Whenever I consult teenage guys or young adult men I’m always reminded about how my ‘Game’ has changed over the course of my lifetime. The 17 year old Rollo Tomassi would be be appalled at the mindset of the 46 year old Rollo Tomassi.
Granted, much of that shock would probably be attributed to the lack of experience my younger self had with regards to female nature, human nature and, if I’m honest, I suffered from the same naiveté most young men do when it comes to judging people’s character. In fact, at the time, my belief was that I shouldn’t ever judge anyone’s character, nor did I, nor should anyone really, have the right to.
Part of that assumption was from an undeveloped religious learning, but more so it was due to a youthful idealism I held – I’d been conditioned to believe not only that you “can’t judge a book by its cover”, but also that you shouldn’t do so, and ought to be ashamed for considering it.
I’m flattered that people might think I’m some phenomenal interpreter of psychology, the nature of women, intergender relations and a model upon which men should aspire to in order to get laid and still have a great (now 18 year) marriage. It has not always been so.
If I have any credibility now it’s not due to my getting everything miraculously right, but because I had everything so horribly wrong more often than not.
One of the most valuable lessons I learned in my time studying psychology and personality studies is that personality is alway in flux. Who you are today is not who you will be in another few years. Hopefully that’s for the better after learning something and applying it towards your own personal progress, but it could equally be a traumatic experience that changes you for the worse.
For better or worse, personality shifts – sometimes slowly, sometimes suddenly – and while you may retain aspects of your personality, mannerisms, talents, past experiences and beliefs into the next iteration of yourself in a new phase of your life, rest assured, you will not be who you are now at any other time.
Game Changes
I’m sorry if this sounds all fortune cookie to you at the moment, but it’s a necessary preface to understanding how Game changes for men as their life situations and circumstances change during different phases of their lives and the shifts in their own personalities and learned perceptions change as they age.
It’s an easy step for me to assume that, were I to find myself single tomorrow, I wouldn’t approach Game in any degree as I would were I the 26 year old version of myself. Indeed, the primary reason I’ve involved myself in expanding the Preventative Medicine series into the next volume of The Rational Male is to help men at different phases of their own development understand what to expect from women (and themselves) during these periods of their life.
About two weeks ago I broached the subject of how Game should be a universal knowledge-tool for the everyman. My intent in Game and Circumstance was to shine some light on how Game and red pill awareness is (should be) a benefit for men regardless of their circumstance.
As I expected, the comparisons of Looks vs. Game was the inevitable discussion in the comment thread, because the presumption is that a man’s most evident condition is how he looks and how women are or are not aroused / attracted to their perception of him. I’ve written more about this Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks arousal dynamic than I care to review at the moment, but suffice it to say I do place a high importance on a man’s physical bearing.
However, my intent wasn’t to engage in a debate over the importance of looks, but rather that Game and red pill awareness is applicable for men of every social or personal condition – even the short, pudgy guy who empties the trash in your office. He may not have the potential to enjoy sex with a swimsuit model, but the tenets of Game can help him improve his life within his own circumstances.
Game Beyond PUA
When I was writing The Rational Male I specifically wrote and published a post on the Evolution of Game to be included in the book in order to demystify an impression of Game which I still think people (particularly the blue pill uninitiated), sometimes intentionally, misconstrue as some magical panacea to their ‘girl problems’. My definition was thus:
For the unfamiliar, just the word ‘Game’ seems to infer deception or manipulation. You’re not being real if you’re playing a Game, so from the outset we’re starting off from a disadvantage of perception. This is further compounded when attempting to explain Game concepts to a guy who’s only ever been conditioned to ‘just be himself‘ with women and how women allegedly hate guys “who play games” with them. As bad as that sounds, it’s really in the explanation of how Game is more than the common perception that prompts the discussion for the new reader to have it explained for them.
At its root level Game is a series of behavioral modifications to life skills based on psychological and sociological principles to facilitate intersexual relations between genders.
Game has more applications than just in the realm of intergender relations, but this is my best estimation of Game for the uninitiated. Game is the practical application of a new knowledge and increasingly broader awareness of intergender relations – often referred to, for convenience, as Red Pill awareness, by myself and others in the broader manosphere. Game begins with red pill awareness and using that awareness to develop Game.
The body of infield evidence collected by 15 years of PUA is far more reliable and valid than anything social science has produced on seduction – Nick Krauser
As I’ve written in the past, everyone has Game. Every guy you know right now has some idea, methodology or system of belief by which he thinks he can best put himself into a position of relating to, and becoming intimate with, a woman.
From even the most rank Beta plug-in to the 14 year old high school freshmen boy has some notion about what he, and by extension all men, should do in order to become intimate with a girl. I described this a bit in Beta Game where I outlined the Beta plan of identifying with women’s “needs” and adopting a feminine-primary mental point of origin in order to become more like the target(s) of his affection.
What ‘formalzed’ Game comes down to is what genuinely works for the betterment of his life. Men don’t seek out the manosphere because their Beta Game works so well for them.
I’ll admit, this was my own Game when I was in my late teens. Like most properly conditioned young men,I subscribed to the idea that men needed to be more empathetic and sensitive to women’s experience (rather than putting priority on his own) as the most deductive means to getting a girlfriend who’d appreciate my uniqueness for being so ‘in tune’ with the feminine.
If you’d have asked me at the time (the mid 80’s), my belief was that the best way to ‘get the girl’ was to take women at their word, use their “advice“, be their friend, make her comfortable, sacrifice your own (chauvinist) self-importance and support her importance, and mold your incorrect male self into a more perfect feminine ideal. The idea was that the lesser you made yourself, the more you made of her, and the more likely she was to reciprocate intimacy in appreciation.
That was my Game up until I learned through trial and painful error that women loath a man who needs to be instructed on how to actually be more attractive to women. I didn’t understand that by my subscribing to this spoon-fed feminization Game and overtly advocating for it I was only advertising to the very girls I wanted that I Just Didn’t Get It.
This was simply the first stage of Game changing for me, and I’m fairly certain that you’d read a similar story from most of the manosphere’s heaviest hitters. I’m peripherally familiar with the early histories of the likes of Roosh, Nick Krauser and even Mystery, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the Game they practice today would be foreign to their younger selves.
When I moved into my rock star 20’s I began practicing a new form of Game, one based on social proof and demonstrating higher value (DHV).
Of course I had no idea I was practicing any Game at the time. I had reinvented myself and my identity shifted into that of a guy who was Spinning Plates, being more self-concerned and enjoying the benefits of that social proof and DHV; but if you’d asked me what I’d done to effect that change, or how my Game was affected by it, I wouldn’t have been able to give you an answer then – Game was just instinctual for me.
Now in my married years, as a husband and the father of a teenage daughter, and my professional life in the liquor and casino world where I interact with beautiful women on a weekly basis, I still employ Game when I don’t realize I am.
However, that Game is the compounded, internalized result of what I’ve learned and used since the days I believed in the “be nice for girls to like you” teenage Game. Amused Mastery, Command Presence and a few other principles became much easier to employ as a mature man, but also a new grasp of how women’s lives have a more or less predictable pattern to them.
Thanks to my time studying behavioral psychology I understand the methods women use to prompt and provoke men (shit tests). Thanks to my red pill awareness and simple understand of how women’s biology influences hypergamy I now understand why they do so – and more importantly, how to avoid the traps of falling into the worst aspects of women’s dualistic sexual strategy.
All of this influences my ‘Game’ in the now. As before, I don’t play a constant, conscious game of mental chess in my dealings with women (and even the men in my social and professional life), I just live it.
So, in closing, it’s important to consider that the concept of Game you might be struggling with now was probably some other man’s experience before you encountered it. What is Game for me at 46, will most likely not have the exact same utility for me at 56, but if I stay sharp and learn along the way I’ll develop a new Game for that phase of life.
In Roosh’s most recent book, he has a quote in it that struck me (I paraphrase): There are a lot of men who tell me they wish they knew back then what they know now, but in all likelihood that knowledge wouldn’t serve them as well as they believe it would. They’d simply make new mistakes (and hopefully learn from them) based on the things they never had any experience of in the now.
There is always additional knowledge a man can know even when he possess the highest level of knowledge.
August 1st, 2014 at 8:14 pm
Johnycomelately
July 30th, 2014 at 8:27 pm
Become an engineer or similar. There are a LOT fewer women in that kind of workplace.
August 1st, 2014 at 8:18 pm
To Orion
“However, now that we have established that such signals can be faked, who says we cannot fake human signals?”
Would you consider the tv show where the women are under the impression they are dating Prince Harry an example.
August 1st, 2014 at 8:23 pm
“Siirtyrion contradicts himself/herself “again: First, nobody said otherwise.” Siirtyrion, you did so say otherwise, and you keep doing so. EVERY post is you saying otherwise; you literally have no other point to make.”
This is why it is so important for her/he/it to avoid answering questions simply and directly. It would tie Siirtyrion to a hard point which he/she/it would be forced to defend. Embellishing every answer allows for wiggle-room, enough space to dance away from anything that might force a concession.
August 1st, 2014 at 8:48 pm
M Simon
August 1st, 2014 at 8:14 pm
“Johnycomelately
July 30th, 2014 at 8:27 pm
Become an engineer or similar. There are a LOT fewer women in that kind of workplace.”
I gave my 17yo son the same advice. It’s an honest creative way to make a living with a good return on the educational investment and the job market is saturated with womyn with soft degrees.
Even in electrical engineering, most women seem to be *soft*ware engineers, not *hard*ware engineers. Vive la difference.
August 1st, 2014 at 9:03 pm
Um i dont think how could any1 disputes the fact that for short time relationships or just mating – fucking, women will prefer looks and age above everything else
there has been so much research about it for so long , thus in the ovulation days they look for more masculine men.
After a certain age and for ltr they have other priorities.
in my opinion game works if there is already attraction otherwise is just bs.
like rollo said atraction cant be negotiated.
@if12
what exactly normal lvls means lol , do you even have any clue of how the tests measured?
for instance a healthy adult of 20 yea rold could have from 4,0 to10,5 , (our grandfathers had more)
4 is very low i mean you can barely have an erection steady for some minutes and also have no edge and low competitiveness while 10,5 been god BUT both are consider normal
. Then at 40 normal is consider the 6 , why not have a 10 etc etc
August 1st, 2014 at 9:20 pm
@Sirtyrion/Siirtyrion writes
“Until gamers can show this, they are leaning on naive premises (and, dare I say, unmitigated bullshit)”
Sounds like this comment:
where’s the data? I’m a scientist and I have a keen interest in western cultural conceptions of relationships; not because that’s what I study, since it’s not, but because I’m in an ‘LTR’ so I have a vested interest. Part of being a good scientist is a little thing called ‘source criticism’ and without any kind of bibliography that points to large studies or surveys, or any idea about the author’s credentials, it’s hard to evaluate the material here beyond noting that it’s engaging and provocative—reminiscent of some econometric evolutionary studies I’ve read regarding human mate selection and assortative mating. I’m particularly interested to know where the information for the SMP/V curves come from, or if they are just intended to visually illustrate a point derived from the author’s personal and vicarious experience of the world around him. I suspect it may not be a bad approximation to the functions he’s attempting to describe and I could add a few interesting supporting data that I’ve read elsewhere. That said, if it is based on some data, then I would really like to see it.
In other words, it appears they think like this:
If you don’t have ‘source criticism’ by (funded) reviewers,
if it isn’t published in a (funded) study / journal – of – academia,
then, all truth is illegitimate.
Forget what actually works, (funded) academic journals haven’t made the topics discussed here top priority, therefore it’s all just the opinions of men with perfect bodies and/or grand material resources.
In the longer comment above, he indicates he can add a few interesting supporting data. So it seems the argument is this:
There should be (funded) published (funded) data in (funded) journals of science, and the (funded) ordained scientists should be credited for publishing it.
They that are sure they are of higher intelligence than you should receive the credit for your work. It’s only fair. Especially since you charge nothing to the millions of people whose lives are improved by your work. That’s unfair… they are FUNDED for their science and verbose academia expertise. So they rightly deserve the credit for these amazing discoveries. They can say they’ve been published, and, hopefully, this will attract what they seek.
August 1st, 2014 at 9:55 pm
“I hold science, much like all good men in the manosphere, as truth.”
I hold no such thing. The failings of science are manifold. We can go from phlogiston and on to the Miliken oil drop experiment And need I say CO2 as a climate driver? That will go completely belly up with the coming little ice age. The de Vries cycle will be very hard on the models.
So no – science is not truth. Engineering is closer to truth. But the Tacoma Narrows bridge shows that even in engineering there can be fundamental errors besides errors of application.
Your best bet is to doubt everything – to varying degrees.
August 1st, 2014 at 10:47 pm
A good segue into an experience that paved the way for me to consider RP.
15 years ago my health was going downhill as it does for many folks in their early forties. So I decided to engineer my own self. I did much studying of anti-aging medicine and health optimization (same thing really) with emphasis on things I can put in my mouth. I discovered that most of the conventional wisdom on diet and health was false. The scientific evidence simply did not support the idea that eating natural animal fat is bad for health and that eating whole grains is good for health. A calorie is not a calorie. http://www.gnolls.org/3374/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie-to-your-body/
That was worse than finding out there is no Santa Claus, it was more like finding myself an orphan. There are no authority figures that I can trust to take care of me like my doctor, the AMA, ADA, ACA, government agencies etc. I was on my own. And aside from emergencies, I was able to do a lot better for myself than what those folks had to offer.
Yet vegans (falsely) argue endlessly about the health benefits of conforming to their ideology, trotting out study after study to support their position. Only problem is that organized medicine is a multi trillion dollar business that has the biggest lobby in Washington, and the funding and therefore the results of studies is more driven by politics, power, profit, (and the resulting access to pussy ;-) than a quest for truth. Similarly, veganism is big business http://www.humanewatch.org/?s=lawyers+cages.
So I was willing to reconsider my beliefs in other social areas that directly affect me and where there seemed to be a glaring discrepancy between reality and what I had been told all my life – as in blue pill indoctrination.
Make no mistake, the political, power and profit stakes for the FI are higher than they are for organized medicine. It is expected that much shit will be spoken in opposition to the RP
Donovan
Rikki Tikki Tavi
….
Everybody who read the Jungle Book
Knows that Riki Tiki Tavi’s a mongoose who kills snakes
When I was a young man I was led to believe
There were organizations to kill my snakes for me
IE, the church, IE, the government, IE, the school
But when I got a little older I learned how to kill them myself
Riki Tiki Tavi mongoose is gone
…
August 2nd, 2014 at 12:05 am
@orion
“However, now that we have established that such signals can be faked, who says we cannot fake human signals? At least for short term mating success, it seems to me that identifying those signals and emulating them is a very real possibility.”
Yes, some physical signals can be faked. Facial (through surgery), height (leg lengthening surgery or through heel lifts) can both be faked. I saw this on a documentary of men in Korea or Japan (I forgot which) and guys were shown to take drastic measures in improving their physicality. The men did experience success in the end, but at what cost? To each his own, I suppose.
@Rollo Tomassi
“You want a study? I’d be interested to read your take on this:”
This is quite long but I know you (Rollo) will appreciate it for the extensive information and rebuttal. Bear with me and read it all as I know in the beginning it seems like I’m not answering your question. I will answer it in layers.
Now, let’s see some examples why studies such as these (dominance) will never find a CONSISTENT pattern for approach to the real world:
1. Hadjistavropoulos et al (1994) proved that there is a mistaken social construct tend to underestimation of the role of physical attractiveness in male mate value. 80 female undergraduates were shown profiles containing photographs and information about the personalities of potential male dating partners and were asked to state the dating desirability of each target person. Subsequently, were asked to introspect about the factors that affected their dating preferences and they tended to intentionally underreport the impact of physical attractiveness on their preferences. Later, they were said that they were connected to a lie-detector polygraph, they produced more accurate overall introspective reports, admitted a main extreme influence by the physical attractiveness of the targets. It seems that female mindsets are very influenced by a social or cultural taboo. Women tend to underestimate in questionnaires the importance of male attractiveness. They are conditioned, consciously or unconsciously, to express a politically correct choice and thus they do not wish to be perceived as “shallow”.
