His evidence in this case? A recent study of speed dating that showed that (straight) women, in addition to being attracted to attractive men (duh!), also seem to be attracted to men with high “sociosexuality” ratings. “Sociosexuality,” for those not fully immersed in the SCIENCE!! of dating, is basically someone’s propensity for casual sex.
In other words, the study found that guys who do a lot of casual dating tended to do better at casual dating.
Heartiste/Roissy puts it this way:
Men who have high sociosexuality (HSS) are more attractive to women because the suite of characteristics associated with HSS suggest prior experience bedding women and possession of mating skills that attract women.
It’s akin to a form of preselection for men, minus the actual women he’s banging being physically present at his side to aid in the alpha judging process that all women, consciously or not, impose on their suitors.
In a very loose sense, high male sociosexuality is male sluttiness.
If you strip out the PUA nonsense about the “alpha judging process,” all this seems fairly self-evident, if not simply tautological. Guys who’ve been with a lot of women will probably do better with women in the future than guys with no experience who view women as strange alien creatures. (Note: In all this, we’re only talking about straight people; PUAs don’t seem aware that gay people exist, outside of their own fantasies of hot bi girl threesomes.)
It’s at this point that Heartiste/Roissy amps up the assholery:
Male sluttiness is not equivalent to female sluttiness. It is more difficult for a man to be slutty that it is for a woman owing to the discrepancy in worth between sperm and egg, so people justifiably perceive male sluts to have higher quality mate value, and higher quality mating skills, than female sluts for whom the act of sexual conquest is merely synonym for being easy.
In other words, it’s bad to be a female slut, but great to be a male slut:
[T]he study results confirm the validity of game when its conclusions find that male sociosexuality is a relatively powerful predictor of attractiveness to women, even to women looking for long-term relationships.
Not only can this SCIENCE!! of game help to get dudes laid – it can basically save the world from evil fat chicks.
It’s vital to readers to get this scientific information validating game out there, because there are a lot of doubters and haters who are blinded by what they won’t see. Sometimes, men need to know that there is an experimental foundation supporting all these seduction techniques and peculiarities of female behavior. It’s not necessary to know this stuff to start gaming chicks out in the field right now, but for men with a cynical bent or shy disposition, it helps to know that there are rules that govern human interaction. It may be the boost they need.
Turning former nerds into wily lotharios will help to put those uppity female sluts in their place:
[A] moment of candor. This blog is first and foremost a source of self-amusement, but it is also a true and real desire to teach and to see men succeed sexually and emotionally with women. Men who become better at attracting women increase their options in the mating market. Men with increased options cause women to behave better. Women behaving better redounds to the benefit of families, and to society.
And by “behave better”, I mean the whole panoply of awful modern female behavior: cheating, cock carouseling, divorcing on a whim, eat pray loving, straycationing, spinstering, attention whoring, voting and fattening up into repulsive dirigibles.
Yep, he did slyly insert “voting” into all that. Sneaky!
So slut it up, fellas! It’s the only way to put those evil lady sluts in their place. And, thereby, save the world from sex-having, vote-casting slatterns.
Manosphere dudes, as readers of this blog are well aware, love talking about women and their “rationalization hamsters.” As one douchenozzle defined the term:
The rationalization hamster is an analogy for the thought processes used by women to turn bad behavior and bad decisions into acceptable ones to herself and her friends. When a woman makes a bad decision, the hamster spins in its wheel (the woman’s thinking) and creates some type of acceptable reasons for that bad decision. The crazier the decision, the faster the hamster must spin in order to successfully rationalize away the insanity.
When the hamster rationalizes successfully, a woman can divorce [yeah, I meant to use that verb] herself from the consequences of her bad decision or behavior.
He’s got it backwards. Women don’t have “rationalization hamsters.” They have “hamster rationalizations.”
Example: “I’ll just eat one hamster. It won’t spoil my meal.”
Of course, that’s impossible. Hamsters are like potato chips, only furry and squirmier. Everyone knows you can’t eat just one!
Silly women and their hamster rationalizations! No wonder they’re so fat.
If you ever use the phrase "pussy fountain," it had better refer to this.
As a regular chronicler of the Manosphere, I’m used to reading a lot of truly horrifying shit. But even by Manosphere standards, the following stood out. It’s from our good pal Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide, who felt the need to end a recent post by putting this image in my brain:
Among my friends, all of us are splashing in the pussy fountain. Some are sipping, others are gulping, but none of us are thirsty or dehydrated.
So now it’s in your brain, too!
In case you’re wondering, this came from a post in which our intrepid pussy fountain splasher argued that men
shouldn’t trust men who can’t get laid — they are opportunists who will betray you for the slimmest chance of scoring some pussy. … I wouldn’t be friends with a man who was perennially hopeless with the ladies. I might empathize with him, but I wouldn’t want to be near him. So you should live your life as well.
After reading this, I instantly developed a similar policy of my own. I don’t want to have anything to do with guys who refer to sex as “splashing in the pussy fountain.” In fact, I’d really prefer that there were no such guys.
