling), he also wanted to make as much money as possible selling them.
Oh, the moral dilemmas you’ll face!
“The prospect of banning Game last May was too difficult, even though my conscience was bothered by the content,” he explained.
I wrestled with the issue for a week … It made sense to ban all my Bang books, which explicitly instructed men how to have casual sex, and it wasn’t that hard on my wallet since they were older books that had passed their sales peak, but if I were to ban Game as well, my income would be wiped out. I prayed on the issue, asking God to help me make the right decision.
Apparently God told him to make the wrong decision and to keep selling the better-performing book.
I received two comments in one day from men stating that Game had helped them with married life. I also did a poll showing not all men were using Game to become accomplished fornicators. My conscience felt more clear; Game could remain.
Yep, that’s right: He thinks his fornication-hating God wanted him to keep selling his fornication guide because some men were using its techniques to manipulate their wives rather than the young hotties they want to bang.
Then God apparently changed his mind and sent Roosh some signs suggesting that selling Game was indeed a sin.
During my lecture tour, dozens of men asked me to sign their copies of Game. They said it helped them with women, though not necessarily within the confines of marriage.
Roosh was shocked — shocked! — to discover that men were using his pickup guide as a pickup guide.
But outside of the ticket sales from the tour, which was soon to end, Game was my main source of income.
Ethics are hard.
Then I received a message from a fellow Orthodox Christian .. saying he had just read Game, and noticed that it contained the same type of sexual content I had aggressively banned on the forum last year. I walked to my bookshelf, pulled out a copy of Game, and randomly flipped through it … but I could not find a page where sin was not. The book … trained and steered men for the main purpose of achieving bodily pleasure through casual sex.
He was stunned to find all of this in … a book he himself had authored only a year earlier. And that he had marketed on his own site as a book that “can aid men who want to engage in sinful fornication with lots of women … .” (Yes, his web page devoted to the book really did — and does — say that.)
Roosh also discovered — another stunning reveletion — that the book objectified women.
In some ways, it even wired men’s brains to view women as objects to be won purely through knowledge, effort, and physical attractiveness. Even my book Day Bang, which has no sexual content, trained men to see women as objects to be won for pleasurable ends through the mathematics of approaching a lot of women in the hopes of finding one who was horny and loose.
So the newly chastened Roosh decided it was time not only to stop selling his game book but to also tale down the sections of his forum that deal with “game,” and to delete
countless articles … YouTube videos, and podcasts that aimed to teach a man how to participate in a behavior that could sacrifice his salvation. By taking these actions, I want to impede or halt the spiritual damage that my work was doing.
He declared that he was “happy to announce my retirement as a peddler of sex” even though it would drastically reduce his income and force him to rely on savings. “I will have to learn how not to be a consumer,” he added, “and to only consume that which is spiritually profitable.”
But the real problem with Roosh’s books and other, er, teachings weren’t that they promoted “fornication.” It’s that they, for all intents and purposes, taught men how to date rape. His books are full of stories of his own sexual experiences — which often read outright like descriptions of rape.
As I noted in a previous post on Roosh’s toxic advice,
Again and again in these stories, presented as true, Roosh literally won’t take no for an answer, pressuring reluctant and resistant women into giving him what he wants, in one case using outright physical force in order to continue intercourse with a woman who had changed her mind.
In many of these cases Roosh tells us or at least implies that the woman in question consented to sex, but it is worth asking what kind of “consent” is preceded by literally hours of struggle against a physically imposing man who refuses to believe that no means no. It’s also worth asking what the woman’s own account of the experience would look like.
In one notorious passage, Roosh told how he “banged” a woman he knew was too drunk to consent.
While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she couldn’t legally give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated.
Read my entire post for more similarly horrifying examples of Roosh’s “game” in action.
If Roosh is truly interested in repenting for his sins he needs to get down on his knees and beg his God for forgiveness for his behavior as well as his books. I doubt the women he has — by his own accounts — violated will be quite so ready to forgive him.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Nothing is worse than a REFORMED sinner– why am I thinking of creepy Alec D’Urberville? Oh because he was also a repentant rapist (though not, like this nitwit, repentant about the rape part). And Alec’s foray into religious fanaticism was temporary–time will tell whether or not Roosh 180’s. What. A. Nutcase.
Oops, bad syntax. I mean,
Roosh, like Alec D’Urberville, is both penitent and a rapist, although (again like Alec) he is not penitent about the rape part. Carry on.
**(though not, like this nitwit, repentant about the rape part). And Alec’s foray into religious…”**
The whole “avoiding bodily pleasure” thing might see him jump on the Semen Retention train too.
It’s offensive to use the word “orthodox” to describe someone who obviously belongs to a monophysite church, like Roosh V. Please do better.