2. Weiderman and Dubois (1998) have found men accurately indicated that the physical attractiveness of the targets was the most important characteristic that influenced their desirability ratings, whereas women inaccurately indicated that desired level of relationship commitment was their most important factor, when, in fact, it was one of the least important factors behaviorally. Sprecher (1989) found similar results, in that women inaccurately assessed the role of physical attractiveness in their own ratings of a target man. The women in Sprecher’s study reported that expressiveness was the most important factor in their choice, ALTHOUGH it was the LEAST important factor behaviorally. Physical attractiveness was the MOST important factor that ACTUALLY influenced their ratings. The results of these two studies suggest that women’s self-reported preferences may not match their actual choices. Because it is still considered shallow and inappropriate for women to say that physical attractiveness is very important in their choices, those women may have engaged in impression management. Theory is that women do know what they want, but that when asked, they need to give answers that are acceptable to society. If so, women might misstate their preferences more often because there is more pressure on them to engage in impression management and to give the socially-desirable response.
Therefore, mate choice research is faced with a solid body of theoretical models and many supportive empirical hints from a variety of methodologically limited paradigms on the one hand, but a dearth of sufficiently ecologically valid studies to evaluate their predictions on the other hand. But an interesting solution to this predicament has recently appeared with the emergence of “online-dating” (See: Tinder) and speed-dating”.
Online dating and speed dating are real-life tests, with external and ecological validity and both give support for the main role of attractiveness in dating selection:
a.Speed dating [Asendorpf et al. 2011, Back et al. 2011,Kurzban & Weeden 2005, Todd et al. 2007, Luo & Zhang 2009, etc]
b.Internet dating [Hitsch et al. 2010, Shaw Taylor et al. 2011, Okcupid Blog, Milward website 2012.], where highly attractive men are universally preferred by female daters.
These empirical researches prove that women (like men) prefer mates of high attractiveness rather than that similar to their own. And modern women are not favoring investment resources, and other quantities of long term value. They are displaying the opposite pattern in the current mating framework, prevailing male physical attractiveness in their mate choices. This is because physical attractiveness is the strongest and most robust predictor of mate choice (Walster, Aronson, Abrahams, & Rottman, 1966), and mate choice is in turn the most important social judgment humans make with respect to their reproductive fitness.
Somewhat tautologically, we tend to mate with individuals to whom we are attracted, so there is a seemingly self-evident advantage to being attracted to individuals of high genetic quality.
@jacklabear
“The studies show an aggregate effect and beauty is in the eye of the individual beholder. It doesn’t matter if even 100% of women prefer a particular face because most won’t get him.”
You’re missing the point of hypergamy. It doesn’t matter if most women know they won’t get a male, the key driving point is that they will still innately crave him. This is where Rollo’s infamous saying comes in (and one of my personal favorite theories of his), “Genuine desire cannot be negotiated.” I really like that statement because it ties into sexual evolution. The primacy that women innately have for good looking men cannot be negotiated in any way. Not through money, social status, or even, dominance. This is because Alpha Fucks has been and always will be, the strongest pull in a woman’s dualistic mating strategy (especially in this day and age). Women turn feral for good looking men because their bodies innately know that they currently have a shot at extracting good genetic material from a male, which is as I’ve stated before, a genetic and honest benefit.
“If only 10% of men are chosen as the most attractive, does that mean that 90% of men and women will be celibate? No, the next most important and convenient indicators will be assessed.”
Obviously the other 90% of men don’t remain celibate in this SMP. I’d guesstimate that around 20% of men are celibate or at least have been for over a year. Perhaps as the years past and hypergamy becomes more relentless in its pursuit of honest signals (and trust me, this is currently happening), the percentage of male celibacy will rise.
I know I paint a very dark picture of the SMP but it is going to get a lot worse in the near future for ugly and average guys. Just remember, I’m simply the messenger.
“The idea has been presented that confidence is a proxy for success indicators. I doubt that appearance is the only one. I believe that there are things men can do to build confidence by succeeding, such as strength training, martial arts and business. The former also increase desirable costly physical traits such as muscularity, and masculine gender signals like vascularity and leanness as well as improved posture.”
I refute the idea of ‘game’ or confidence BY ITSELF as being the savior that it’s being touted to be. That’s simply because (considering ‘game’) every dependent variable relies on an independent variable. Confidence alone will not make you more appealing to women, because it’s a dependent variable. It relies on an independent variable (good looks) to work efficiently.
Jf12:
“Siirtyrion contradicts himself/herself “again: First, nobody said otherwise.” Siirtyrion, you did so say otherwise, and you keep doing so. EVERY post is you saying otherwise; you literally have no other point to make.”
That’s it? You’re not going to point out where I contradicted myself? Instead you resort to, “You lose.” I can’t take people like you seriously. If you want to debate me on something then give me material to work with and stop pointing fingers saying “HAHAHA, you don’t know what you’re talking about!” Seriously, it’s like speaking to a child.
“As a professional scientist, I dominantly assert that Siirtyrion is no scientist, much less a good one, and further that (s)he is a social justice warrior concern-troll, pretending to be one of the cry baby types “I’m sooo uncuute!”, in order to make some point about which we do not care. The deadest giveaway are bald assertions that his/her feewings are so important that their truthiness impacts the whole world, e.g. “Game’ is entirely dependent on other ‘gina-tingling’ variables that have nothing to do with game…”
This is an amazing level of projection by jf12, seriously.
@Magent
“This, my friend is a dodge. Your verbosity does not hide the fact you are trying to keep from taking a clear and definitive position someone can argue with. In fact, your voluminous and convoluted response is the camouflage. You ask that I state my positions. I do. You cloak yours in Byzantine paragraphs.”
I put as much wording as I can into my paragraphs to give you guys a complete picture of what I’m trying to say. Everything in that paragraph makes sense. I dislike personal attacks (they’re the sign of an un-intelligent mind) but perhaps you need to check your reading comprehension level before speaking to me.
“The reason why I asked you to stick to 4 sentences was I KNEW one of you would pull this very thing. I asked you and your ilk a very simple question.
I gave you a simple task. Give me a percentage. You refused.”
I can already tell you’re one of those people who one cannot win over. Every single word I utter will be questioned and my statements will be ridiculed with, “SEE I TOLD YOU!! HAHAH, SEE HE CAN’T DO IT!”
“Why?”
I only gave you a sentence more to work with but you act like I wrote a whole essay.
“You want me to state my positions (I do) but you don’t want to be tied down to particular positions, because then they can be argued with (Mart…is that you?).”
Funny you mention that other person. I’m personally starting to question if you’re jf12 by your lack of reading comprehension.
‘Game is [100%] bullshit [because not only does it rely heavily on independent variables like good looks but also because given the empirical data which I present, It clearly shows that looks will always triumph as king]. It ignores the preponderance of weight that basic physical attractiveness carries in everyday human interaction [and more importantly, when mating occurs]. If the penis does not lie, neither does the vagina. When it comes down to it, outward physical appearance will dominate all sexual interactions. No amount of mindset, personal confidence, etc will be able to compete [as well as looks because these are dependent variables that rely on an independent variable (i.e. looks) in order to succeed].”
There, I fixed it for you.
“So, perhaps [I’m having difficulty understanding your writing]. [Reading] is hard.”
I fixed that one for you also.
“Do you, Siirtyrion, believe that every single concept of Game is invalid?
If NOT, please list which 3 Red Pill Theory concepts you view as valid.
All I need is:
1 – Yes or No.
2 – A list of three things.”
Game, as it’s being praised, is bullshit. This mainly has to do with how PUAs claim it works. I suppose we don’t see eye to eye here because maybe our definition of game is different. So, tell me, what’s your definition of game?
Also, close to everything that I have read here on Rollo’s blog is true.
I don’t consider Rollo’s blog as a game source, though. It’s more of a blog that shows the underpinning of human sexual nature, and more specifically, that of women’s.
Three of my favorite posts here are (aside from the obvious, Looks Matter): Schedules of Mating, The Desire Dynamic, and Social Matching Theory.
Although I will say Magent, I’m not here for petty talk or ring around arguments. You’ve yet to show me a study of even a valid assertion of game. I will start to ignore you if you can’t come up with anything aside from asking me questions and not giving me statements from which I can refute you.
@LiveFearless
“There should be (funded) published (funded) data in (funded) journals of science, and the (funded) ordained scientists should be credited for publishing it.”
The Game community is very large. Surely they can achieve some ties with the scientific community to prove their positions as correct. But something tells me that they have something to hide. Care to guess what that is?
Oh, that’s right. Looks are the primary variable that matters in every sexual context regarding how women feel towards a potential mate. Some will tell you, but most won’t tell you just how important it is because to do so would be killing their monetary gravy train and they’ll have to actually work for a living.
They simply don’t want to pull the cover over your eyes. They want to sell you more seats, books, and dvds to fund their lifestyle while they bullshit you with a straight face.
With all that being said, I’m open to more comments, questions, and studies refuting or agreeing with me. I can also answer any question in regards with the current drastic change of the SMP.
There is also another very dark secret that’s yet to be covered on here and anywhere else (that I know of) about a women’s preference in a mate. The reason being is because while some studies do cover this, no one has yet placed all the pieces together, until now. Let me put it this way, it was something that not only shocked me, but completely changed about the way I saw natural selection. If anyone can guess, I’ll elaborate on it further.
August 2nd, 2014 at 12:23 am
@Siityrion re: “I know I paint a very dark picture”
You crayon with sepia and shadow, raw umber and black, and expect us to weep. Your simplifications mean less than nothing, especially given the avalanche of words you believe will snow us.
August 2nd, 2014 at 12:26 am
re: contradiction. You contradicted yourself in what I quoted. You’ve lost, and are lost. I understand that that is what you are trying to communicate: that you have no idea what you are talking about and you need help in thinking. It’s coming through quite clearly.
August 2nd, 2014 at 1:18 am
“I put as much wording as I can into my paragraphs to give you guys a complete picture of what I’m trying to say. Everything in that paragraph makes sense.”
My point is it is not clear. More wording does not necessarily make something more clear. It is HOW something is worded which gives it clarity, no? This:
‘Game’ is entirely dependent on other ‘gina-tingling’ variables that have nothing to do with game – it is *not* a proxy for attraction. So, all ‘game’ can conceivably do, is ‘maximize’ a man’s opportunities on a case by case basis (no Gina tingle, no ‘game’ optimization opportunities). Dominance simply doesn’t factor into this assessment, in any shape or form (beyond spurious, tingle-mediated attribution affects).”
It is awkwardly worded. I am not being a jerk here. It is hard to entirely glean what you are saying, which counter-productive if your are trying to give a clear picture of what you are saying. We find this out later on…
“I dislike personal attacks (they’re the sign of an un-intelligent mind) but perhaps you need to check your reading comprehension level before speaking to me.”
No, my reading comprehension is fine. I actually know a thing or two about writing. Do read on…
“I can already tell you’re one of those people who one cannot win over.”
Funny, I *was* thinking the same thing about you, but I think I had more reason to believe it.
I asked a direct question, and you, who wishes to speak in “plain english”, somehow managed to avoid really answering it at first. That ended up wasting a lot of time and effort. Do read on…
“I only gave you a sentence more to work with but you act like I wrote a whole essay.”
You took my post, bit by bit, and expended a lot of energy doing so, WITHOUT answering the direct question at the very end. Again, my point being that you seemed to go to great lengths to avoid having to answer a direct question. I found that…dodgy.
“Funny you mention that other person. I’m personally starting to question if you’re jf12 by your lack of reading comprehension.”
Now, we seem to make some headway later, so let me caution you that kind of assertion is right out of the troll playbook. It does nothing to address my actual point, but rather tries to undermine my credibility with an attack which is non-verifiable.
Sets off red flags is what I am saying.
“‘Game is [100%] bullshit”
THERE YA GO!! We have a winner!
Was that so freakin’ hard?!
Seriously, a moment of self examination here. For a person who has more than once expressed a desire to make themselves clear for all here, WHY did I have to drag that answer out of you? Can you not see how your reticence to answer more forthrightly might make someone question your honesty?
This one direct answer now begins to lead us to at least some sort of understanding.
Do read on.
“There, I fixed it for you.”
No, you didn’t. You cluttered it up. Jeez…We were making such progress. Seriously, more words do not necessarily a better statement make.
Ok, ok. I am being a bit of a dick. I will reign it in.
“So, perhaps [I’m having difficulty understanding your writing]. [Reading] is hard.”
I fixed that one for you also.”
Ok, apparently I hit a nerve…but I think it was worth it because…
“Do you, Siirtyrion, believe that every single concept of Game is invalid?
If NOT, please list which 3 Red Pill Theory concepts you view as valid.
All I need is:
1 – Yes or No.
2 – A list of three things.”
“Game, as it’s being praised, is bullshit. This mainly has to do with how PUAs claim it works.”
You know…(counts to 10) this is where I was trying to get you if you just weren’t so…ahem…willful.
“So, tell me, what’s your definition of game?”
A question for me? Let me answer it.
Game for me is about accepting Red Pill Theory. It is understanding the REAL dynamics that underlay female/male interactions, not the bullshit we are fed by feminism and to some extent religion and Hollywood scripts. It is understanding the reality of sexual competition and evolutionary psychology, particularly now that current societal dynamics have laid it bare.
It is understanding women’s true nature, and learning to accept and adapt to it. It is not about operating under illusions which will inhibit your interactions with them, or leave you at a disadvantage with them.
In short, it APPEARS that we are not that far apart in common beliefs, but in definitions.
Now, perhaps I unfairly lumped you in (maybe not), but what I have seen in the last couple of weeks is a lot of people suddenly showing up here, guns blazing, yelling “Game is bullshit!” without bothering to consider that others have a different definition of ‘Game’. When some people tried to address them or that issue, there was a whole of obstinate refusal to address those points.
For example, you think Game is only PUA stuff. This despite several attempts to enlighten you and others that the definition of Game here has a much broader definition. Rollo himself has tried to point that out here, apparently to no avail.
Now, I issued a challenge to all of those I felt were being willfully obtuse about this, because it was annoying the piss out of me.
To your credit, YOU were the only one who responded at all. All the other yahoos were to timid to do it.
You wankers know who you are.
“Also, close to everything that I have read here on Rollo’s blog is true.
I don’t consider Rollo’s blog as a game source, though. It’s more of a blog that shows the underpinning of human sexual nature, and more specifically, that of women’s.”
GOD…DAMMIT! That is the point I was trying to make, with you, and some of the other’s who seemed to have suddenly shown up here.
Our definitions of ‘Game’ are different, and I was trying to make that point.
Now, I suspect we still have our differences, but at least now we have a better understanding of where we stand, no?
August 2nd, 2014 at 3:12 am
Rollo, love your writings, friend. And, I am your friend, believe it or not. You’re providing incredible value for the average male. Kudos.
But the day is going to arrive when you are going to be faced with a decision to acknowledge those quasi-dissenters on your site who speak to larger principles than what you espouse.
ONE example is politics. Believe me, I understand why you don’t want to go there, and hold nothing against you for that. However, understand that your readership is acutely aware of how politics, government, culture, interact with your teachings. WE KNOW. WE AREN’T STUPID. Just say, “I acknowledge it, but I’m not going to write about it.” That simple stance should placate your wider readership… instead of framing the issue in such a way as to deny that politik has anything to do with what you talk about. WE ALL KNOW THAT IT DOES. Your long-term readers ALL know that it does, and your long-term readers ALL understand why you don’t go there. So, just acknowledge it, in order to eliminate it from the equation, to free you to write about what you really want to write about. Thenceafter, when it arises on your site, you can simply link to your blog post on the subject, which you are apt to do, anyway.