[F]eminism is, right down to its withered, cunty heart, a grotesque ideology mounted on a dais of lies. My goal is to mock it so ruthlessly that its practitioners and sympathizers, all of them, find it ever more difficult to pronounce in public life that they are feminists, to drive the true believers so far underground that only their raspy-throated, dusty-muffed sisters-in-arms are willing to entertain their insipid nostrums.
Woah, dude! Slow down for a moment and take a breath.
This is total war, and in total war where the weapons are words, the goal is utter destruction through social ostracism. The icy wasteland of discredited ideologues and crackpots mumbling self-medicating catchphrases and hitting themselves in the forehead is feminism’s inevitable destination.
Wait, let’s do that last sentence again.
The icy wasteland of discredited ideologues and crackpots mumbling self-medicating catchphrases and hitting themselves in the forehead is feminism’s inevitable destination.
Yeah, I thought that’s what he said.
Some other observations:
Marriage and kids are no amnesty from man-hating. Some of the worst ideological feminists are lantern-jawed fuzzfaced quasi-dykes married to mincing beta schlubs who confirm feminist prejudices by their mere existence, not to mention by their sycophantic suckuppery.
Oh and this:
Feminism’s leaders and spokeshos are, almost to a bitch, man-hating termagants who loathe male desire and cheer on third trimester vacuumings.
Nothing more charming than a PUA dickbag who’s against abortion.
Having dispensed with feminism, Roissy goes on to wax pompous about the future of the whole human race. Naturally, he thinks like a PUA version of Hitler.
Thanks to technology, diversity and cognitive stratification, America is entering the period of The Great Culling, a process which will create not only new classes, but even new races, broadly a snarky Eloi and a medicated Morlock, and slowly, as the government cheese runs out, the losers in this culling will begin to procreate less and less, until they are discarded by the invisible crotch of evolution as failed human experiments unable to adapt to the new reality.
The “invisible crotch of evolution?”
I cannot help but think of a certain memorable phrase from one of Man Boobz’ greatest trolls. I am referring, of course, to Arks’ description of the human vagina as a “slobbering crotch-maw.”
Is Arks … Roissy? Is Roissy … Arks?
I don’t think so, but it makes me wonder once again if this whole Chateau Heartiste thing is nothing more than an elaborate hoax.
It’s almost impossible to catalogue all the ways men are oppressed by women in contemporary gynocratic society. There are so many! For example, did you know that men are oppressed by female characters in video games? I know, right? The last bastion of red-blooded manliness, invaded by imaginary ladies!
I see a new trend in the video/computer game world and that is the increase in strong playable female characters.
Now, I am no hardcore gamer but I do play computer games often and the recent one I have been playing recently is Shogun 2 total war. Now for those who don’t know what this game is, it is a strategy game based on the military of feudal Japan. I recently bought an upgrade for the game the other day and guess what one of the strongest military units was? Nuns. I shit you not. The nuns had an attack 20% -40% higher than most units in the game. Somehow I doubt that in real life a nun would have swung a sword or used a spear faster and harder than a feudal warlord, and this game was based on history.
Clearly nuns are incapable of manlike swordplay, though it is true that they are capable reenacting famous internet panda sneeze videos. (I have seen video proof of this.) But Shogun 2 does not depict them sneezing like pandas. It depicts them fighting.
This is an outrage because video games are meant to be a perfectly accurate reflection of reality. Obviously there is nothing even slightly unrealistic about any of this:
Most of us dudes are in fact capable of karate-chopping heads in two. We just don’t like to show off all the time.
I think I have the right to ask steam and other gaming companes: WTF with the subliminal brainwashing? What now when I buy or play a game women will be doing all the ass kicking? …
I call bullshit on this subject. Video games are the last place for guys to hang out and now women are taking over. Why not just save us the trouble and instead of eliminating our fantasy world just throw us in work camp to provide for thier bastard children (literally speaking) while they shit all over us…wait they already do that.
I Am is not the only dude who’s noticed this alarming femtrend. Goldenfetus added his observations:
I’ve noticed this too, and it drives me insane. Was co-oping Gears 3 last month and there’s a point where 2nd player has to take over a female character. Almost ruined the game for me. It may seem minor, but once you’re aware of this type of brainwashing it’s impossible to ignore. There’s no way a slim female could keep up with the massive battle-hardened male Gears in that kind of environment. They would be a liability as they are in real life combat.
Exactly! By contrast, the male characters in Gears of War 3 are all completely accurate representations of real-world men.
This is what dudes look like, for real.
Goldenfetus continued:
You’ll see the same thing in most stat-based role-playing games as well, where you have the option of a female player character – like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, D&D, etc. The women never have any strength or intelligence penalties compared to the males. … They want to give the impression that people of any race, gender, and sexual-orientation are interchangeable – that there are no differences in ability between them, and that only a bigot could think otherwise. I’m sick of it too.
At the very least, female characters should be depicted as carriers of cooties.