@Kevin, Mount Athos is for the actual Orthodox, not heretics who appropriate the label. Offensive comment, an apology is in order.
This reminds me of a recent Creationist Cat video. Roosh of course is mentioned in it.
Skeptics Take THE GOD PILL
@CriticalDragon1177 (@CriticalDragon1)
Ah, an unholy trifecta plus Roosh: Dave Rubin, Dave Cullen (Cullen is a gender policing fuck) and Jordan Peterson (who is a sex policing fuck).
I’ve heard a sermon once how freedom wasn’t about “doing whatever one wants” regarding religion, and I guess this is the main pull of religion and or religious fundamentalism for conservatives – a sense of purpose, a strict utilitarian approach.
> Crip Dyke
I am sorry, i do not know who is Dorothy Parker. I had simply choose a pseudonym corresponding to what i am here. If you think it is an inappropriate or offensive pseudonym, i can change it, i am not attached to it.
@occasional reader:
OH HEAVENS NO!
Dorothy Parker was a very outspoken woman writer, editor, critic and feminist and she was fucking AWESOME.
The reason I mention it is that her book review column went by the name “Constant Reader” and she would often refer to herself in the 3rd person as “Constant Reader” when writing her reviews.
Although she had many, many wonderful ones, the best only makes sense when you know about her tendency to self-reference in the way I just described. The original line and its context are so famous among the admittedly small group of NY literary fanatics that even though it was originally printed in the Oct 12, 1928 issue, the New Yorker has put this review (along with many other of her reviews) online. Here it is, excerpted from her book review of the first Winnie the Pooh volume:
Parker was, of course, way before the time of anyone here, more of a contemporary (and sometime friend) of Alice Toklas and Gertrude Stein. And, of course, getting her education in life and politics before WW1 much of what she believes would be … not very tenable by the standards of this site.
Still, for her ferocious intelligence and fearless willingness to call out the literature she disliked (even when it was popular, perhaps especially when it was popular) she is quite a darling of many a feminist english lit major even today. I knew nothing about her until I met my best friend who introduced me. Ever since, “Tonstant Weader fwowed up” has been a common refrain when we read something entirely too cutesy or saccharine.
Even if the reference was accidental (I thought it was possible that you were blending personal modesty with Dorothy Parker’s column name), I heartily, HEARTILY approve.
CarrieV:
Actually, I think he’s just dropped promiscuity, which practically stops him from perpetrating and endorsing date rape. I’m sure he still endorses marital rape, and probably hopes to get married somehow.
Naglfar:
I wonder if he’s actually much involved with the AAC, or rather being a “freelance believer” and absorbing his ideas mostly from US evangelicals.
@Lumipuna
He probably does. Yet another sign he hasn’t changed much.
That’s definitely a possibility. I hadn’t thought of that before, but knowing Roosh it seems plausible.
Oh pfft, he’s not having a midlife crisis, he’s an inveterate grifter in the process of changing revenue streams from would-be PUAs to god-bothering fundies. It’s where the easy money is at.
HAHAHA OH WOW the date-rape dude Canada didn’t want to allow in is now a semi-repentant for all the wrong reasons Jesus Freak ready to shoot himself in the foot financially so he’s square with DA LAWD.
(No offense meant to believers; I’m pretty sure that Roosh V’s idea of God is quite unlike anything this blog’s regular posters would consider to be anywhere near their own take on divinity, even if they belonged to the same denomination as him)
Wonder what he’ll do to boost his revenue stream next. A guide to marital rape, maybe? Would be in his wheelhouse.
@Paireon
I think he might try to make a guide to finding a Christian wife, which could well include a section on marital rape. Its definitely not out of the question. There already are PUA/redpill books for married men (about how to manipulate and rape one’s wife), so he wouldn’t be the first.
Goddammit, CriticalDragon, I’m already subscribed to too many YouTube channels, why you gotta make me add to the list?
@AntiHereticLeague
Neither David nor Kevin needs to “do better” or is obligated to apologize for taking Roosh V at his word when he claims to be a member of a particular religion. If you are of the opinion that Roosh doesn’t hold crucial tenets of all Christian churches that refer to themselves as Orthodox, then take it up with Roosh, I guess.
If you have an issue with certain churches that call themselves Orthodox because you believe they don’t have a right to, then 1) you are exhausting, 2) you’re never going to win that battle, and 3) you are definitely not going to win that battle by asking random people on the internet to comply with your theological terminology preferences.
@Viscaria
AntiHereticLeague reminds me a bit of various Christians I’ve run into who’ve claimed that people like Mike Pence aren’t “real Christians” in order to make Christianity look better. In reality, there are bad apples in any group and trying to make a No True Scotsman fallacy is rather unhelpful and can actually be harmful (e.g. #NotAllMen, etc).