… not that what you espouse is wrong, but just that it’s sometimes incomplete – or do you think you’re omniscient? You are, after all, a public site, and so the public’s voice is ostensibly to be valued. Acknowledge those people, and give them their due, and then march onward with your mission. Just give credit to those who support you, but may not agree with you 100%, for whatever reason.
In other words, “humility,” rather than Robert Greene’s ’48 Laws of Power’ (can NEVER accept disagreement) (Look to some other manosphere proprietors who are blowing up, for guidance in this regard.)
Put differently, own your humility.
I think that we have all now seen that that works out in the better for all involved.
Here is the bottom line for therationalmale.com: Your theories and postulates are SOUND, but they are NOT gospel. They are YOUR theories and postulates… and they are mostly correct… but not always.
Allow yourself and your readership that leeway, despite what Robert Greene would have you believe to the contrary.
Please continue your good work, friend. You’re making an important impact on the world.
August 2nd, 2014 at 6:25 am
I haven’t posted any new essays on my blog since early June. And I haven’t had the motivation to do so. You see, shortly after Roosh took his trip to DC, I took mine. OK, mine was more of a family outing. We went to the Wash Mall, Six Flags, the zoo. And I saw much of what he saw but more on the streets than actually experiencing it in the clubs. There was a fucking dearth of women. We saw two, fucking two, attractive DC adult locals in three days and we were in some very public places. The only reasonably attractive women I saw where foreign tourists. Six flags was abysmal. It is a representative sample of the teen kids from the DC area and then also a cross section of young families. I mean it sucked.
And I have seen much the same thing EVERYWHERE. I used to go to my HEB grocery back in Austin and literally hunt for a woman that wasn’t fucking fat just to see if there was one. And there wasn’t. I sometimes went through the whole giant store picking up items and then checking out, and I never saw one woman or girl that wasn’t fucking fat. I thought maybe it was my neighborhood in South Austin. In other places, it was different. It isn’t.
Then we went out to Vegas 3 weeks. (Sorry I didn’t call you R, but that shit never seems to work out. I figured it was best to protect everyone’s anonymity and let sleeping dogs lie and not end up like Danny from 504) It was little better about women in our hotel, the Signature. And I thought “Maybe the west coast is better”. But the reality was that was some little girl national dance contest and all of these attractive women were there with their cute little girls that were in the contest. When we went out to walk around in the other casinos, it was just as much of a fucking freak show as anywhere else. I am sure at the big night clubs it was better, but look at the pandering those places have to put on with people like McQueen all out hunting and promising the world to women to get them to come there so those places can get those men in there and fleece them. Vegas ain’t real life man. It’s the biggest flim flam scene pulled in the world.
So I am going to make perhaps a firestorm of a suggestion that I have been pondering over for quite some time.
Game is dead.
Possibly one of the best, or at least best known practitioners of it came back to America and he couldn’t get a plain looking English girl, much less an American girl, to even suck his dick.
And the reality is that we are in the midst of a demographic firestorm that has made men, at least traditional ideas of men in relationships, obso-fucking-lete for women. Men just are not necessary for most women. Men are like taxicabs, call one when you want one. And you men can just “Game” your little fucking asses off and it changes fucking nothing. You can look at stats and see the demographic bubble coming but you cannot begin to understand the changes it will cause until you are literally in the middle of it.
I just deleted a bunch of text explaining how it happened. But you know what? It doesn’t matter. It happened. Falling birthrates and all that. More men chasing less women and this scarcity has lead to increased power and options for women. Options that don’t include you.
I did some math based on stats. I took like a population sample of 100, then the percentage of that sample that was 20-35 years old. Then factored out the 40% of them that were minority, (yeah 40% for that age group. Hard to believe, no? It is about 43% for 15-20 year olds. So this whole thing gets even worse with time). Then tossed out the 20% that were fucking obese (and that was a generous underestimate) and the 30% that were overweight (BMI 25-30 and a good chunk of them will join the obese in the years to come. 45 years old is like peak obesity age right now). So of the 100 people, 50 were women, 15 were 20-35, 9 were white, 4.5 where not fucking fat asses. Then following Tsbychev’s rule, 65% would be within 1 standard deviation, 95% within 2. So in that group there was a HB2, a 3, a 4, a 5, a 6, and probably not one 7. You probably would have to get up to about 300 people to have a 7, a thousand to find an 8, and God knows how many to find a 9. So think back to being in a waiting room for a flight. Maybe 1 decent looking girl in the whole bunch of people waiting for a flight? Maybe none? When was the last time you saw a hot girl outside of a club? Or even saw a hot girl at all?
So then in that same 100 people, given that economics, social status, personality, and attractiveness factor into female’s view of attractiveness to males, and a wider age range if you even cut it off at 45, then there were easily 5 and mostly likely 10 guys that would be in the running for chasing that one fucking hb 6 around. So 5 or 10 guys to 1 woman.
Why do you think Medellin was considered to be that hot place to go a few years back? In the 2005 census, the last official census of the Colombian government, there 20% more women then men in Medellin due to the drug wars, the civil war, immigration, and gang violence. I personally knew of three young guys that had been murdered or killed in the war. So then why now is flaking on the rise there among young girls? The wars ended and there are less young men being killed.
Every fucking “social” problem we can bitch about women is caused by this imbalance. And it has reached critical fucking mass since 2008. And we all look back on 2008 as a long, long time ago. The marriage rate plummeted, as did the birth rate. Teen pregnancies have dropped “inexplicably” (to experts anyway). I know why. Because the marketability of a single woman has gotten so high that almost any girl would be a fucking fool to give that up and now they take extra extra measures to prevent it or they abort it if it does happen. Even a fat hb 5 now has marketability just because she has a vagina and is young.
We can all state it’s social media or smart phones or feminism or whatever. But if the shoe were on the other foot, if there were more marketable women then men, if it were us that was getting 100 emails a day, if it were us that joined a dating date and ended up with 3 or 4 valid options every day, if we were going into clubs and there were 3 women for each of us, then women would be singing a different tune and dancing a way different dance.
I have had a change of heart, sort of, about the Tomassi SMV charts. I have no doubt that the “relative SMV” of a woman vis a visa other women follows the slope he says it does. And I feel the same way about the men’s chart. But the overlay is not even close. It is like the SMV of women is a fucking mountain and that of men is like some kind of hill. And the relative difference is caused by scarcity and the single mindedness of men towards attraction to appearance vs women’s more varied determination of value based not only on looks, but also money, social skills, etc. So a successful 6 male is just as much in the running as a less successful 7.
And night game is dead, day game, niche game (whatever that is), text game, any fucking game out there is fucking dead. Yes, there are enhancements in charisma you can learn, improvements in appearance, physique, etc. but all it helps you be is just a better dancing monkey. Yes, there are individual success stories, but the reality is these stories are the exceptions that prove the rule. The fact the community is growing is due to the power imbalance that men feel and they seek some panacea to narrow the gap in the power that they feel vis a vis women in social situations. And these social situations carry over into the rest of life. The gains women have made in the workplace vis a vis men, and also in other parts of life are due to social and sexual power they have. And the losses of men are due to the loss of social and sexual power they have endured.
And there was this idea of Game as a cultural force, even a political one, that we all had a couple of years ago, that we would all practice game, pump and dump women, would leave them shattered, bunch a alpha widows, without the commitment and marriage they all truly desired. And then they’d be sorry. Ha. We’d get ’em. Yeah, we’d tune in, turn on, and drop out. And everything would collapse because we weren’t playing that game anymore. Yeah, we’d call them sluts, carousel riders, and that would shame them into better behavior.
And how’s that strategy been working out for us? Oh yeah, those women are just trembling at our massive power, no?
So I am changing directions. Changing what I believe and recommend to young men.
Get fucking married. If you can find someone that will have you. Most of you won’t. Maybe try to bring a foreign bride here.
Enjoy the physical affects of being married. Build the wealth that you can build as a married man. Get the career gains that marriage and a wife motivate you to obtain. Even if you divorce, you will be in a far better state than most of your contemporaries will be in. (If you plan your divorce well. )
I am not invalidating the teachings on this site. And of it pertains to men in long term relationships. It truly explains the behavior of women far better than most sites. So practice its teachings, gain charisma, understand what a women wishes from a man in a relationship. Do not fall into some adolescent emotional behavior towards a woman. And be prepared to get fucked over by your “beloved”.
But if you learn what is written here, you’ll be fine. And keep a realistic attitude about things. And believe that if you do end up divorced, there are better days ahead. But you passed through some dry times with the sex and the benefits of having a woman, possibly gained at work, possibly attained some sort of material gain, some modicum of wealth. And your peers that were standing around in bars, constantly chasing, hunting, obsessed with women, will not be better of than you are.
But to continue on with preaching that “Game” (PUA pump them and dump them game) is some grand solution, some panacea for today’s man is fucking nonsense. Anyone that tells you different is selling you something, wanting your eyes on their page, go to their course, buy their fucking book. I am not a denialist that charisma cannot be learned, that masculine behavior in dating, in a relationship, even in a marriage will lead to more success with women than following the opposite blue pill ideology.
But when you are young, you are tied into social groups that give you access that if you wait, you will lose this social contact. So you need to attempt to capitalize on this while you can.
Nothing short of a massive collapse is going to change the relative sexual and social power of most men vis a vis most women. And the birthrate numbers say it will get fucking worse. In 10 years the effects of the dot com crash are going to be felt. That birth rate plummeted. And those people are 12 right now. A 20 year old guy today will find almost no white attractive 20 year old women in 10 years when he is 30. The numbers dictate women have options that you don’t have, and all this is coupled with a massive social, cultural, and biological preference for the female over the male.
Sure you can attempt to move to some foreign country. I did and it broke me and ruined me. You might have better luck. Fuck, Poosy Paradise is on sale right now and Roosh will tell you all about fucking Romania. Yeah, move to Romania. Buy his book and then it will be a fucking snap. You’ll then be swimming in Romanian Poosy.
I’m gonna put it you this way. First, I don’t include Rollo or CH in the group of people who have financially gained from the manosphere. I can’t see a direct way that CH monetizes. Maybe via donations, but there is no obvious means. Rollo writes books but those came from a public demand. He is not out making youtube podcasts and sellling ads on this site. But out of the others that do monetize, I am figuring I am in the top 5 in terms of real material and lifestyle gain from the manosphere. And I bet I am physically more improved and healthier then the others, emotionally more improved and less beat up, probably fucking more content.
And all I did was get married to someone I met because I was Mark Minter.
Oh and Roosh, it’s been a year man since the Minter Affair. I am sure you had a great year, but so did I. And I would do it all over again given the way the shit has worked out for me. But I gotta tell you bro, you about running out of countries and the evidentiality of Game as viable is about to bring those chickens home to roost. And this grand revolution we thought we would have is going nowhere. Right now you just preaching to the choir, brother. You had better be laying plans for some end game and some reasonable transition. I already got one.
August 2nd, 2014 at 7:56 am
Unfortunately it seems that there has been a good deal of talking past each other in this thread. That happens — it’s the internet, for one thing, and for another, the issue of the “definition” of “Game” has come up again and again and again — perpetually really because it’s a loose idea which has various applications.
I don’t think that many people here actually support the idea that a guy who is a male 5 learns PUA game and consistently beds HB8-10 women. In fact, I think most who are pro-Game here believe that it helps at the margins within one’s attraction range — and that attraction range is based on physical to a significant degree (to a larger one for short term mating, and to a relatively lesser one for long term mating, because different things are involved in each). I don’t think the “looks don’t matter” perspective has much of a constituency here, frankly. And the idea that, once you are in an attraction range, the tools of Game can help you maximize the opportunity is one that I think most people here agree with. So, again, talking past each other to a large degree I think.
=======
As for most the prediction of men going celibate and women refusing to marry en masse because they support themselves and so on — i.e., that it is moving towards strictly AF with no more BB at all … I think that this varies very much by socio-economic class.
Higher educated, higher earning people (especially the higher of both, which is much of the upper middle class, or UMC) are still marrying in large numbers. I’ve worked with such people for almost 30 years now. In my current workplace, among the people who have professional degrees, about 2/3 are women — it’s around, say 38 women or so. These are high earning women — it’s between 200-300k each. These are the kind of women that a certain kind of “logic” would say that since they have so much of their own income, they would just sidestep BB and go for AF, because they don’t need BB. Well … of those 38, ~34 are married (the other few are either divorced, which as you can see is *very* rare in this class right now, or the hard luck cases of very unattractive, or waited to long to marry and missed the boat). I know who the husbands are, because of work social events where spouses are present. These are not AFs. The guys they are married to are very much like them — roughly the same age, also professional, earning around the same money, and BB type guys. And they’re pretty much all assortatively matched in terms of looks and physical attractiveness. Most of the women are not “beautiful” but in the 4-6 range — i.e., the thick part of the Gaussian curve when it comes to looks. There are a few who are 7s (of the 38, I’d say 2 or 3 of them are lookers like that). Now it may be that these women indulged in AF when they were younger (these are women generally from 32-50), but at this point it’s all assortative BB, and they are staying married to BB. Lots of these BBs have no physical/genetic/Darwin business mating at all, yet they are all mated, and pretty much all have at least 2 kids. Interesting, huh?
Now when you go further down the economic food chain, the situation differs, and to a greater degree the further down you go. Basically, the lower earning you get in general, the less marriage you get and the more marital dissolution you get. The key variable is the economic one. In particular, as the men’s earnings get less, the economic “delta” provided by BB decreases in value, and because of that it becomes overall less attractive to women. Note that this is not proportional, because lifestyle changes based on income are also not proportional. That is, on a plain piece of paper, the difference between earning 60k alone and 120k dual income seems to be similar to the difference between earning 250k alone and 500k dual income, because it’s a doubling in each case — but in the real world, what matters isn’t the doubling proportion, but rather the lifestyle buying power of the additional cash. That is, while there certainly is a lifestyle differential between 60k and 120k, it’s not close to the massive differential between 250k and 500k in terms of what that gets for your entire life, including the future of your children. Simply put, there are many more impactful “bucks” for the BBs of the UMC than there are for the BBs of lower economic classes, and the lower you go, the less “bang” for her “BB” a woman gets (pardon the pun). And it’s in the situation where the marginal “bucks” of BB isn’t that great as compared to the woman going it alone that the greatest impact of female financial independence is felt in the mating market, because the “delta” provided by her class assortative BBs may not be enough to cause her to trade off AF for BB or to stay traded off (i.e., marry BB and then divorce BB to go back to chasing AF).
So while it is true that female earning power has changed the BB equation, the degree to which it has done so depends very much on the specific level of BB in question. Given that almost everyone mates economically assortatively today (very few lawyers marrying secretaries, etc.), the impact this has varies pretty much on the basis of economic class. As we know, AF/BB Is a tradeoff for women — if the BB part of things is not attractive enough, it will be foregone or pitched more easily than if the BB part is hugely important to a combined lifestyle.
And this raises a paradox. It was thought that old school marriages were prisons for women because they were locked in due to economics and the inability to support themselves independently. So women were freed socially to support themselves. Well, as it has turned out, the women who are best situated to support themselves independently and avoid marriage altogether generally not only choose not to do so (they marry at high rates), but they also generally stay married. As it turns out, the so-called “golden handcuffs” can have as much of an effect in the dual very high income situation as in the June Cleaver situation. One of the ironies of women’s liberation.
======
And there was this idea of Game as a cultural force, even a political one, that we all had a couple of years ago, that we would all practice game, pump and dump women, would leave them shattered, bunch a alpha widows, without the commitment and marriage they all truly desired. And then they’d be sorry. Ha. We’d get ‘em. Yeah, we’d tune in, turn on, and drop out. And everything would collapse because we weren’t playing that game anymore. Yeah, we’d call them sluts, carousel riders, and that would shame them into better behavior.
If that was your belief, then it was a misguided one. I have never seen Game as something that would effect massive social change — perhaps changes on the margins, but not real social change. It is, however, something that can impact your personal results in a hostile environment. True social change takes time, sponsors (cultural sponsors), advocacy and so on — not really what Game is about.