Despite the very serious subject matter – video game misandry is never funny! – Xtc tried to lighten the mood with a little humor:
It would be hilarious to portray the female characters realistically. If you chose the female character in your FPS [First Person Shooter] she would have to move very slowly, dragging the gun around. You could build in some extra shake to the crosshairs to represent hopeless accuracy. Every time you needed to reload your gun, instead of just pressing a button, you’d have to find a male character and go through some flirting dialogue options to persuade him to do it for you. One out of every four missions the game would tell you that you were sitting out this one due to ‘women’s issues’.
Calloway, for his part, offered some historical perspective:
This is nothing new. I got heavy into gaming back in the late 90’s and even back then they had Tomb Raider, S.I.N., etc. Even in the original Unreal, you played as a big-breasted female.
I saw a documentary on the making of the original Tomb Raider once. The lead character, Lara Croft, was originally going to be a man. They saw him as an Indiana Jones-type character. Then, one of the designers suggested it be a woman because “if you’re going to be playing a game for hours, you might as well have something good to look at”. …
When you first take the red pill, it’s amazing the things you see. It’s as if you had blinders on before, and all of sudden they’ve been removed, allowing you to actually understand what you’ve been seeing.
Yep. And what you’ve been seeing is Lara Croft’s ass. Lara Croft’s ass oppresses men! The red pill tells me so!
Also, those tiny misandrist shorts just make the gynpression worse.
Now we come to the clincher.
When you try to get romantic with the imaginary ladies in video games, they don’t act like Roissy and those dudes say ladies act. I mean, you can’t even neg them! As Dave sadly pointed out:
I remember about 12 years ago playing the Baldur’s Gate rpg series and there were some romance dialog paths between your character and some of the women who could join your group but you had to treat them very nice. You couldn’t give them any attitude or make fun of them otherwise it would be over.
Basically you have to be a total mangina towards women in most games if you want to bed them.
On the internet, no one knows you're a dog disguised as a cat.
Over on the always repugnant In Mala Fide, a guest blogger by the name of What is To Be Done recently offered his comrades in the “anti-establishment / man/ biorealist / HBD/ reactionary / racist / patriarch / tradcon / whatever blogosphere” what he evidently sees as a revolutionary suggestion: instead of trying to fight the evil feminists with “well-reasoned arguments,” why not simply set up fake feminist blogs, and post shit on them to make feminists looks bad?
WITBD explained:
On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a saboteur. We are naturally smarter than the feminists (in fact, objectively better in every conceivable way), and in addition, we are well-trained in deception by our studies of game. In other words, it’ll be a piece of cake for us to mimic their arguments and appear to them as really smart girls who really know their shit.
Really? Because no one I’ve ever run across in the manosphere has managed to pull off a particularly convincing impersonation of a really smart anything. And in order to effectively parody something, you have to actually understand it first. Given some of the truly odd things MRAs and manospherians believe about feminism and feminists – see my post on Operation Alimony yesterday for one recent example — I’m somehow thinking that the only people dumb enough to be fooled by these “false-flag-feminist” blogs will be other, yep, MRAs and manosphereians.
Nonetheless, WITBD claimed that’s he’s already started putting his little plan into action:
I have already begun false flag blogging myself. At this stage, giving the link would ruin the whole thing. But it’s out there. And “false flag blogging” returned only 87 results, of which only a few actually seemed to discuss what I’m talking about, so for the time being it seems nobody is watching out for it. Not that they’d be able to tell anyway.
His fantasies got more and more extravagant:
Think long term. The endgame is to build a big enough presence that coming out as a fake feminist generates buzz in and of itself. Imagine if it came out that the founder of Feministing was actually a men’s rights activist.
And that he could fly, and shoot lasers from his eyes! Imagination is fun!
(Note: The founder of Feministing is not actually an MRA, or a man. Nor can she fly or shoot lasers from her eyes.)
WITBD continued fantasizing:
Eventually, our false flag bloggers will coordinate with our legitimate bloggers and have “debates” where both sides are controlled by us.
And where the only people paying attention are you guys.
If you feel you are getting really good at this, attack some prominent feminists for not being feminist enough. I don’t even know what that would mean, but, hey, this is feminism. Nonsense is our bread and butter.
Wheels within wheels!
Some on In Mala Fide thought this was a dandy idea. Frost wrote:
Fuck yeah. Awesome post. …
[W]e need to get bold and creative with how we fight the war for the best minds in the western world. False flag blogging is a wide-open front. Especially if you’re new to writing and aren’t yet confident in your voice – and unless you have written many thousands of words already, the truth is your writing is probably going to suck – a false-flag blog would be a great way to hone your skills while only having to actually write at the level of typical mid-twenties gender studies grad student.
Here’s a post of mine that sadly didn’t get a lot of attention, but it’s one of my own personal favourites:
I submitted it to The Good Men project, Manboobz, and a few other Mangina sites as a guest post, but sadly no one bit. These people are just so easy to parody, it’s ridiculous.
Regular Man Boobz readers may have a rather different assessment of how effective his parody was.