@Naglfar, Viscaria:
It’s also kind of ceding the basis for the argument to your opponent to start with. The more narrow-minded folks (like Pence) are the ones who made a professional industry out of gatekeeping and saying that folks weren’t ‘real Christians’. It’s hard to win an argument when you accept the form of the opponent’s argument to start with and just complain about the target.
@AntiHereticLeague
I regret to inform you that you are, in fact, a heretic yourself. Indeed, every Christian is necessarily a heretic, since the majority of Christians hold their (which is to say your) theology to be blasphemously incorrect. When y’all can arrive at some kind of consensus on who isn’t a heretic, it might be worth paying attention to the matter.
What’s the over-under on how long it takes before Roosh starts publishing Christian flavored self-help misogyny? I’d say twelve months.
There’s literally a 1500 year old argument between “Eastern Orthodox” and “Oriental Orthodox” churches trying to exclude each other from the Orthodoxy (traditional concept of True Christianity). You can look it up on Wikipedia. The AAC is one of the Oriental Orthodox churches.
AFAIK in English “Orthodox” can be either shorthand for the Eastern Orthodox branch of Christianity, or a lump term for various eastern branches. I’m not sure what the corresponding “Western Orthodox” would be, unless it’s an obsolete term for western Christianity (Roman Catholic Church and its splinter groups).
What I find fascinating about the use of “No True Scotsman” to things like religious identities is how the users will change their definitions depending on the situation and their objectives.
For example, when declaring that “America is a Christian Nation (TM)” and therefore should have laws enshrining Christianity into power, they cite population statistics of every American who identifies as Christian.
Then, when they want to convince their followers that they are the Persecuted Remnant, the category “American Christians” is now much smaller, including only their sect.
Or it could be whether they want to exclude someone so as to make themselves look Not Awful (“Oh, Mike Pence is Not A Real Christian”) or to deny someone’s identity (lost count of the number of people who have told me that I am Not a Real Christian for any number of reasons, usually because I try not to be a bigot).
A great example of this: Are Mormons Real Christians? For over a century, they were not. Then in 2012 Mitt Romney got the Republican nomination, and suddenly Mormons were and always had been Real Christians… until November, when once again they were not and had never been Real Christians.
@Allandrel
The thing about this one is that I don’t think any one sect is the majority of American Christians, so if one sect did rule over the others the others would probably get fed up quickly.
I know someone who is an evangelical, who has repeatedly done both of those. She’s tried to defend her religion by saying Mike Pence and Donald Trump are not “real” Christians, while also claiming that Catholics are not “real” Christians (this seems to be a rather common viewpoint among quite a few Protestant sects).
@Lumipuna
I actually tried to look it up on Wikipedia, and from my (rather cursory) reading, I couldn’t tell if it was a monophysitism v dyophysitism fight of a dyophysitism v another kind of dyophysitism fight. That’s why I wasn’t sure if AntiHereticLeague was pissed off about Roosh’s particular beliefs or if they were pissed off at a whole segment of Orthodox Christianity. Thank you for clearing that up.
I’ll say again, @AntiHereticLeague, that if your religion says only X sects get to be Orthodox and there’s a whole bunch of other religions that say only Y sects get to be Orthodox and you’ve been slugging this out for 1500 years, you are definitely not going to get anyone to agree with you outside of your religious community*. Everyone else is going to let people self-define. Neither David nor Kevin stepped wrong by not adhering to your specific beliefs.
*And I very much expect that many members of your religious community are perfectly happy to let folks from the other side of the divide call themselves Orthodox, whether they’re the “true Orthodox” religions or not. My suspicion is that you, specifically, are the jerk here.
In his book “In The Shadow Of The Sword”, Tom Holland claims that what is traditionally called “monophysitism” in reference to the Chalcedonian schism, is actually a petty mocking name for the slightly watered-down dyophysitism professed by Oriental Orthodox churches.
According to both Holland and Wikipedia, modern scholarly language speaks of Chalcedonian Christianity (Western and Eastern Orthodox, from early Graeco-Roman tradition, dominant mainstream of Christianity) vs. non-Chalcedonian Christianity (Oriental Orthodox, from early Egyptian, Syrian and Armenian tradition).
These both share the Nicaean and Ephesian council agreements, unlike various other early branches that were never popular enough to become conventionally associated with the label Orthodox, regardless of what the followers of those branches call(ed) themselves.
@Naglfar
That’s one fascinating thing about these would-be theocrats – it’s a bunch of competing sects working together to create a theocracy, every one of them convinced that it will be their sect that becomes the State Church and that all their momentary allies will willingly go along with that.