August 2nd, 2014 at 10:25 am
Mark Minter
August 2nd, 2014 at 6:25 am
When was the last time you saw a hot girl outside of a club?
Every time I see #1 daughter. In the 9 to 10 range. And very brainy. ChemE graduate. She and I discuss thermo. She gt a lot of As in her school work. Unfortunately she doesn’t care much for men. She has had boyfriends. But she has no intention to do another LTR. Of course being at least 2 SDs above the average population (probably more like 3 SDs) her choices are limited. She needs to find some one smarter than she is and at least in the range of looks.
My boys are similar. Very tall. Thin. Not interested in women. As they currently manifest. #2 even lives in Russia and is not interested in the offerings as far as I can tell.
I’d say Game isn’t dead because it doesn’t work (#2 son and I discuss it). It is dead because no one is interested.
August 2nd, 2014 at 10:31 am
And BTW Mark. Where I live there are not too many fatties. And the 20 somethings are 7s, 8s, 9s. I think you have to get out of the big cities.
August 2nd, 2014 at 11:06 am
I have never seen Game as something that would effect massive social change — perhaps changes on the margins, but not real social change
These things take time. You will start to see changes in 2020.
August 2nd, 2014 at 11:32 am
Not @Minter, just about Minter, re: “factored out”.
Unsurprisingly, the Groucho club membership “paradox” is ALWAYS self-inflicted. Always. “Game only works on women that I don’t want!”
August 2nd, 2014 at 11:50 am
@sirttiyon (sp? and i thought Tilikum was tedious lol)
when I read your posts and those like them, I ALWAYS have to remind myself of audience.
once a guest in this space exceeds say 24 years old (17-24 being the logically prime search for a normally organized males quest for knowledge in this area), there do seem to be 2 main types of which i suggest that you are number 2 fyi:
1. strong and natural alpha/sigmas who, for whatever reason choose to teach down
2. very spergy males who suffer from frankly the painful wages of associative mating (way too smart) and strong selection bias coupled with their sad abuse of female centric socialization .
its all about worldview both for you AND the girls you meet, and you seem really invested in taking your worldview and projecting it on to the female of the species.
interestingly, you have also engaged in a particularly feminized and BPD tactic of having failed to convince through a reframe, you switch to arguing fact (where of course here come the “studies” etc., and lest be clear, there will never be enough studies or empirical evidence will there? In BPD’s theses are called “roadblocks”).
This demonstrates to me an inability to break down your ego barriers and self limiting beliefs (even when they are your OWN observations possibly) and frankly you just relegate yourself to another lost soul.
i would consider going home and punching your mom or the savage female that raised you this way.
August 2nd, 2014 at 11:52 am
*assortative
August 2nd, 2014 at 12:33 pm
What we have here is a confusion of terminology. What you call “game”, I call “style”. I had a life-changing heartbreak (somewhat like ‘Casablanca’, which I saw a month before) in my senior college year. Then I read a Saul-to-Paul guide, ‘Doing It With Style’ by the eccentric, genderqueer Brit-wit Quentin Crisp. I cannot recommend it highly enough. His main point is that: “Style is the art of being yourself, deliberately.”
So that summer I tightened up my professional tactical repertoire (I’m a singer-bassist), made the first entrepreneurial foray into my ongoing life-art project (Vallin SFAS/Song For All Seasons), and changed my name (on Amy Winehouse’s birthday). The strategy I was using was really “truth in advertising”, making the cover of my book completely clear as to its content. This in order to DIS-qualify women who cannot live up to my powerful rising Dragon-MOJO, the confusion of which had been the source of my recent unpleasantness.
August 2nd, 2014 at 1:19 pm
@humility writes or do you think you’re omniscient? You are, after all, a public site, and so the public’s voice is ostensibly to be valued
Rollo is clearly states that he doesn’t know it all in post after post. He’s just explained in this thread that he doesn’t moderate comments in order to allow cause more discussion so that all can learn (including Rollo). The PUBLIC can fund their own blog! I’ve never spent one cent for this blog. Rollo has a real job outside if this, and this pays for the blog out of his own earnings. His time is worth $10,000 an hour, but you arrogantly accuse him of believing he’s omniscient? Start your own blog and create content that attracts millions of readers per week without marketing. No one was forced to read this blog each week. The public chooses to come back each week.
The most successful people are always learning. Constant improvement. The less successful want to point to dusty old studies as if all knowledge is hard science that cannot be changed.
August 2nd, 2014 at 2:29 pm
@ HUMILITY
The public voice has NO value to an individual man other than to serve as a cautionary warning, a “what NOT to do”.
That’s the estrogen poisoned ultra feminized Third Gender groupthink leaching out of your pores.
You have been taught by savages that working together for the benefit of a tribe or group structure necessarily requires some soft and cuddly idealization of similar values.
This is your personal and social downfall, and the PERFECT example of why people like you can’t survive and should never be taken seriously.
Thank you for the very important object lesson for the young males suffering cultural malaise so when they come here and we can point to your post and exclaim “If you don’t unfuck yourself, this is the endgame”.
August 3rd, 2014 at 2:00 am
Siirtyrion / Sirtyrion writes . Some will tell you, but most won’t tell you just how important it is because to do so would be killing their monetary gravy train and they’ll have to actually work for a living.
What money?
What are you talking about?
Rollo is a talented artist, musician, brand genius and writer. He earns money from other work… NOT from this blog.
When others have asked to donate to his blog, he’s responded by suggesting donating to an animal charity.
Any man can change his appearance. I chose to lose 86 lbs using true science that had not yet been published in any peer reviewed journal.
There are millions of funded commenters. It would be misery for most people, and I do not understand how anyone could do it. The best ones earn a lot of money.
August 3rd, 2014 at 2:23 am
Siirtyrion/Sirtyrion They want to sell you more seats, books, and dvds to fund their lifestyle while they bullshit you with a straight face.
Rollo, I’ll be the first to buy
the seats,
books
and DVDs
Is it really the “Monetary Gravy Train Game” tour (MGTG) where you’ll be bullshitted with a straight face?
http://livefearless.com/the-tour-genius/
August 3rd, 2014 at 7:07 pm
@ jf12
“re: contradiction. You contradicted yourself in what I quoted. You’ve lost, and are lost. I understand that that is what you are trying to communicate: that you have no idea what you are talking about and you need help in thinking. It’s coming through quite clearly.”
Let me make my past comment more clear to you:
“First, nobody said otherwise. It should be valued as important for ASSESSING A LONG TERM partner. BUT we are talking about the capture of female attention on COURTSHIP INTERACTIONS, and it’s the PHYSICAL APPEARANCE that is CULLING male frequencies. True that once a partner is obtained, personality acts in ways to ENSURE the continuation and exclusivity of a long term relationship. [The following sentences are what I’m really going about here]. You should note that BEHAVIORAL traits are a DEPENDENT VARIABLE. It is something that depends on other factor (INDEPENDENT VARIABLE, i.e. ATTRACTIVENESS). Since women are skewing their choices towards highly physically attractive targets (This can be inferred from data/research of internet dating, speed dating, etc).”
@Magent
“A question for me? Let me answer it.
Game for me is about accepting Red Pill Theory. It is understanding the REAL dynamics that underlay female/male interactions, not the bullshit we are fed by feminism and to some extent religion and Hollywood scripts. It is understanding the reality of sexual competition and evolutionary psychology…
It is understanding women’s true nature, and learning to accept and adapt to it…In short, it APPEARS that we are not that far apart in common beliefs, but in definitions.”
If that is your definition of game, then yes, we can pretty much come to an agreement on this one. I did edit out what I didn’t completely agree with. Now, I only have a problem with how PUAs define game as the end all be all of courtship. But if game is defined as red pill truth acknowledgement (and only this), then I completely agree with that idea.
“Now, perhaps I unfairly lumped you in (maybe not), but what I have seen in the last couple of weeks is a lot of people suddenly showing up here, guns blazing, yelling “Game is bullshit!” without bothering to consider that others have a different definition of ‘Game’. When some people tried to address them or that issue, there was a whole of obstinate refusal to address those points.”
I understand what you’re getting at. I’m still met with a lot of hostility in certain areas but men have to understand that I’m only putting together what science shows us. In short, I’m telling you how it is and not for what you want it to be.
“For example, you think Game is only PUA stuff. This despite several attempts to enlighten you and others that the definition of Game here has a much broader definition. Rollo himself has tried to point that out here, apparently to no avail.”
As I’ve mentioned before, ‘game’ is a dependent variable and because of this, it simply cannot hold much weigh on its own without the help of an independent variable ( like looks) to be successful. I understand still that red pill knowledge is still just that, knowledge. But unlike ‘game’, it doesn’t promise you a better life by tactics and bullshit psychology. Red pill truths have been CONSISTENTLY tried and tested by numerous scientific studies but ‘game’ has not.
“GOD…DAMMIT! That is the point I was trying to make, with you, and some of the other’s who seemed to have suddenly shown up here.
Our definitions of ‘Game’ are different, and I was trying to make that point.
Now, I suspect we still have our differences, but at least now we have a better understanding of where we stand, no?”
In some ways, yes.
@Mark Minter
“But to continue on with preaching that “Game” (PUA pump them and dump them game) is some grand solution, some panacea for today’s man is fucking nonsense. Anyone that tells you different is selling you something, wanting your eyes on their page, go to their course, buy their fucking book..…Nothing short of a massive collapse is going to change the relative sexual and social power of most men vis a vis most women.”
This is what I was getting at in the past comments and I’m glad someone understands it.
“Sure you can attempt to move to some foreign country. I did and it broke me and ruined me. You might have better luck. Fuck, Poosy Paradise is on sale right now and Roosh will tell you all about fucking Romania. Yeah, move to Romania. Buy his book and then it will be a fucking snap. You’ll then be swimming in Romanian Poosy.…But I gotta tell you bro, you about running out of countries and the evidentiality of Game as viable is about to bring those chickens home to roost. And this grand revolution we thought we would have is going nowhere. Right now you just preaching to the choir, brother. You had better be laying plans for some end game and some reasonable transition…”
Oh, believe me, their time will come. These swindlers feel compelled to safeguard their audience with lies to make a living but that will all end eventually. As more men wake up to the realities of the SMP and the unapologetic ruling of the Female Imperative, it will become much harder to deny how much science has an answer to all of this. At first, it won’t be easy (like accepting any harsh truth, really) but it will be completely necessary and that time will come.
@Tilikum
“its all about worldview both for you AND the girls you meet, and you seem really invested in taking your worldview and projecting it on to the female of the species.”
Projecting my worldview? Men like Rollo and even Dalrock, both acknowledge the importance of good looks. Although, they give ‘game’ more credit than what it’s worth, they’re headed in the right direction by placing importance on looks and acknowledging just how powerful it is in the SMP.
Listen, when a scientific study proves a certain belief wrong through empirical data, is that study really trying to ‘project a worldview’? Of course not; it’s simply telling you the way things are and your hostility is very telling on your ability to take in the truth.
Now that I think about it, I can now understand the hostility I get after reading the comments on here. I present to you truths that for the most part, don’t offer men any sort of help. This is simply because aside from life threatening or possible life debilitating surgeries, not much can be done to improve a man’s looks. Men innately like to fix things and to know that something so important to the other sex cannot be fixed, fills men with the belief of “why bother?”
But, remember, much like hypergamy, I don’t care about your ‘feewings’. I’m here to present you guys with scientific truths and you can acknowledge them whether you like it or not. Just don’t falsely accuse me of “projecting” when I’m simply stating and putting together what science has already proven.
“Interestingly, you have also engaged in a particularly feminized and BPD tactic of having failed to convince through a reframe, you switch to arguing fact (where of course here come the “studies” etc., and lest be clear, there will never be enough studies or empirical evidence will there? In BPD’s theses are called “roadblocks”).”
Oh, great. Another, “I don’t understand what you’re going on about so I’ll just call you names and claim you’re wrong with no evidence on my part whatsoever”. You guys just won’t stop, will you?
“This demonstrates to me an inability to break down your ego barriers and self limiting beliefs (even when they are your OWN observations possibly) and frankly you just relegate yourself to another lost soul.”
Re: see the other comment above.
“i would consider going home and punching your mom or the savage female that raised you this way.”
You’re filled with ad hominem arguments. Any more and you’ll be ignored.
@LiveFearless
“What money?
What are you talking about?
Rollo is a talented artist, musician, brand genius and writer. He earns money from other work… NOT from this blog.
When others have asked to donate to his blog, he’s responded by suggesting donating to an animal charity.”
Rollo, I’ll be the first to buy
the seats,
books
and DVDs
Is it really the “Monetary Gravy Train Game” tour (MGTG) where you’ll be bullshitted with a straight face?”
I wasn’t talking about Rollo. I never insulted or accused Rollo of bullshitting his readers. Quite the contrary, in my opinion, he does good work by spreading these red pill truths. I’m well aware the donations go to a charity and that’s very noble of him.
The problem that I have with people who make money off this is not the red pill sayers like Rollo but PUAs. These people are scammers of the worst kind. They give unsuspecting men advice that does more harm than good.
For example, I remember when at first PUAs everywhere where saying, “Oh, looks don’t matter. Girls care a lot more about personality.” Now it’s, “Yeah, looks matter but just hit the weights, dress better, and you’ll be fine.”
Let’s be honest here, even with those minor improvements most men will not shoot above their inherent physical value to other women by running ‘game’. Why? Because like I’ve stated dozens of times before, game is a dependent variable which relies on an independent variable (i.e. looks) to work efficiently.
‘PUAs’ will adapt to the times and say whatever it takes to make money off men. First it was ‘night game’ then it was ‘day game’ followed by ‘niche game’ BUT they did reach a stumbling block and that was ‘online game’. Care to guess how? Something tells me you already know the answer to that.
August 3rd, 2014 at 7:23 pm
Siirtyrion,
Fair enough. We can hammer out our differences another time.
August 3rd, 2014 at 8:04 pm
@siiirtyrion (sp?)
Your seeming lack of ability to track with abstracts or nuance is fascinating.
There is a new movie out today called “Lucy”. Go take a look and let me know what you think. Your writing shows a specific level of intelligence but your ideas seem…..adolescent? in the ability to foment abstract thought.
I’d like to see if we can change that in you, so as to help you out. Every man we turn is one we don’t have to fight.
Cheers!
August 3rd, 2014 at 9:37 pm
@ Rollo – Again, just pure genius. I believe the term “game” simply doesn’t work to describe what is worth noting and true about this topic. I break it down into three distinct categories of stuff for me:
1. Understanding – You present an accessible perspective on intersexual dynamics that is based on your understanding of the science and your personal experience/POV. I don’t go to any PUA sites, I investigated them during my learning curve and found most of them laughable and pathetic in many ways, but some also contained some interesting perspectives. I took what I wanted, and left the rest.
Here I get a richer treatment without the idiotic techniques and juvenile perspectives of many PUAs. But I’ve continued my journey and now regularly listen to what actual evo biiologists and other scientists are saying about all this. I’m after understanding, not becoming a fanboy of anyone, nor to be part of a movement nor to become an ‘insider’ or whatever. So even with you, I take what I want and leave the rest.
The basic facts are not as complicated as many in the manosphere want you to think. Women choose. Sexual selection has had a huge impact on who men are and how this all works. We have a “tournament sexuality”. We are not going to “change” these truths. Much of what I hear in the manosphere essentially are the whinings of losers in the mating game, and more specifically about how unfair it is. Lol, I mean, grow up. I don’t complain about gravity. I don’t complain about how rough and tumble the free market is – neither are fair. Why do I need to feel put upon by any of this? One of the keys for me is to get how unconscious and subtle so much of this is, and to recognize that it is just how it is. I enjoy the dance with women now and meet new women all the time because they can tell I’m not angry with them anymore. I’m not scared, nor do I feel like I’m being screwed. I “get it” – and that changes everything.