Others on In Mala Fide were a bit more skeptical of the “false-flag” idea. As out-and-proud racist thwak put it:
It sounds like a good idea, but it won’t work. Its been tried by white people on counter racism forums and they always got busted. We used to call it the “nigger impersonation syndrome”.
A white person would sign up with a name like “Jamal” and speak ebonics… but they always got busted cause at some point they hafta come out of “nigger cloak” to practice racism; i.e, say and/or do something a black person would not say/do.
Sure, they have the option of coming on the discussion board and pretending to be a full time nigger, but how does that advance the racist agenda? …
The “black White Supremacist” stuck out like a nun in a whore house everytime.
And got busted everytime.
Gosh, it’s almost as if black people are actual human beings and not just racist caricatures. And that real black people can somehow magically spot the difference between other real black people and racist assholes posting in “ebonics.”
Huh. Could the same happen with feminists?
In a followup post, WITBD dismissed the critics as uncreative cowards. And it turns out that fake blogs are only the starting point in his grand plan.
The fact is we are not the alt-right. We are the new left. We are the oppressed proles … They are the establishment. We lost “our” country. They control it all now. We have blogs. And a handful of churches and seasteading. Sucks.
Now it’s time to move on. We have to take these pieces of shit down and that means we must use leftist tactics. This kind of blogging operation is the beginning of a long march to infiltrate and undermine their institutions.
Sounds like someone has been reading Mao’s Little Red Book!
Playing around? Real men fight to win, period. We fight feminism specifically because it’s the weak point of liberalism. Read your Sun Tzu. Attacking the entire rainbow coalition at once is madness. You always attack the enemy where he is weakest.
And the weakest links are the ladies, naturally.
[N]ot all women actually benefit from feminism. They may think they win at first, but we know full well that feminist sex and the city-type women lose big time: no kids, no committed alpha, no nothing. Most women don’t benefit, and many women are recognizing this.
Right now among women, feminism is high status and actually being feminine is low status. But all women instinctively want to actually be feminine, and they have better life results when they do. We all know about how to manipulate women’s idea of status. This should be easy to work out.
If we take out or marginally disrupt feminism, and pull lots of white women out of the coalition, it crumbles in short order.
Oh no! Not the white women! Don’t take the white women!
High-IQ thundercunts are major war engines of the regime, and especially the childless ones. They actually run the agencies, corporations, HR departments, universities, etc. Without them, the enemy has a harder time operating. As well, white women are blatantly used as bait to recruit minority men into liberal groups.
Anti-feminism is something that we know well … and it is something that the other elements of the liberal coalition actually somewhat agree with us on because its not like the blacks, Mexicans, Arabs etc. are keen on empowering their women. All men of all races have common ground in dealing with the unique female brand of bullshit and thus are potential sympathizers on this issue.
So this is his grand plan: for racist white dudes like him (and much of In Mala Fide’s readership) to build a sort of antifeminist rainbow coalition with “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc” … in order to take down feminism … in order to weaken liberalism … in order to screw over the “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc.”
Today, a GUEST POST from Catherine! Thanks, Catherine! And the rest of you, enjoy!
Over on Chateau Heartiste, the (He)artist(e) Formerly Known As Roissy devoted a recent post to the conundrum of handsome men coupled with ugly women. It’s essentially an open thread for the denigration of women who don’t live up to Roissy’s porntastic standards (17 to 20 years old with a BMI of about 18 *and* a D cup, and related WTF?! attributes), as well as ragging on those awful beta manginas who are punching below their weight – or, to quote Heartiste himself, are “polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.”
I was participating in a mobile conference which included question and answer periods, and I noticed an odd couple standing to my side. He was youngish and good-looking — most women would agree on his physical attractiveness — and his wife was a snout-nosed, inbred-looking, stringy-haired, big fat pig dressed in sweatshirt and ill-fitting jeans. In other words, the typical American woman. I assumed they were married because I saw their rings and she had her hand on a stroller with an infant tucked away in it.
He’s just getting started.
What abomination is this! I thought. But then the reason became crystal clear after only a few moments watching and listening to them interact.
Speaker: Any questions?
Big Fat Pig: [nudging her hubby with her elbow] Honey, remember…
Handsome Husbandry: [tentatively raising his index and middle finger, and haltingly talking] I have a question… I have a…
So obviously the young good-looking man is totally under the thumb of the big fat evil feminist woman, who has sucked out his brains and reduced him to a quivering lump of hesitation and uncertainty!
As he asked his question, he kept looking over at his wife — in fact, staring at his wife more than the speaker, although he was ostensibly addressing the speaker. One would be forgiven for having the impression that he was seeking constant real-time assurance from his wife that his question was acceptable for public discourse. Nervously shifting from one foot to the other, leaning into his wife, gazing downward when the speaker responded to him, his body language was so beta it was painful to watch. No, it was repulsive to behold, almost as repulsive as the visual effrontery of his wife’s blubbery carcass.
So, sniveling, indecisive beta manginas are repulsive… but not as repulsive as a corpulent woman! Gotcha, Roissy.