I was just in NYC for 3 days and I connected with so many women while there, even a hot chick half my age on line in front of me at Starbucks – easily in the past I would have gotten the “creepy older guy” look. Nope, chatty the whole way, big smiles and got my attention to say “bye” when I was otherwise engaged. I didn’t fuck her – and didn’t want to and probably couldn’t have, I was busy. My point? I understand what’s going on with women now. One of the reasons they react so poorly to to so many men is because they can instantly tell the guy is too invested in their reaction in the first place. It’s immediate negative social proof of your own perception of your standing in the pecking order and women “get it” instantly. It’s weird, I don’t really care if any women reacts to me – and many don’t – but also am much more “on”. It’s like I’m just more myself with women now and many find that interesting. Like Steroids say’s above, it’s not the same “hit” one gets when they are 27, but it’s an open door and very rich. Women are responding to much more than looks – appearance is a threshold issue for women, and once you are “good looking enough”, all kinds of things can turn them on.
In a way, I feel lucky to be a man. At 52, I can still work it to some degree. A 52 year old women? Do you even notice her as she walks down the street? Think about it. The victimization complex in the manosphere is a fucking joke.
It’s also true that the manosphere is filled with blowhards like Mark Minter – he was full of shit back in the day, he’s full of shit now and I think it’s a good guess he’ll be full of shit in the future. It’s on the record, lol, and now we can add to that record that he has no shame, no dignity. Giggling. Wow. Bottom line? If you want a great life, do the opposite of everything Mark Minter has ever told you to do. I bet you’d be happy, rich and getting more pussy than Frank Sinatra. I mean – does he not get that he’s been revealed as a loser? Does he think that actual men, functioning in a dominant male way in their lives would consider anything he says on this topic ever again? It boggles the mind how pathetic some people are, and how their inanity plays out on line. Like I said, he’s a “negative example” for any man who wants to live a good life.
2. Learning implies a permanent change in behavior – A friend of mine said this to me once and i was stunned by the obviousness of it. Talking about “game” is not actualizing oneself. Easily, the most painful aspect of this has been seeing my own collusion in the destruction of my identity, dignity, self-worth and very vitality. Despite the fact that I was programmed from a young age and that FI is pervasive in our culture, I had to get that the only way forward was for me to modify my thoughts and actions. That I had internalized all this and was in large part causing myself the existential angst that pervaded my life was a horrific thing to see, but the other side is so worth getting to.
At 50 (when I first began gagging on the Red Pill) there was a lot to overcome. I discovered that in some ways I even liked giving up and being resigned about it all. It let me off the hook, but I also hated myself for it. Tearing away all the habits and perspectives and values has been a process of constant monitoring and correction driven by ruthless honesty with myself most of all. It is an “inside job”.
But the real breakthrough has come from just accepting it all, as I said above. It’s a delightful game that I get to watch and play. I’m not a victim, women are not my oppressors (the doppleganger of feminism that MRM/MGTOWs create in their worldviews), I’m just an animal programmed to love sex. And I surely do – more than ever.
3. Actualization – Shocking – my appearance wasn’t helping. 12 lbs later, the level of attention I get has shot up. I have another 20 to lose to have a nice, powerful shape again and am working on rebuilding some muscle. But that is just the surface. In fact, my motivation is to get back to skiing and mountaineering (a series of injuries and illness sidelined me and kicked my ass for about 8 years). I’m not just interested in looking good for some women, I want to feel powerful physically again. That is a very male feeling. Just the rock climbing thing. When I was into it, I used to walk around imagining all the things I could climb that were around me. I would even do so spontaneously, just because I could. It’s that kind of playfulness and energy that I’m getting back. I feel enthusiastic about life again. The experiences I was having with women – sisters, ex-wife, daughter, lovers, all of them – are no longer a mystery. THEY AREN’T EVEN AS PERSONAL OR CONSCIOUS AS I THOUGHT THEY WERE. The truth is i’m not as important to them as I thought I was, lol. Fair enough, I’ve moved on and now see them in their proper light.
Most recent change? Getting away from the web manosphere for the most part. I took down a YouTube channel with over 500 subs and 24k views and haven’t regretted it for a second. I only comment here. I do listen to and read actual evo scientists and real academics on these topics. It’s info, that’s all. They inject their views but still, I’m getting a much more complete view that is mostly consistent with what Rollo says. But for the most part, I’ve killed my online “manosphere” life. I suggest anyone on here to try it for a while. Try just walking the walk by stopping the talking for a week. That will be better for you than reading another 47 blog posts this week. Just sayin’…
I’m not doing “game”, I’m doing my life aware of how intersexual dynamics work. And enjoying being a man. This is probably the biggest improvement for me. A big part of the FI is about shaming masculinity so women can control it.I had internalized that my aggression and rationality and focus on outcomes etc was a character defect. Now? That’s who I am. I don’t have to be shamed over who I am. And now that I don’t, women see me as of higher social status and value. And because I’m less pissed off about it all, my entire presentation comes across as happier and calmer.
Thanks again to everyone here. Even the tedious anti-social, asocial and socially retarded who visit. I’m glad there is a place where at least there is an attempt at high level argument. Of course, our loquacious but semi-robotic friend above could have just said. ‘Runaway selection explains everything’ – see that – 1 sentence and I’ve described his views, sigh.
And of course that’s an absurd view. Human intelligence skyrocketing may be due to runaway selection – are we going to see that as maladaptive? I also really loathe the winner take all, zero sum POV. Many people nowhere near the top of the SMV chart are getting laid tonight. How does that ever happen? It’s not nearly as rare as some here seem to believe. And again, the best news for men is we can simply get fit and be above average in the appearance dept, and make up the rest with actual intelligence, good verbal skills, actual skills, being an artist or leader etc. Most men laboring at the bottom are there because they are too fucking lazy to do anything about it. I’m done feeling sorry for them and have moved on.
It’s about me getting what I want now. And I’m not ashamed to say it. See you guys next post, hope you are all playing at “11” in the games of your lives. I know I am.
August 3rd, 2014 at 10:23 pm
@ Glenn
Stay fluid with the three pillars of masculinity, otherwise the identity prison you are so fawningly describing tonight remains just that.
maintain your ability to change and enact new behaviors…..rule the system.
August 3rd, 2014 at 11:13 pm
@ Glenn – was nodding along when reading your post – well said.
I’m very loyal to Rollo and Chateau Heartiste and don’t get caught up in the whole ‘does Game work’ debate.
Women, white knights and AFC’s despise the existence of Game and will continually try to discredit it on this blog because it administers Men the ‘preventative medicine’ required to understand, accept and potentially circumnavigate Hypergamy.
Having internalised red pill theory, and put it into practice, I know it works on many levels and that’s all that matters to me.
August 3rd, 2014 at 11:29 pm
It is almost interesting that all of the looks-pushers are so afraid of behavioral solutions. To me,that indicates either that they are women who are afraid of men becoming more brutal, or they are effeminate-acting males who wish to hide their proclivities from their own consciences.
August 4th, 2014 at 1:11 am
Hypergamy cares about penis size:
http://www.reddit.com/r/smalldickproblems/comments/2btmow/therapy_time_whats_your_worst_sdp_story/
August 4th, 2014 at 1:30 am
Some people appear to be trying to undermine the essence of Game, which is the understanding of true female nature, by pointing out the rather obvious fact that women will be drawn most immediately to the most physically attractive men.
And they seem to be intentionally overlooking everything else. For example, that there are multiple feedback loops operating within female psychology, as well as multiple input paths.
Physical attractiveness induces an immediate positive response that is not easy to diminish, but it can be derailed through anti-alpha behavior, which can follow from ignorance of Game and susceptibility to social programming.
The markers called “physical attractiveness” have been dependable predictors of offspring viability, but success demonstrated over time also reliably predicts viability.
.
“You should note that behavioral traits are a dependent variable. It is something that depends on other factor (independent variable, i.e. attractiveness).” [Siirtyrion, August 1st, 2014 at 5:02 pm]
Stop trying to bolster your arguments by using words that don’t actually apply. A dependent-independent variable relationship is definitive, but behavior can only be influenced by factors such as attractiveness.
I am assuming that you are using the STEM definition, rather than one from the squishy sciences. But I could be wrong:
“In other words: confidence is the subjective consequence of an ‘expected value’ – derived of an obligate heuristic motif.”
Lulz, you are such an obligate heuristic doofus.
.
Alternative paths exist in the mediators of female behavior. While attractiveness implies power, the presence of actual power (and all of its subconscious and innate implications) can redefine male physical attractiveness for a particular woman, or at least expand her set of acceptable markers for it.
By “actual power” I mean having control over his own destiny, in his own right (being willing and able to get his hands dirty), and not the pretending of a short-term poseur.
What was initially perceived as “not pretty” then suddenly becomes transformed into “hawt rugged masculinity”.
.
“Can you tell us where we may find any PUA tests of game hypotheses, via longitudinal follow-ups by experiment … ” [Siirtyrion, ibid.]
Game, especially as an historical body of knowledge about women, is objectively verifiable through direct observation, by anyone.
Studies are actually a last resort, an attempt to extrapolate (when comprehensive direct methods are not available) from a necessarily small but supposedly unbiased sample, using methodologies that can easily contain latent defects.
Game, as knowledge about the true nature of women, is as much an explanation as it is a prediction. It connects the dots of what men have been observing throughout their lives, for millennia, sometimes without understanding what it was that they were seeing.
.
“The Game community is very large. Surely they can achieve some ties with the scientific community to prove their positions as correct. But something tells me that they have something to hide.” [Siirtyrion, August 2nd, 2014 at 12:05 am]
If you think that the scientific community is independent of the forces shaping society, then something tells me that you really do need to sit down and STFU.
.
“I’m getting tired of repeating myself but my main point is that ‘game’ is not a primary factor in attracting mates (contrary to what any PUA or gamer says) and the fact that it holds no comparable value to honest markers of Alpha Fucks (good looks) or even to a lesser extent, Beta Bucks (material resources).” [Siirtyrion, August 1st, 2014 at 5:02 pm]
What is being overlooked here is that some aspect of Game significantly permeates every factor at every level of male-female interaction, except perhaps (and temporarily) for such overwhelming male physical attractiveness that a woman is blinded by lust to the point that she ends up naked and dry-humping his leg in the middle of a city street without consciously realizing what she is doing.
.
Softek said: “I asked my friend the other day how many women he thinks he’s slept with in his life. ‘Oh, hundreds.’ … He was in a popular local band, which got him a lot of exposure, but the real kicker was when he said ‘I just felt like I had the right to do it’. That was the only explanation he could come up with, and that speaks volumes.”
Women are always fundamentally only passengers. Their responses are a rational, if not always conscious, consequence of their limitations.
.
“This is why it is so important for her/he/it to avoid answering questions simply and directly. It would tie Siirtyrion to a hard point which he/she/it would be forced to defend. Embellishing every answer allows for wiggle-room, enough space to dance away from anything that might force a concession.”
Magent, to have a discussion that leads to clarity, the relevant points need to be stated as simply as possible, otherwise you start and end with the same confusing mess, and one that cannot actually be shown to support any of the claimed conclusions.
When I read Siirtyrion’s first comment, I thought that he was just a semi-expert who was too full of himself to realize that an actual expert understands his subject well enough to explain it using common language. Using big words that can be found in an ordinary dictionary is fine, but scientific jargon can mean different things even across subspecialties.
But now I think that he might be trying (incompetently) to use the old huckster trick of being just vague enough for his audience to fill in the blanks. When people are induced to mentally provide pieces for a con, they also tend to side with the huckster, because they start to “feel” that he is right.
.
“… but perhaps you need to check your reading comprehension level before speaking to me.” [Siirtyrion (to Magent), August 2nd, 2014 at 12:05 am]
I do math analysis and modeling for scientific projects, and I also prepare detailed presentations that investors must be able to understand.
Siirtyrion is a verbose buffoon who seems unable to come even close to the level of clarity demanded by our risk mitigation attorneys.
August 4th, 2014 at 1:47 am
jf12
August 3rd, 2014 at 11:29 pm
Since the subject came up the last few days I did some personal research. I asked the first mate. Hunky body? Yep. Tall. At least relatively back in the day? Yep. (I’m shrimpy compared to my 6′ 4″ boys. I’m still taller than my 6′ daughter). A face with defects (large Jewish nose)? Yep. So what made the difference? Well she says the large nose made my voice deeper. Sure.
In any case I figure game gave me 2 to 2.5 points in SMV. So instead of 4.5s to 7s I was doing 7s to 9.5s. Mostly. Back when I was doing a lot of doing.
Also. I pointed out to the first mate that my first GF gave me the rudiments. “Never give in to a woman. No matter what. Even if you are wrong.” I try to avoid being wrong. But other than that I follow her advice. The fist mate of course advises that I beta up. I told her she wouldn’t like me if I did. That kinda ended the conversation. We were still holding hands. Affectionately.
August 4th, 2014 at 2:03 am
eon,
Siirtyrion is a verbose buffoon who seems unable to come even close to the level of clarity demanded by our risk mitigation attorneys.
Nailed it. Reality always gives extra points to those who can express the most complex stuff in the simplest way. The first mate gives me lots of extra points for doing so. She says I’m a good teacher.
Even better when a student goes wrong I can put myself in his mind and figure his error. Making it easy to correct.
And what do i like about being here? A pretty good number of STEM people. I feel at home.
August 4th, 2014 at 2:15 am
St.Pierre
August 4th, 2014 at 1:11 am
From what I have read bigger around is better than long. It rubs the G spot better. But you can always warm them up with fingers and tongue. The blood flow tightens everything up.
August 4th, 2014 at 4:09 am
tl;dr: not about Minter, look in the mirror.
All of you guys who have dogged Minter, whether “he’s” fake or not, should really be looking into the mirror. Some random commenter shows up out of nowhere on manosphere blogs and forums in a bluster of thunder and you fall for his schtick, whether it’s real or fake. Then he changes his tune, premeditatedly or not, and all of a sudden you’re pissed off at him.
Really?
Why?
That is a question that you need to look into the mirror and ask yourself. YOU are the one who chose to invest yourself into the emotions of an anonymous internet commenter, who could be anyone, for all you know. Perhaps that is whence your true emotional outrage originates from. Nobody MADE you believe in Minter. You CHOSE to do that of your own accord, because his/her/its emotional frequency resonated with your own.
Isn’t this kind of how you ended up on therationalmale.com in the first place? By gullibially believing bullshit that you’ve been fed your entire life? Only now you’re exchanging mainstream media sources for anonymous internet bloggers and their commenters.
You do see the irony.
The Minters of the manosphere are merely the first drops of a deluge to come. They will all undergo a similar deplugging process… and it ain’t never gonna be pretty. Compassion will rule those days. Do not contribute to building up their bombastic transition (as dramatic and click-baity as it may be), and then nothing will need to be torn down afterwards. Instead, if you’re up for it, just help to ease them through their transition. There are many more coming, rest assured.
If there is ONE quality of “alpha” that crosses all party lines, it is this: Learn to think for yourself.
To be angry with females or to burn one’s energy grappling with other commenters, is to abrogate your biological duties as a male. Come on. You are better than that, and you must be, to live the life you really want to live, and that we want each other to live.
And there are some very loud mouths currently—and overly—active in these comment boards, whom I have yet to address specifically: I’m looking right at you. Look internally, and stop projecting your wounds externally onto others. There are those of us who genuinely feel your pain—like, physically feel it—but that is no excuse for you to hoist it onto others. It is your responsibility to break that cycle, and NOT to perpetuate it against your lessers on a globally read blog. How does that help anyone? There are some very damaged souls here. Perpetuating that damage helps NONE of us. I’m speaking directly to YOU right now, and you know exactly who you are: use Rollo’s blog as a place to break the cycle that exists in your own life, not continue it into the lives of others. Ok?
Again, I’m not defending Minter, but rather LOGIC, which you all so claim to sanctify.
Instead of getting personally caught up in all the drama that newly unplugged fellows bring to the manosphere (and it’s substantial), consider leaning back, chilling, reading, observing, and processing on a time table that makes sense for YOUR life. All this hard knee-jerk emotional reactionism is the precise reason the manosphere exists in the first place—to talk males down from all of that, to get them to see reason, to get them to calm themselves and to make rational decisions, based on facts—not on inflammatory blog post comments.
Think about what you just read for at least an hour before replying.
Best to you and yours.
August 4th, 2014 at 4:50 am
re Minter
August 4th, 2014 at 4:09 am
I had the good fortune to get my Red Pill from my first GF at age 17.9. That would have been about 50 years ago. Since it was expressed by a woman and I was very new with women it did not generate much emotion for me. She was my first. And like all newbies with no prior “luck” I just wanted to please her. So it didn’t generate much of that “I have been betrayed” reaction.
Since I have started reading here I have just recently come across all the angst expressed by those new to Red Pill thinking. You know – “I was recently divorced and she cleaned me out” kind of stuff. And I’m thinking – well she took advantage of her situation and was looking for a better one – for her. Isn’t that what humans do? You should have made her want you. But making her want you doesn’t work the way you were told. And the lesson was very expensive. Damn. But be mad at women? Why? Are you angry that water is wet? Fire is hot? That gravity is always working on you? Women are what they are. And always have been. Shakespeare got it in “Taming of the Shrew” 400 years ago. It is not NEWS.
But in general I like your point. Compassion. I told Kate (supposedly Minter’s new wife/GF) that if there was anything I could do to help I would. And a number of the disgruntled warned me that such a move was a mistake. I said, “Maybe. But it is what I want to do.” Not having been previously involved I had no baggage. And i stated exactly that. And you know what? Kate – who gets game (and thus herself) – thanked me. Now was it a mistake? Time will tell. But I’m not sorry for making an effort to heal her and his hurt.
And just to restate. re: Minter – I like your point.
August 4th, 2014 at 5:38 am
@Siirtyrion/Sirtyrion Not sure why you’re choosing this comment section as the place to complain about the “PUA” types and to vent your frustrations at the men that have chosen to have ‘looks’ that naturally attract women.
If you wanna fight this “PUA” ‘monetary gravy train’ you might have more success in taking your ‘fight’ to my buddy Mike from Danger and Playhe’s taken your ‘fight’ against ‘PUAs’ to a ‘legal’ level
I was skeptical until I chose to meet him in person a while back. He’s not making a living from his blog either. He’s authentically the man he says he is. See the post I linked to… you’ll enjoy it.
August 4th, 2014 at 6:03 am
Yeah, what a fantastic marker along one’s path. Amen.
August 4th, 2014 at 7:51 am
@eon re: “But now I think that he might be trying (incompetently) to use the old huckster trick of being just vague enough for his audience to fill in the blanks.”
+1
I’m almost certain he/she is a sjw concern troll.
August 4th, 2014 at 9:21 am
@eon re: “Siirtyrion is a verbose buffoon who seems unable to come even close to the level of clarity demanded by our risk mitigation attorneys.”
Ya know, I hadn’t thought of that possibility, but you may be right. Siirtyrion may be a sjw attorney who believes words-about-science count as science.
August 4th, 2014 at 11:17 am
@ re Minter – What are you talking about? Minter is full of shit and I want people like him to be uncomfortable here. I don’t want to be part of a community where phony scumbags like him are welcomed. You don’t like that? Fair enough, but don’t play dime-store shrink with me or others here. You come off like a complete dick doing so, and also have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like a guy who spends way too much time online in the manosphere yourself. Unplug and go back to the real world for a while, maybe you’ll see how bizarre you have become.
But since you want to talk about the online community in the manosphere, let’s do so. It’s a slow morning for me by the lake and I don’t really feel like working so I’ll take a moment to lay out some truth that rarely gets discussed here.
Who are the people in the manosphere? The vast majority of them seem to fall into one of three categories – and they are all guys who failed at the mating game to a serious degree in their lives. The categories:
1. The sociopath – Lacking social skills and the innate empathy that healthy people have, they are looking for “tricks” to win at the mating game. Some become PUA leaders. They succeed in a limited way but never really can break through to develop real, long term relationships with people so they cycle through women endlessly in short encounters. One of the reasons PUA tactics work for them is that rejection doesn’t bother them. Fyi, I suspect that the women these types attract are emotionally fucked up as well.
2. Spergs/Autistic spectrum types – These are people who lack the social skills to connect with most humans, but when it comes to women they shit themselves. You see, they are not sociopaths, they really do care about what people think of them and want women’s approval but have no idea how to go about behaving with women. While there is evidence that this is biological, so I feel sorry for them, my direct experience with guys like this is that they are also arrogant and unwilling to change. I find that when I press down into these type’s belief systems, they are filled with errant nonsense and “facts” that support their idiotic beliefs. Take SytirionFuckNutz above – he’s essentially pissed off that women are attracted to attractive guys. Yawn, and the sun came up this morning. What, is he getting hard for 300lb brood sows?
I’ve had the chance to confront a couple of guys like this deeply due to having had a manosphere channel. What you find is that they are very invested in their victimization status and usually also think they are smarter than everyone else. Yet when you take the time to pull apart their absurd belief systems, they will not take in the new info. So, to some very significant degree, this is self-imposed and at a certain point, well, I say if you want to be a fucking pussy your whole life, you are welcome to it – just stop whining about it.
3. Real misogynists – The funniest thing about the manosphere is it’s protestations about not being misogynistic. Go to Roosh or Return of Kings and you’ll see articles and commentary littered with hate towards women. Go to AVFM or say Sandman’s or Barbarossa’s MGTOW youtube channels – dripping with hatred for women. Fyi, not so here – which (hint, hint) is why I’m here. I don’t associate with or condone people like that. I think there are many MGTOWs and PUAs who are filled with hatred for women. Both are utterly controlled by women and don’t see it.
The saddest ones make their entire lives about the manosphere and build an identity for themselves that has no resemblance to their real lives as a compensation mechanism for how little they actually matter in the real world. I was down in the dumps due to my life story and began to fall into this fantasyworld existence but bailed out over the past several months as my self-love and dignity returned. But it’s also true that up until age 45, I had a lot of success with women and in my life in general. My circumstances kind of crashed my life, and then other issues came up with two of my sisters and daughter, which had me connect to manosphere in the first place. I never came here to learn how to get laid, but still the temptation of a virtual identity and the fantasyworld that the internet is in very real ways sucked me in for a while. No longer.
So, guys, be careful who you listen to. Consider carefully who’s who. Rollo isn’t any of the types I mention above – which is why he’s worth listening to in the first place.
August 4th, 2014 at 1:00 pm
@ Glenn, August 4th, 2014 at 11:17 am
.
Why are you being so pushy and greedy?
Siirtyrion is the designated doofus on this thread. You can be The Grand Poobah of Buttcrack on the next article.
.
My biggest problem with you is that you are using a type of push-pull to mask your agenda and get people to start sort of agreeing with you.
You begin with: “Who are the people in the manosphere? The vast majority of them seem to fall into one of three categories – and they are all guys who failed at the mating game to a serious degree in their lives. The categories: …”
Then you imply that the tiny minority that is sociopathic is a valid 33% category, and that they are in the mating game in the same way as the rest of the Manosphere, which is total bullshit.
Your next category is The “Spergs/Autistic spectrum types”, who are also only a small minority.
These “people who lack the social skills to connect with most humans, and who shit themselves when it comes to women” exist on a continuum, but most of them are not “arrogant and unwilling to change”, but instead have built a defensive wall.
Even only marginally smart people who sincerely want to guide the socially inept toward something better can gently remove those barriers, and often quite easily, at least when the cause is not biological (structural).
But then you throw in “Take SytirionFuckNutz above – he’s essentially pissed off that women are attracted to attractive guys …”, to make readers lose track of everything else that you had just said, and to hook them into feeling that you might be right.
.
Finally, you get to the crux of your argument – the Real Misogynists ™.
I find that most of the people in the Manosphere are fundamentally nice guys who are trying to deal with having been deliberately lied to all of their lives, by almost everyone, and even robbed and then enslaved or discarded.
Being upset is a reasonable and necessary part of the grieving and healing process that ultimately leads to being able to move on with their lives in a more positive and effective way.
You say: “The funniest thing about the manosphere is it’s protestations about not being misogynistic. Go to Roosh or Return of Kings and you’ll see articles and commentary littered with hate towards women.”
Are you actually a woman?
I ask this because one of the Most High Holy Tenets of the FI is: “truth that reveals the fundamental nature of women = hate towards women”.
The great fear of women is “What if their V suddenly stopped working?”
What if men became able to see everything as it actually exists? What if men became able to give greater priority to their needs beyond sex, and then started evaluating women objectively?
What if women had to be more than sex robots with a bad attitude in order to be protected and supported? What if the rest had to start building what they needed, and by doing more than holding a yield-sign at a construction site?
“This is the culture we live in, where everyone from feminists to the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is in awe of the world changing power between a woman’s legs.
“Now imagine being the spreadsheet wife, who has suddenly realized that her V has lost its power through her own misuse. In a fit of terror, hurt, and outrage, she turned to her sisters on the internet. But instead of rallying around her, they were afraid that the disease could be catchy. What if their V suddenly stopped working as well?”
These quotations are from the article: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/frigidity-and-power/
August 4th, 2014 at 1:45 pm
I’ve been reading the comments here and it all makes sense now. I’m a short, un-attractive guy, who has been running game for 4 years now. I did manage to get some girls here or there but I never could sustain top quality. I always chalked it up to my game but I now know that a woman has to find you “hawt” or at least past a threshold of “cute” before she’s willing to stay with you.
Guys, that’s just the way it is. Women, young women specifically, love to show off their boyfriends to others. No amount of game can bring and sustain high quality, unless you’re high quality yourself. Even when you have a good social circle and you’re “semi-famous” in your own scene, it’s all transactional with women if you don’t inspire physical lust in them. I spent the last couple of minutes thinking back on my past experiences and aside from the overwhelming emotions of past failures, out-right rejections, and heart aches, it all makes sense now.
I’ve had many good times with women no doubt, but I can see how some of these interactions were…negotiated.
It pains me to say it.
I have quite a few stories like the next one I’m about to post, so take some time to listen. The following story is more of an archetype to my many experiences so, it sums them up quite nicely.
I met a girl who was young (18), fit, and very attractive. She was a universal 8 by most accounts. I was clearly shooting out of my league and yes, contrary to what some say, there is such a thing. I still ran my game on her and she was hooked. She would say things like, “I like you because you know how to push my buttons.” Eventually, we ended up banging multiple times and she pushed for a relationship. The sex was good (or so I thought) and so I figured, why not?
A few weeks in and she starts acting strange. She grows cold to my affections and pushes me away at times. I knew something was up, so I reviewed my game book and checked it twice. Pulled every trick in the book (dread game most notably the best example) and to no avail…
I didnt know wtf to do so I broke up with her and called it a lost.
We only lasted 6 weeks and I just couldn’t understand it. Well, a few months later, I found out she was in a relationship with a jock from some university and here’s where it all came into picture.
On her facebook, in her about me, their relationship anniversary started the 2 weeks before I had called it off (in other words, she was cheating on me). That’s when she started growing cold towards me. She was seeing the other guy.
It’s been well over a year and they’re still together. There’s no way this guy has practiced like I have year after year with specific game tactics. I’m pretty sure his social intelligence is high but it isn’t as precise as mines. I’ve realized that it didn’t matter anyway.
Young girls uphold good looks above all. Rollo has said this himself.
Game simply isn’t enough if you’re not at least moderately attractive. I’m by no means quitting game or anything but I know my limits and to blindly believe that I can attain and sustain high quality on my part is absurd.
Like I’ve said before, Game has its limits.
Even when you feel like you’re pulling top quality eventually it will turn transactional because she doesn’t have a genuine desire towards you. The negotiations for sex will be subtle, but make no mistake, they’re there.
August 4th, 2014 at 1:52 pm
Glenn
August 4th, 2014 at 11:17 am
“Who are the people in the manosphere? The vast majority of them seem to fall into one of three categories… ”
Glenn, thank goodness for NAMALT. I liked a lot of your comments. I’m glad you are in the miniscule minority.
August 4th, 2014 at 2:36 pm
Glenn is 100% right. Rollo has fantastic content, but the focus needs to be on living a productive life free of bitterness. This is my last post here. It has been a fantastic experience and am grateful to Rollo beyond all measure. I came here while dealing with my divorce and the site has been hugely helpful in assessing my prior mistakes and making the right changes. Best of luck to everyone on their journeys. One is only truly healthy when he has no need for the manosphere.
August 4th, 2014 at 3:25 pm
@Glen is the second coming of Mark Minter; a version with the inner need to project its pain onto others. There will be more. And they will span the spectrum.
August 4th, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Here’s a post that Rollo wrote from his past sosuave days:
“Not at all, and this is a very common, binary, all-or-nothing approach to what I point out when I spell out how our biology works… What is true is that impressive physical prowess and appearance are genetic determinantes that are associated with good gene-stock on a subconscious level. There are numerous cross-culture/cross-racial studies that bear this out which have found consistent attracting commonalities in body & facial symetry as well as gender specific attributes each sex found not just attractive, but physically arousing (heart rate increase, pupil dialation, ect.) in the opposite sex (i.e. broad shoulders, square jaw, chest to waist ratio, etc. for men and breast size, fullness of lips, hip to waist ratio, etc. for women).”
And to wrap it up:
“Women (and men) are only going to do what it is their personal conditions are dictating for them at that period in their lives. You can call a woman “superficial”, “empty”, “low quality” and any other names you want to, but keep in mind that the “superficial” b!tch who blew you off at 22 because you were too nerdy or not in as good a shape as the guy she opted on instead of you, or maybe because you lacked confidence, suddenly finds you to be the perfect “husband material” at 32. I’m not saying that’s you personally, but you see the mechanics in that scenario?
Now, are there exceptions to this rule? Absolutely, but even in those exceptions there will ALWAYS, be an element of opportunism. Human beings (of both sexes) are natural opportunists, we make comparisons and judgements every day and the vast majority of these we’re unaware of and most others we’re only pereipherally aware of. We innately know that eating a big apple has more survival value than eating the small one, and we know if we take the best short cut to work we can beat the traffic and get to work on time. It’s foolish to think that women wouldn’t want, on a base level of awareness, to have their genetic cake and eat it too. Which is why it is all the more incumbent upon men to see through the feminine social contrivance that have been so deftly erected over the centuries to keep this opportunism foggy and ambiguous. Start looking at the mechanics and you can make more pragmatic choices in life.”
Source: http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=124247
Rollo wrote this 7 years ago. Damn, man…you’ve known the score for so long. Mad props.
August 4th, 2014 at 6:06 pm
@Glen. Not picking on Glen, but merely using his case as an illustrative example. As I said, there have been many Glens in the past, and there will be many more Glens in the future, spanning the spectrum.
Why do you guys think that Glen attacks Minter so viciously? Who the flying fuck cares about Minter’s arguments or positions? Glen does, that’s who. The reason why his attacks on Minter are so beyond vicious is because he is on an ENERGETIC AND SPIRITUAL RESONANCE with Minter. In other words, his suffering and healing process is very closely aligned with that of Minter, energetically. He hates to take in the pain of Minter, because that pain is so closely aligned with his own… and he is trying to get the fuck away from it, and good for Glen for that. I hope he succeeds.
This is just how the energetic reality we inhabit operates. I’m subject to it. Rollo is subject to it. Every one of you reading this blog is subject to it.
I view Rollo’s site as both an attempt at prevention, and also a triage unit. Compassion is first and foremost. The patient may survive; they may not. But why would anyone dog someone who is clearly injured and fighting for their own survival? If they’re weak and will not make it (many commenters here), then such is life. I don’t see how dogging them offers anything constructive. Tough love? Yeah, sure. But there exists a distinct difference between tough love, and just being an asshole.