After getting in a few more digs at the contemptuous, unsympathetic wife, Roissy sets forth his views on various types of couples. First, the kinds of couples that should be allowed to exist:
Handsome man with beautiful woman
All is right in the world. You infer the man has alpha characteristics to complement his good looks, and he has cashed that in for a hot babe. …
Ugly man with ugly woman
All is right, if depressing, in the world. You infer the ugly man has beta or even omega characteristics, and that an ugly woman was the best he could do. You assume the ugly woman resents him for having to settle, but knows she has no other options. Love between them is less about passion than it is about task delegation and avoidance of suicidal loneliness.
All is well in the world of alpha males with hot babes, but those in ugly people combos need to find some highly diverting hobbies to keep from offing themselves.
Now Roissy turns his attention to two apparent mismatches, and delineates his usual double standards:
Ugly man with beautiful woman
Wow, he is shooting out of his league! But then, thinking on it a bit, you recall that you saw quite a few couples like this mismatched pair during the week. It’s less rare than popularly imagined. You may ask yourself “What does she see in him?”, and from that you infer the ugly man has compensating alpha attributes to snag such a hottie — maybe he’s wealthy, or slick, or funny, or a dominating asshole, or some combination of each. You assume this ugly man has options to be able to choose a beauty for a girlfriend.
Moral: ugly men are permitted to have counter-balancing attributes! Can you guess what is coming next?
Handsome man with ugly woman
Whoa, what is he thinking?! An uncommon sight, (occurrence less frequent than its polar opposite), you presume the handsome man has some debilitating personality flaw — maybe social awkwardness, or shyness, or micropenis — that prevents him from fornicating with his true potential. Unlike the mirror image couple of the ugly man with the beautiful woman, you do not give the ugly woman the benefit of the doubt in assessing why she was able to catch a handsome man. You simply conclude, reasonably, that the handsome man is not the alpha male on the inside that he looks like on the outside, and therefore the ugly woman is not really dating out of her league. There must be something wrong with him, you think.
Women have no value beyond their looks, so the pitiful man dating someone wretchedly below Roissy’s artificial standards must likewise be sub-standard, in some way invisible to us, to have abased himself so humiliatingly.
Having drawn these pictures, Roissy rounds out the post with a sermon on female ugliness, which is to be universally shunned:
There is an instinctive, deeply primitive understanding chugging away behind the prefrontal cortex in every one of us that women sexually respond to a suite of male attractiveness traits, of which looks are only one desirable male quality. It is therefore not inconceivable to most non-brainwashed observers that an ugly man might have other characteristics that appeal to a beautiful woman on his arms, or that a handsome man might be crippled with weakness and self-doubt that constrains his ability to attract no better than a big fat pigwoman.
And we’re back to the disparaging references to pigs. Why, oh why does Roissy hate pork so? (That he detests women is more or less expected.)
In the mismatched couple I witnessed, it was clear that whatever good will or tokens of desire that the handsome man had inspired in his pigwoman were completely squandered by his beta behavior. It was easy to see by her loathsome demeanor that his looks no longer held — if they ever did beyond the first couple of dates — any sway over her feelings for him. But being the big fat pigwoman she is, she knew she could not do better.
And that is why the generational increase in human beauty is a slow, painstaking process, punctuated by tragic reversals to a sloping brow norm (see: Appalachia, Detroit). Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.
What the hell was that? I’ll quote it again: “Handsome betas are polluting the gene pool with pigwoman blood.” Oh, the huge manatee! Shrink in terror from the impending doom to be brought about by porcine-human hybrids!
Naturally such hyperbole is a cue for some predictable misogyny in the comments, such as the following from regular tool Tyrone:
That’s why its good to be older to get a good sense for how a woman will age. There are loads of women who look hot when young but turn into cattle as they age. Mom is usually a good bench mark. If you’d do her Mom, you’re probably safe. Check out how Ginger Lynn looks like nowadays. You’d never recognize her from her porn days.
A view right in line with Roissy’s famed dating value regimen that women lose value once they’re older than, say, 29; and Tyrone follows it up with some white supremacism:
White people won’t survive without more kids. Smart white men need to breed more in our country- with white women.
What, you might ask, about women with great bodies but unappealing faces? One Anonymous coward urges his brethren to go for it :
[O]ne of my biggest regrets was not doing a girl who had the hottest body around but an ugly face. Temporarily of course.
But for fuck’s sake don’t marry them. Right, tenderman100?
Some years ago, before I was married for the first time (twice married, twice divorced) I was banging this babe. Amazing body. Amazing tits. But a kind of a bucktoothed face. When I first met her, I thought, wow what amazing tits…yeah she’s kinda ugly but she’s friendly and I just have to see those tat tas. Well, not only did I see them, we banged for a few months. She was incredible in bed, highly orgasmic, very flexible (did ballet). Haven’t seen her in decades, but if she is a fat cow, I wouldn’t be surprised. Yeah, she was ugly but she pounded like a pro. So it isn’t always what it seems. Then again, I would never have married her.
If not marriage, then what about a long-term relationship? Over again to Tyrone:
A good woman who has reparable shortcomings is still a good option for an LTR. Fugly is a whole different animal.
But if you marry one of them, Tyrone adds, make sure you have a contingency plan!
My wife knows if she ever lets herself go, talks about divorce, whatever that pisses me off enough to leave, I will simply disappear into the night. No arguments or emotions, it will be a complete coup de main. There won’t be anyone around to serve papers to. I’ll be overseas in an undisclosed location screwing LBFMs.
In case you don’t already know, LBFM is short for Little Brown Fucking Machines, a term of art to refer to Asian women (frequently underage) sought out by sex tourists — which should be sufficient to outline Tyrone’s sophisticated moral principles. He continues:
I say this with no emotion or bravado, just let her know its a fact that she must deal with. Marriage is like defense policy, the best defense is a good offense. Strike first, strike to kill. Identify a location and buy yourself some property there, so you have somewhere to go. Move enough money there to live well until you can start a bar or whatever to live. Plan this for a few years in advance if need be. Life is too short to be some stupid broad’s wage slave.
How charming!
Heartiste really has a way of bringing out the best in people!
NOTE: The title of this post is sarcastic. If you found this post through a Google search because you’re actually looking for tips on how to exploit desperate young women, you’re a piece of shit, and this post is not for you. Go away, and go fuck yourself.
Fellas! Want sex, but don’t have the money to shell out on prostitutes? Hate the time and effort it takes to talk a non-professional sex-having women into having sex with you? A recent post by Advocatus Diaboli on the always delightful In Mala Fide offered an elegant solution for horny but frugal men. In a post titled Pooning on a Tight Budget, AD explained the technique that has worked for him:
Getting poor, but good-looking, young girls (18-23) to have sex with [you] in return for some timely financial help.
Turns out that women who are poor and desperate can be exploited for your own sexy purposes!
Of course, it’s not always quite as easy as it might seem.
I should be upfront that getting amateur women to have sex for money can be tricky as most of them believe that they are not whores. Moreover, poor young women often have “boyfriends” and white knight orbiters. So I created a set of filters and rules to screen out the most problematic types.
According to AD, all you have to do is to:
Avoid all girls who have obvious and serious drug and mental health issues or have lived on the street for over 6 weeks at a stretch.
Happily for you, that still leaves lots of girls ripe for the picking! AD suggests you focus your attention on:
Freshly homeless young girls, especially those who hangout in mixed groups.
The safest ones are those who are into pot, drumming, dreadlocks et cetera. You can find them in many larger cities in the spring and summer. While I would never trust them with any significant amount of money, many are reasonably decent human beings.
You might not think you’d have much in common to talk about with these women – what with them being “reasonably decent human beings” and you being a “completely reprehensible pile of shit” – but you’d be surprised.
Strike up a conversation with them, engage them and see where it leads. But you must make it plainly obvious that you are interested in them sexually, but that all favors require reciprocation. Once you get to know them, a decent round of drinks, snacks, money for pot, a small necessary item of clothing, decent dinner with booze will almost guarantee you a good lay (or at least a couple of BJs).
And if you crunch the numbers you’ll see it’s really quite a frugal solution.
Your initial financial hit for hanging out with them is very small, and once they are sleeping with you.. it will often work to about $30-60 (cash equivalent or cash) per session. You may also get freebies..
But girls don’t necessarily have to be literally homeless to be desperate enough to sleep with you for money. Nope! You may also find great cost-savings from targeting:
Girls who are not homeless, but are just hanging on.
How do you find these lovely ladies? Keep an eye out for women working really shitty jobs that don’t pay shit! You’ll find them conveniently located
in smaller retail stores or businesses that pay minimum wage with no tips. Build a rapport and be fairly upfront about your interest, but do not come across as desperate. Go to her workplace and talk to her when you are in that area, but do not stalk her.
Yep, it turns out that even desperate women can be creeped out. So play it cool! Stalking’s for fools!
There’s another possible hurdle: other dudes.
Such women often have “boyfriends,” however, they are often just as poor or poorer than her. You can get pussy as long as you are firm about the need for reciprocation. This category of girls might be more willing to give BJs than having ‘real sex.’ But do you really care?
Just remember to keep to your budget!
Restrict your help to less than $200 at any one time AND only after she has put out a couple of times.
And then there’s AD’s favorite category of desperate women:
Girls who are poor, but not homeless and have no “boyfriends” + have moved to the city within the last eight weeks.
You have hit the jackpot!
Just don’t get carried away. Remember: you’re in charge, and she should know it!
Remember these girls can become de facto GFs, but do not restrict yourself to one. While you do not have to rub it in their faces, they should know that you are always looking around for a better deal. But treat them a bit better than type 1 and 2, they do give more per dollar spent on them.
Your accountant will be so, so proud of you!
Just remember:
They will play by your rules as long as they are not too dehumanizing, and they are often cheaper than professional whores.