In my humble opinion, Rollo’s entire site is tough love. But I have NEVER seen him intentionally try to tear down any of his readers. The fact that commenters feel entitled to do that to other commenters is beyond the pale.
Either do your fucking job in this triage unit or focus on your OWN healing, but shut the fuck up as regards others, if your primary concern is not THEIR healing.
August 4th, 2014 at 6:24 pm
I wrote this about 5 hours ago and let it sit because I wasn’t sure I had it right.
Glenn
August 4th, 2014 at 11:17 am
What I got from re:Minter was that there is a lot of acting out from pain and that some compassion is in order when the pain recedes and something else comes out. Not to mention compassion for those in pain.
From my interactions with Kate on line – I like her. But it could be just that she reminds me of my first GF. Attitude wise. As to Minter himself. I was not invested in who he was so that does not color for me who he is. A point re:Minter made. i.e. don’t be invested in the person. Ideas are better. So were person Minter’s ideas any good? I have no idea. I don’t see what is wrong with liking women. Even if you get bitten by one or several.
As to the people attracted to this site currently – seems like a fair number of STEM people. The kind never noted for their social skills. The fist mate thinks I have moved up in that area. From the bottom 5% to the bottom 25%. Still not quite acceptable in polite company.
I don’t know what you have against. But I feel at home.
==========
re Minter
August 4th, 2014 at 6:06 pm
I think you are on track with this one. I think you explain my “I don’t know what you have against.”
One point I differ on: do not try to avoid the pain. Embrace it. Embrace its lessons. You will heal faster. As the mil guys like to say: “Embrace the suck.” Amidst the wreckage start sorting out your resources and figure out what you can do with them. It is probably quite a lot. Start with dominating yourself. You have to start with being your own hero. After that if you want a woman you have a chance to be hers.
August 4th, 2014 at 6:35 pm
Mark, it’s OK. Humans have an instinct for pair bonding.
She seems like a good catch. You don’t need to justify yourself.
August 4th, 2014 at 6:47 pm
Physicality Is King
August 4th, 2014 at 3:57 pm
I’d like your estimate of how much SMV game added to you. My estimate is 2 to 2.5 points. I think that the point is not emphasized enough. Game will not make a 3 a 9. It can make a 6 an 8.
The real value of game IMO is in a LTR. It will help keep her interested. That avoids all the nastiness and expense of a break up.
And I think the point made above about “value” is quite correct. The kids are grown and out of school. I ask the mate if she is still happy with my mating value. She says, “Very”. The boys are tall, thin, good looking, and very bright. The girl is tall, thin, very good looking, very top heavy, and very bright. A 9.5 – minimum. So I guess we chose each other well. Game helped me keep it going with her for 40+ years – so far. Good for the kids.
Both the mate and I saw the wreckage that divorce causes in children. We were both against it. But that only helps a little if you don’t keep her hypergamy satisfied or at least at bay.
August 4th, 2014 at 7:43 pm
Minters and Glens pop up roughly once a quarter. They are always full of piss and vinegar. No problem with that—at least their balls are intact, they have a modicum of testosterone. I watch these guys go through the growth-throws of taking the red pill, and find it fascinating.
Where I draw the line is when these entities begin to lash out at everyone else in the manosphere with zero regard for the fact that those being lashed out against would probably be friendly with the lasher, otherwise.
It’s part of the process.
That doesn’t mean that the community must countenance this anti-community behavior.
It’s to laugh. But someone has to raise their voice and call it for what it is.
Letting these douches run roughshod over the community, will be the end of the community. The proprietors should consider that. Look at the chaos that Minter achieved. Why? Because the proprietors bolstered it.
August 4th, 2014 at 9:19 pm
The Script
August 5th, 2014 at 10:55 am
“All his intense powers of rationality, all of his implicitly provable facts, all of his monuments and achievements of deduction mean nothing without the only irrational thing a woman can uniquely supply – unknowable, fantastical love.”
Because microcephaly doesn’t care.
August 5th, 2014 at 11:06 am
Scripted people in blog comments serve a wide-range of key phrases designed to bring negative attention to the blog from outside.
This also distract its followers from the the key points.
The actors lives are scripted to be believable enough.
There are pictures of people associated with the comments, so they must be real.
Responding to them builds their brands.
Names designed with alliteration tend to do quite well.
Like with any popular show, people naturally develop emotional ties to the lives of the scripted characters.
They naturally believe in the people they play in ‘real’ life.
The production cost is a lot less.
They’re only paying writers and social media managers since it only requires a few photos from the lives of the supposed people to make most people believe they’re real.
It’s genius the late Walter Lippman would be proud of.
August 5th, 2014 at 1:25 pm
@LiveFearless: Whatever lies you need to tell yourself so you and Rollo don’t have to feel guilty. Mark and I are real, but we have no motivation to prove that to you. I’ve seen that you messaged Mark on Facebook. Mark posted to your blog. Mark has emailed Rollo. We both have contact with other people we’ve met in the Manosphere by private means. Many people can verify we are real. NONE of these people will reveal identifying information about us. These are our true friends. We’ve posted pictures in the past, and, on this so-called forum of ideas, I’ve been called “ugly” and a “slut” and more. Now, just what kind of valid argument is that? It isn’t. When people can find no real objection to what you’re saying, that’s the kind of method they’ll use.
You’ll get no further proof of our existence than what we’ve shared. Our lives outside the sphere are far more important. Why don’t you ask Rollo to post current pictures of himself? Why don’t you question his existence? Why do you think he doesn’t reveal too much information about his wife or his daughter? When Mark posted here long ago, he had no idea of the size of the readership. He had no belief that anyone would pay any attention to him. He had nothing to lose and thought nothing of using his real name. When he and I first began writing to each other, I didn’t know he was *famous* either. I realized his writing had been posted all over the place (without his knowledge or permission) months later. It was not his intention to become a Manosphere legend.
But, other people realized what using his real name meant. And they wanted it out there so that they wouldn’t have to be alone. Don’t you think for a second that Roosh didn’t know what he was doing when he wrote those articles about Mark using his full name. He later wrote about his method to destroy people’s names using Google. His actions were purposeful, malicious, and out of proportion. Why, I’ve asked myself a couple times. I believe he saw Mark as a father figure and as a comrade who was also using his real name in this “war” he thinks he’s fighting. So, when he felt betrayed, he made sure to ruin Mark’s name so that he couldn’t find any other way out of his situation. Well, it just so happens that we are a lot smarter than Roosh, but it does not excuse what he did.
Why do we come back from time to time? We think it is an honest to God SHAME that so few of you can believe love can truly exist. We butt our heads against the wall and endure all kind of crap just to try to tell you. To give you hope. But you don’t want to believe. You’d rather make up paranoid fantasies so you don’t have to FACE THE TRUTH that you could be happy but you aren’t. We don’t fight back much because its not a fair fight. You don’t kick the downtrodden. I hate fighting with people. I hate pointing out how you’re wrong, your inadequacies and your flawed thinking, but I love you so much I’ll do it.
Roosh’s latest video now shows him saying he’s done gaming. Despite the fact he’s been saying this for years and destroying his soul in the process, so few are really listening to him. He’ll either find someone and make it work (though it doesn’t seem he has the skills to) or he’ll kill himself. Are you aware of the signs of depression and suicide? Open your eyes. Rhetoric doesn’t ultimately make men feel better. Women do.
I found my way to the Manosphere at the end of a long road of self-improvement. Getting to know men after my divorce, I saw how so many of them had been put through the wringer. Not too many had large divorce settlements like my ex did. Not too many built a custom home in a nearby lot on land given to them so that they could easily see their child every other day. Not too many pay hundreds less each month than is required in child support. Because my intention was not to RUIN my ex-husband. But I saw many with ex-wives who had that very intention. And if you think for one minute that a man like Mark Minter would marry anyone who did not believe in father’s rights, you are sorely mistaken. It was probably the only reason he even considered it.
If you want us to reveal who we are just because of your lack of faith in the ability of people to be decent citizens and true helpmates, you’d better have a couple million to trade. Cause nothing less would be worth it.
August 5th, 2014 at 1:49 pm
“We think it is an honest to God SHAME that so few of you can believe love can truly exist. ”
Of course love truly exists.
Love is the way we experience and rationalize our normal and necessary mating instincts. I have experienced it many times. I enjoy it.
But humans are wired to stay pair bonded for only a few years. Fitness for one’s offspring is maximized by mating with more than one individual.
W. Somerset Maugham:
“Love is only a dirty trick played on us to achieve continuation of the species.”
August 5th, 2014 at 2:10 pm
I see a bigger picture in the MM affair.
Reading Mark Manson’s post on “modern post-masculinity”, across time and culture, the defining feature of establishing masculinity is: “Remember, the key universality is defining an emotional independence for ourselves followed by validation from other men.”
Mark was establishing emotional independence with much chest thumping and getting strong validation from other men.
Then it suddenly collapsed. Men were forced to confront the modern lack of ways to prove masculinity. Not surprisingly, this was upsetting to many men.
August 5th, 2014 at 2:12 pm
re: love. Probably every man on here believes that men feel real love. Probably every man on here believes that women’s love is as fleeting as every other emotion that women have, like sneezes in brevity.
August 5th, 2014 at 2:16 pm
More fundamentally, establishing emotional independence while requiring validation for it is contradictory.
August 5th, 2014 at 2:56 pm
Regarding the above, Manson would probably say that it is about establishing emotional independence from women while getting validation from men. IOW, associating with men more than women and identifying with other men. Like J. Donovan’s thing about men joining gangs. That is pretty straight forward.
Unfortunately, men only spaces have been outlawed.
Even being a professional athlete is subject to fem reporters in the locker room. The military has been feminized.
It follows then that participation in the manosphere is all that is left for men to establish masculinity.
“Birdwatching in the Manosphere” is a humorous cautionary note. http://www.mgtow.com/birdwatching-in-the-manosphere/
Mark failed to lash himself to the mast when his ship was within earshot of the sweet quacking of an Odd Duck. And I don’t condemn him (or her) for that.
It is what it is.
August 5th, 2014 at 3:20 pm
Rhetoric doesn’t ultimately make men feel better. Women do.
While I agree that rhetoric does not make anyone feel better, at least not on a fundamental level, I do think that this is possible, for a man, without having a woman in his life. Now, not if the reason for that is hatred of women, bitterness, inability to attract a suitable woman and so on, because in most cases such men will be very unhappy with things, whether they admit it or not, especially if they are bitter. But really one can feel better with a firmer foundation in the truth — whether one takes a philosophical or religious approach to that — and applying that in one’s life. That’s rather independent of women. Of course, if a man does this and finds his center and purpose and so on, women will generally materialize at some point as he is pursuing his mission in life with the confidence that will be typical of any such man who has that kind of grounding, and who truly follows it. But the key is that it is not the woman who makes him feel better to begin with — that has to come from within himself.
August 5th, 2014 at 6:04 pm
re: rising above one’s perceived needs. But only if that perceived need is love. And only if it is a man who perceives he needs love from a woman. He’s the only one who is required to try to be able to transcend.
Let’s take a naturalist example. One could train a koala to rise above his need for eucalyptus, enduring rather stale koala kibble that is supposedly healthier than his natural inclination. Especially if one is trying to “Save the eucalyptus!” from his predations, or to make him, indeed force him, to better appreciate the rare dole of eucalyptus. Or, even to make him truly objectively a better koala. Fewer infestations, more energy, less sleep, etc.
August 6th, 2014 at 4:16 am
@New Yorker
“One is only truly healthy when he has no need for the manosphere.”
In other words – one is truly healthy when he has no need for TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE? Ignorance is bliss, yeah?
Ignorance IS bliss for glenns and minters of the word. They need their projections, idealizations and lies to be able to…live and work.
Men are SO STUPID!!!!
Manosphere does exactly what women have been doing for millenia..it spreads knowledge and infomations about the opposite gender and give advices how to deal with it. Men in the past have struggled individually, without knowledge. They had their illusions, their lies and their EGO that did not allow them to admit that they DID NOT KNOW shit about women…and in the first place…they did not know shit about themselves. They were in the dark..precisely where FI wants them to be!
They were nothing but a prey. As a divorce lawyer I know better that there are millions of glenns, minters…ass raped in divorces every fucking day. But … what is strange is that even after ball busting divorce, theese poor bastards WANT their stupid, ignorant selves back. They need their illusions. So they call the truth “bitterness”, they ATTACK the truth with every weapon they have. They have been living in the dark for so long that their eyes CAN NOT withstand the light.
Game is not the right name for the truth. GOD BLESS internet and informations. Knowledge about women, their nature, etc…can SAVE lives! Truth about women does many things:
– it attack this beta mentality of a slave which says that man has no value except when he is recognized by woman (you are nothing but a dick and wallet),
– it teaches men that ultimately MAN stands alone and he has nothing BUT himself,
– it prompts men to build themselves form within FOR THEMSELVES,
– it fights aggresivity and stupid emotions of poooor lonely boyy, originating as a consequence of breakup, divorce, etc…,
– it PREVENTS suicide, quiet desperation, loss of energy, etc.,
– it teaches men to be careful with women,
– rtc..
Truth set you free!! Of course, we men do not need it, do we? We prefer the blindness of uninformed slave. Ok, we mighjt enjoy it..till next divorce, breakup…when we find yourself with NOTHING.
August 6th, 2014 at 4:47 am
@Kate
“Rhetoric doesn’t ultimately make men feel better. Women do.”
You are woman, so you think and feel like one. You merges. You ultimately need someone else to merge with, to be happy. You have no concept of truth, justice, goodness. You have this emotional void, this emptiness…called “love” and “happiness” which have to be given to you from outside by someone else.
You want to be…happy. Yoo want to feel ..loved, needed by someone. Then you feel complete. This is ALL that matters to you. It is how you live, how you survive. It si who you are.
Men have sacrified their lives for IDEAS, JUSTICE, TRUTH, FREEDOM..something much bigger than abovementioned selfish needs. Real men. In some sense you are still…a child. Children NEED love and happiness. This si how they survive.
Men need freedom, truth and mission. Real men.
Do not try to understand.,you can´t.
August 6th, 2014 at 6:02 am
^These 2 posts nailed it.
Men need women to feeeeeeel better lol
August 6th, 2014 at 11:13 am
Lol. Been a busy week and I’m only back here now to see what came from my commentary. I spend my time building two cloud companies backed by angel investors. And doing loops around the lake I live on. And reading. And rehearsing for for my gig Thursday night. And with friends and family. And gaming the 25 yr old hottie I’m seeing who finds my dominant, ambitious, positive and clear frame of life delightful to step into (funny how hot some women find being a mentor to be). Rollo – thanks for “amused mastery”, it’s a great place to stand as an older guy as it’s a natural way for me to be.
One game comment, as it might be helpful to guys here actually interested in learning something rather than preening their pseudo-intellectual natures about. I don’t need most women to find me attractive or be interested in me – only a few that I actually find attractive as well. And I’m never “sarging” or running “sets” – I’m simply ‘on’ in life now. I connect with people all the time because I like them, and sometimes a subtle, mutual spark ignites. Even better? When that happens, I naturally know what to do. Maybe a little self-deprecating humor (done right it’s a great signal about social status), a bit of push-pull, react to their pacing and look for interest instead of pushing – without trying. The Asian hottie I mentioned in my last post responded to me doing all that organically – I’m a man, I know how to do that shit while falling out of bed. My point? For me, it seems that all this has fallen into its proper place so I don’t act like an idiot or spray myself when a woman i’m interested in me reacts with that little sparkle in her eye.