Now that’s a motto to live by!
Amazingly, not all of the readers of In Mala Fide appreciated AD’s little treatise.
Pretty damn creepy. You sound like you have no soul. Actually, you might be the first member of a new species: the perfectly rational, purely selfish utility-maximizing agent (Homo Economicus) that Austrian economists and Randroids have always droned on and on about.
Yes, I was as surprised as you are to read an actually reasonable critique of the post on In Mala Fide.
Don’t worry, though, the rest of the comments mostly lived up to the foul standards of the blog.
Ryu worried about the old slippery slope. If you start by suggesting that PUAs target homeless women, the next thing you know they’ll advocate sex with children! And then down the slippery slope you’ll slide:
This is the direction that PU takes one in. I’m surprised that there haven’t been any PUAs who say that during a dry spell we should go to gay bars and pick up men. Just to keep your dick wet, you know.
There’s a problem WNs have yet to deal with. Well off second-generation foreigners like AD taking advantage of your impoverished women of older native stock, after they’ve taken your jobs.
Can’t keep ‘em here, can’t send ‘em back.
What to do?
Blog proprietor Ferdinand Bardamu waded in to take a shot at all the “white knights” sticking up for the gals.
ROFLMAO at all these white knights. …
If you want to blame someone, blame the morally debased white women who would rather blow a stranger for $200 then work honestly (pull yourself up by your bootstraps, slob! nobody owes you anything!).
We’re living in Soviet Amerika (and Soviet Kanada). All of your daughters are whores or will become whores, soon as the price tag gets high enough.
Meanwhile, Stoner With a Boner, who sometimes graces the comments section here with his always trenchant wisdom, took a stand on behalf of the real victims here: dudes paying their own hard-earned money to icky ladies for sex.
Personally, I find the idea of clocking more hours at a job I hate just to hand $200 to a prostitute who would probably leave me dying in the street rather than help degrading.
Today, a lesson in advanced Facebook dating mathematics, courtesy of our friend Roissy/Heartiste.
First: fellas, remember that online dating is stacked against us, due to the ability of the ladies to post pictures of themselves looking cute on Facebook – one of the gravest injustices of the modern world. As Heartiste explains, in a post with the bracing title You’ll Need Hard Negs For Facebook Game:
So you’ve got millions of women posting flattering pics of themselves and personal details that are uniformly positive on their FB walls, and you’ve got a bunch of cloying betas feeding the egos of these women even further with painstakingly crafted supportive comments, and you expect to make any headway with tepid game? That is a bitch shield too strong to breach.
But if you must engage the ladies on this unfavorable terrain, remember to adjust your calculations accordingly. As Heartiste explains this new math:
The combination of self-selected profiles and nonstop beta adulation will boost a 5′s self-conception to a 7. Since 5s already have a self-conception of 6 thanks to the phenomenon of female upward dating momentum and the alpha cock carousel, you now have a double-strength bitch shield to bust instead of a single strength.
I’ve prepared a simple chart to illustrate this point:
How to date on Facebook
But wait! There’s more:
Remember, if a 5 believes she’s a 7 (“But I *feel* like a 7!”) she is also going to believe that male 7s are not high enough status for her. Women are not truly happy unless they are dating men 0.5 to 2 sexual market value points higher than themselves.
Five thinks it’s seven. But seven is five. SEVEN IS FIVE!
The reality, of course, is that the male 7 is two full points higher than the female 5. But the Facebook wall has meddled with the primal forces of nature. An unbridgeable chasm brought about by the advance of technology has severed the organically emergent hierarchy of the dating market where there is no escape from soul withering judgments made in mere seconds.
So, as always, the best bet for the modern man is to find some lady in the real world who actually thinks she’s the number she is. Then, simply neg her until she hates herself. That’s how the math is supposed to work.
Well, that was … instructive. The Twitter hashtag extravaganza that is #mencallmethings is still going strong. But I think at this point it’s safe to say that it has basically served it’s purpose: to highlight the obnoxious, obscene, often threatening misogynist shit that women who express their opinions about almost anything on the internet get in their inboxes or in comments online on a regular basis. Women with feminist blogs who actually call out this kind of misogyny get this sort of abuse basically every day.
Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown, who started up this hashtag campaign, explained in an eloquent and angry blog post why she did it: to point out how absolutely routine this sort of shit is. When she started her blog, she really hadn’t anticipated the sheer volume of vicious shit she’d get:
I got targeted. With threats, with insults, with smear campaigns, with attempts to threaten my employment or credibility or just general ability to get through the day with a healthy attitude and a minimal amount of insult.
The intent of all this abuse is simple: to intimidate. When someone says to a woman online “I hope you get raped with a chainsaw,” the point is to get her to shut up. The person who posts this sort of violent shit, Doyle notes,
hopes that the next time you sit down to write, you’ll remember that yikesy chainsaw-rape thing and think, “you know? Maybe this isn’t such a great idea. Maybe I don’t need to say this. Maybe I’ll piss someone off, and maybe it will be more than I can handle, and you know, maybe my thoughts on this topic just ARE NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH for me to risk the headache/fear/irritation/distress/panic attack I know I will get.”
And then, when you say that aloud, they call you a whiny little girl who can’t handle the Internet. Because, of COURSE multiple chainsaw-rape comments aren’t a big deal! They’re just words! Sticks and stones! …
To you, my friends, I say: Fuck that noise. All of this matters. A hostile work environment matters. Being afraid of your own in-box matters. Deleting your blog because that’s the only way for you to have a normal, non-hate-filled life matters. “Accepting” that continual, virulent, hateful misogynist abuse is a pre-condition for being a lady who talks about thing, or for challenging sexism in any way, no matter who you are: That matters. And if you think we’re fragile, well. LET US COUNT THE WAYS we have hacked it, under conditions your pampered manly self just cannot imagine. LET US DEMONSTRATE FOR YOU the shit we wade through, every day, in order to talk about whether or not we liked that one “Community” episode or Lady GaGa album.
Naturally, critics of the whole hashtag campaign have done their best to minimize and dismiss this sort of routine harassment in exactly the ways that Doyle predicted they would.
The charming Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide responded to #mencallmethings with a bunch of obnoxious comments that conveniently proved basically every point Sady Doyle was trying to make with the hashtag in the first place. He started off with this bit of rapier wit:
Encouraged by Bardamu’s example, blogger PMAFT (Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology) announced a #MenCallMeThings Trolling Contest. The highlight of his own contributions to this contest:
Over on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, c0mputar offered slightly more coherent, if equally misguided, response.
The reality is that most of the “misogyny” they face is just criticism to their feminist viewpoints. I see this a lot when I confront feminists arguments, present my arguments, and get called a misogynist, amongst other things characterized by misandry. It happens on both sides …
here’s some to start: ‘I’ll rape your mum, faggot fuck’ “I’ll come to your house and kill you”
#mencallmethings, impersonate me on FB, & make disgusting sexual comments, post my name & # when I helped organize Slutwalk
cunt, whore, ugly, disgusting, cold, feminazi, shut the fuck up bitch, manipulative, crazy, playing the victim, sociopath
Bitch, whore, being sensitive, little girl, dumb, subject of jokes involving physical and sexual assault.
Any variation on fat and/or ugly at this point just makes me yawn.
I’ve had so many emails and messages telling me I deserve a beating, I don’t even keep track any longer.
“13? Judging by the size of your titties, I’d of thought you were 18.”
(censored version) If you keep talking the way you do, you deserved to get raped.
My #mencallmethings moment – receiving an email consisting of 1600 lines plus of the same insult over and over. My crime? Being fat.
I’ve had so many guys tell me how good I must be in bed because I’m fat and therefor will do anyone
I usually get ‘sweetheart’ just before they dismiss my argument as being ‘stupid’. No counter argument.
Will not repeat the violence that’s been directed at me but this one made me laugh “Blubbering self-important herd animal.”
apparently I’m a lesbian… I was unaware until #mencallmethings.
I’M ON ANTI-DEPRESSANTS AND I CANT EVEN JERK OFF CORRECTLY NOW & ITS BECAUSE OF WOMEN SO FUCK ALL YOU INFERIOR COWS
“You should have your tongue ripped out.”
I get sent one rape threat a month on average.
I was once told “get back in the kitchen you ugly bitch” for posting on a Linux board (can’t remember which one now)
Have you ever wanted someone to tell you that your genetalia should be stapled shut with bugs inside, start a blog
How about being choked to death during a forced blowjob? Start a feminist blog.
Not worth the effort to murder: the most recent example of what I had to delete off the blog when #mencallmethings
C0mputar, in his Reddit post, went on to offer another argument that seems to be a favorite of those trying to trivialize the abuse catalogued by the contributors to #mencallmethings:
In the end, veterans of the internet know there is no protected demographic. Everyone gets shit on, but if you make a point of belonging with a group, you get shit on even more, and more so the smaller you are. You know who gets shit on more than feminists? MRAs.
Really? Some MRA types on Twitter tried to get a rival hashtag going: #womencallmethings. Needless to say, they didn’t have much to work with.
One Man Boobz non-fan — whom I banned for his repeated comments about anal rape — tried to post a sarcastic little comment here last night dismissing #mencallmethings on similar grounds. Here’s a screenshot from my wordpress account, with his identifying data erased:
Let’s just, for contrast, take a look at the previous comment he tried to post here:
Another day, another “hope you get raped” comment.
Ironically, though I’m pretty thoroughly disliked across the manosphere, I actually get a lot less of this sort of abuse than most reasonably well-known feminist bloggers who happen to be non-dudes. Oh, sure, I get called a “traitor” and a “mangina,” and once in a while someone points out that I’m, you know, fat, but when it comes to the really nasty shit, the abusive commenters and emailers seem to much prefer going after women. This may be because they are misogynistic assholes. That’s just a theory, though.
Well, that was … instructive. The Twitter hashtag extravaganza that is 