Rollo is so right, women just want you to “get it”. Part of getting it, fyi, is having them know that you are ‘safe’ to flirt with at all. Have you ever wondered why many attractive women walk around avoiding all eye contact with guys? Because they know that if they do flirt at all with most guys, so many of these beta pussies (the real problem in our culture is the mass production of Betas – and only men can stop this, women will push their advantages as far as we let them) will lock on to them like a heat seeking missile and become pathetic or assholes – or both. In other cultures like say in Italy, flirting is much more overt, and common. But it doesn’t mean sex. Spain ditto. And much more flirting happens. It seems that women now know that I’m up for the ‘game’ and flirting is where it has to start. It just seems to happen so much easier and is more fun. It doesn’t mean so much, but it’s where all romantic connections with women start. Learn to flirt playfully, like your life doesn’t depend on it and you will see that many women are eager to flirt back. Women are libidinous too…Tip for the nervous guys – go start a conversation with a women you aren’t attracted to. It’s the same pattern of behavior on their end and you can learn a lot by just practicing speaking to women naturally and being masculine about it, leading, framing, gently nudging them back, pulling – you know, what comes naturally if you just fucking relax about it.
Last. I love what Rollo does. My message here isn’t for the guys who are addicted to their victimhood or are pathologically hooked on having high status in the manosphere due to the pathetic nature of their “real” lives. It’s for the guys who’ve wandered into the Manosphere and find it a nice place to escape from the existential angst they have suffered with for so long. I was there, but don’t stay there. Work it out whatever way you need to and get through the anger and sadness and self-loathing. And when you do, realize that the endpoint was never to be subscribed to 48 Manosphere YouTube channels and commenting on 23 different threads on various manosphere blogs.
The point is to embrace being a man. One of the truths I learned in reading evo biologists and other scientists on this topic is this. All life is a competition. We over-reproduce because the herd gets winnowed over time, and all life forms compete with each other for resources, and within species, often are subject to competitive sexual selection processes that skew towards fitness but are often bizarre due to that very selection process. But whatever the motivations, for humans, the females choose and this is simply a fact of life. The politics and ideology wrap around it and amplify some of it, and are also feedbacks, but in the end, what’s my best approach? It turns out that embracing my masculinity and living into it energetically is by far the best “solution” on offer to this entire dilemma.
To be self oriented. To forget being a “gentleman” or being a “nice guy” or even romantic in demonstrative ways. And to relax – this is just how it is. We are all bit players in a much larger show and the only smart choice is to play the game full out – and enjoy it. Me? My project is my life – as it was before I was laid low due to health and circumstances and my own bad choices. I’m out to be the best version of Glenn I can be – and I think Rollo has demonstrated that too, while he writes about this subject The power of an actualized man, speaking wisdom with no agenda other than to help other men is awesome.
For those drafting along on Rollo’s wake, I’ll leave you with a quote from Angela’s Ashes, by Frank McCourt. Frank recalls a classroom scene in which his high school teacher is a Catholic monk, and Frank asks the teacher whether he shouldn’t make his own mind up about the topic being taught. The teacher responds, “Make your own mind up, surely – but fill it with something first.” You see, Rollo has filled his mind before spewing it all at us. That’s the lesson, actually. Not comment wars played out like video games, lol.
But whatevs. And I’ll see you guys next post – maybe…
August 6th, 2014 at 11:34 am
@Eon, M Simon and Siirtyrion,
“Magent, to have a discussion that leads to clarity, the relevant points need to be stated as simply as possible, otherwise you start and end with the same confusing mess, and one that cannot actually be shown to support any of the claimed conclusions.”
“Nailed it. Reality always gives extra points to those who can express the most complex stuff in the simplest way.”
This was my issue with you, Siirtyrion, and if I am not the only one seeing this, then it seems like it would be an issue. I am not piling on; I am pointing out that if you are legit in the sense of truly believing and understanding what you are arguing, you are not coming across that way.
As someone else pointed out, it seems a little strange that you choose a non-PUA orientated site to denounce PUA’s so stridently, so it lends itself to the idea that there may be more ideology or ingrained mindset than considered argument to you efforts here. The fact that there has been a sudden influx of people like that here recently does not help.
In any event, you DID actually respond to my challenge, which is more than I can say for the others courage and strength of conviction.
@Mark Minter
“Get fucking married. If you can find someone that will have you. Most of you won’t. Maybe try to bring a foreign bride here.
Enjoy the physical affects of being married. Build the wealth that you can build as a married man. Get the career gains that marriage and a wife motivate you to obtain. Even if you divorce, you will be in a far better state than most of your contemporaries will be in. (If you plan your divorce well. )”
Mark, I have to admit, I also know tangentially anything about you. When your name has come up on other blogs and maybe this one, I was not real invested in following the story because it seemed like inside baseball. So, trust me, I really have no pre-conceived notions or animus toward you so I am evaluating the above with objectivity. I don’t the details of your journey and all that, but I can tell you that the above make me raise eyebrows.
Get married if you can find someone that will have you?
With all respect to your personal journey, but I find that statement to support the idea that you’ve fallen back into the Beta pit wholesale. I have trouble having respect for you, no matter what else you relate because it goes against everything I have observed and come to realize about male and female relationships, particularly in the modern age.
Do women, can women, enhance a man’s life?
Yes they CAN, most certainly, the RIGHT woman can, but the question is do they do so simply be being present in a relationship?
No, they do not. Thinking they do for simply being women is folly, pure and simple, which is how this statement reads.
Many times, in fact, they make a man miserable, devastated and in some cases suicidal.
If one goes into a relationship with a woman with the attitude that “well, at least SHE WILL HAVE ME”, one should present one’s testicles for removal, followed by your heart, ass, and then head.
I am frankly shocked that anyone would write that anywhere near a Red Pill site.
Enjoy the physical effects of marriage?
Like what?
Again, CAN a marriage offer beneficial effects? Yes, I think they can, BUT, that depends on whether you marry someone who is pleasant, supportive, attractive, amorous, you get the idea.
Setting your sights on anyone who “have you” is setting yourself up for a rude disappointment. A costly one too. Speaking of which:
“Build the wealth that you can build as a married man. Get the career gains that marriage and a wife motivate you to obtain. Even if you divorce, you will be in a far better state than most of your contemporaries will be in. (If you plan your divorce well. )”
Now, this may be seen as taunting or being confrontational, but I have to honestly ask if this is not in fact parody? I mean it.
Do you have any idea how much money a marriage costs over the years, even excluding the presence of children? Do you understand how much shit women buy over the years, how much simpler a man can live on his own, and I don’t mean living in a shack with Ikea furniture.
A big part of Red Pill Theory for me is understanding that you do NOT do things for women whether it be career, hobby, interest, WHATEVER. Doing so is an initial starting error which corrupts the whole process going forward. A man does what he wants, for him, pleasing himself, and if a woman wants to be part of it, she can, if she pulls her weight. Period.
A big part of my problem was, and I think many men as well, is proceeding from the idea that you need a woman and/or pussy (depending on your focus) to motivate, inspire and drive you. This is putting the cart before the horse. No, it’s putting the horse IN the cart, and then pulling it yourself.
And you even factor in Divorce costs when you claim single men will fall far behind their divorce raped brethren.
In a sense, this was a great post to put here, because it highlights the importance of Red Pill Thinking, known to many of us here as “Game”. It is NOT just about pulling tail, folks, no matter how you feel about that. It is about understanding the false steps that can set you up for disaster or at least extreme disappointment if you don’t do a reality check.
Men CAN and SHOULD work on pleasing and making themselves happy, FIRST.
Having a good woman (and that term covers a number of qualities) or good women in one’s life will certainly add greatly to that, I grant you. But having a woman or women around who are tolerating your presence does speak of someone enhancing, but of leaching off of it.
@ Kate,
You speak about “love”, and Mark talks about finding a woman who will “Have you”.
Do you see a problem here?
August 6th, 2014 at 11:38 am
Meant to type:
“Mark, I have to admit, I only know tangentially anything about you.”
August 6th, 2014 at 12:34 pm
“With all respect to your personal journey, but I find that statement to support the idea that you’ve fallen back into the Beta pit wholesale.”
I read his latest post as being a rationalization of his oneitis.
August 6th, 2014 at 12:59 pm
@gregg: And in my opinion, people- regardless of gender- who have never financially supported their family are the ones to be called children. If that is a woman, she is a child. If that is a man, he is a child. I’ve done it. Have you?
August 6th, 2014 at 1:27 pm
@jacklabear: I believe we can rise above our wiring. And thank you for the earlier note :)
@Novaseeker: I can agree with “rhetoric is not enough.” I don’t honestly think men or women are as completely happy as they can be when they are single versus when they are coupled. Aristotle’s writing on happiness is the basis of my thought.
@Magent: No, no problem. He is not referring to our relationship there. We don’t get bent out of shape over each other’s comments anyway. What he is referring to is the fact that game does not magically transform everyone into sex tigers. Very scary truth approaching: some men will never be seen as high value to some women. Game improves people’s lives only so much; where you end up depends on where you started.
August 6th, 2014 at 3:08 pm
@Kate
As I get older, I modulate my wired behavior a little more than I used to in some ways.
OTOH, swallowing the red pill is about allowing appropriate expression of some of my wiring.
I have mixed feelings about “rising above our wiring”. If I point out to ethical vegetarians that it is nature’s way for some animals to eat other animals, they respond with “unlike animals, humans have moral reasoning and are capable of making a choice not to do that”. My response is that the attitude that humans know better than nature, are beyond nature or can somehow surpass or rise above nature, is what is responsible for a lot of the problems in the world.
Is not leftism and feminism about denying the reality of (human) nature, blank slate and all that?
Has history not shown what happens when leftists create unintended consequences by defying human nature?
How about Stalin and Mao causing the death of some 50 million people each?
August 6th, 2014 at 3:57 pm
@jacklabear: I understand what you’re saying. Its the central question of one of my favorite books: Frankenstein.
“Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge and how much happier that man is who believes his native town to be the world, than he who aspires to become greater than his nature will allow.”
Let me try to be more clear in my wording. I don’t propose defying our nature (or living unnatural lives) so much as not letting the bad part of our nature give us an excuse not to exhibit the good part of our nature. Both “good” and “evil” could be considered equally natural. But, we can choose, right?
August 6th, 2014 at 4:03 pm
@Magent re: “Now, this may be seen as taunting or being confrontational, but I have to honestly ask if this is not in fact parody? I mean it.”
Me too. Good question, not likely to get real answer.
August 6th, 2014 at 4:07 pm
@Kate, re: choosing.
Proverbs 8:12 says “I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.”
The wisest and most prudent thing to do is find out knowledge.
August 6th, 2014 at 4:19 pm
@ Kate
Did you see Frankenhooker? ;-)
“After his attractive fiancée is cut into pieces in a freak accident involving a lawnmower, aspiring mad scientist Jeffrey Franken is determined to put her back together again. He sets about reassembling his girlfriend using parts from a variety of New York prostitutes. However, his bizarre plan goes awry when his reanimated girlfriend no longer wants just him, but for money will take on anybody, and afterwards try to kill them.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenhooker
August 6th, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Men CAN and SHOULD work on pleasing and making themselves happy, FIRST.
That is her #1 complaint about me. It seems I have been doing something right.
LULZ
August 6th, 2014 at 6:33 pm
I was using facebook. Now you know my name. My friends though (and the first mate) call me Simon. Anyone who thinks they are being familiar with me by calling me Michael doesn’t know me. My Dad signed M. Simon. In honor of him I do too.
August 6th, 2014 at 6:36 pm
@Kate,
“No, no problem. He is not referring to our relationship there. We don’t get bent out of shape over each other’s comments anyway. What he is referring to is the fact that game does not magically transform everyone into sex tigers. Very scary truth approaching: some men will never be seen as high value to some women. Game improves people’s lives only so much; where you end up depends on where you started.”
First, because it does directly relate to you and your relationship does not mean there is a not an issue here, a discrepancy. Is this an example of solipsism? I am still learning…
Anyway, it’s great if you and your partner have found true love as you view it (I hope he is not referring to your relationship. Have you asked him?). It does not change the fact that Mark is suggesting men settle for something much less than that, for a relationship where a man is assumed to be the less valued partner. It’s a mindset that the man is lucky to have the woman. I find the discrepancy between what you believe you have and what Mark thinks men should accept interesting to say the least.
If it is true that some men will never be seen as high value to some women, them I don’t think the solution is to shackle himself to a woman he is not attracted to who will tolerate his presence as long as he pulls his cart like a good donkey. Let’s look at it from merely a sexual fulfillment standpoint:
Based on what others have written here including Mark, many men, or perhaps even MOST men will never engender true sexual desire from women, or in your words, will not bring out the sexual tiger in them. If true, then what these mean are faced with is a lifetime of beggaring mediocre sex and receiving it on an infrequent basis from a woman of moderate or below average attractiveness. All for the price of lifetime indentured servitude with the chance of being fleeced at the end.
Being the case, would it not suit a man better to work on himself and his career, finding enjoyment in everything else life has to offer apart from the furry triangle between a woman’s legs.
If he desires sexual fulfillment, he can pay for it from a woman of above average or even outstanding looks depending on his income and how much he wants to pay. Whether this is from a hooker, or from a Sugar Daddy arrangement, or something in between matters little.
Protestations that such encounters are not “real” and thus must not be really fulfilling ring hallow when we consider your own point: Most women are faking their sexual interest anyway. So, what’s the difference? Shouldn’t the man then become the “chooser” if it becomes one of choosing the better of two feigned interests? When the woman is being paid to perform, I think her performance will be more convincing anyway. And the best part? She leaves him entirely alone when they’re done!
Prostitution is illegal in most places you say? Yes, well, so was pot, gay marriage and abortion. As it is, prostitution is one of the most, if not THE most, ignored crime in our society. The age of the legal, professional sex worker is coming. Just a matter of time. Look in your local yellow pages, not the local Village Voice, mind you, and see how many entries there are for “Escorts”. How much police effort is extended to squash that activity. Occasional busts for public consumption notwithstanding, there is an enormous amount of looking the other way that goes on already.
As for love? I’m not the first one to say it in the Manosphere or in general, but you can always buy a dog. Or develop your relationships with your male friends who are entirely easier to relate to, deal with, rely on, etc. And, again, a relationship in which the woman “will have you” does not seem to be teeming with love and adoration as I read it, so…so much for that.
Look, ‘Game’ (and I am done explaining that I mean all of Red Pill Theory with it) has many different uses. One of which is to understand the dynamics of what you are up against, and to give you the self resolve and confidence to not settle for being a slave for scraps of what is feigned love and intimacy. If one CAN find both, then great! If one can’t, then Game tells you don’t settle. Try for more, or don’t play the game where your are set to lose.
And, please, my point is not recommending everyone simply pay to get laid. I am merely pointing out that based on your premise, it is functionally no different from what you and Mark are suggesting, and in the end, would be FAR cheaper and more rewarding in the long run.
August 6th, 2014 at 6:59 pm
@Magenta
Well said. Everyone male with a SMV under 8 is playing in a game they are genetically programmed to lose.
August 6th, 2014 at 7:15 pm
@ gregg & @ glenn – well said guys
August 6th, 2014 at 9:08 pm
You mean like this one from about a month ago?
I would assume you’d be an ecstatic blushing bride and want to post your wedding pics for so cynical a manosphere, being the model of watered down purple pill marital bliss, right?
Maybe because I have a book published on Amazon and I have an email address on my About page, if anyone really wanted to verify it? Ask Mark, he’s emailed me more than once.
The only reason you’re so pissed off is because the manosphere won’t change its message to accommodate your changed circumstances, nor should it. This blog and every other manosphere blog worth its salt is a descriptive endeavor.
Some guys get prescriptive with their message, but what really works over women and a blue pill mindset is the descriptive truths that don’t gel with the decisions people make in their lives. That’s when they want the red pill truth to agree with their choices. Tucker Max is doing that now, Mark Manson, Susan Walsh and yes, you and Mark (assuming you’re not the same person) are doing that now as well.
Feel free to get as prescriptive as you like, just don’t expect not to get your panties in a twist when others disagree with your assessment of the description.
August 6th, 2014 at 9:15 pm
http://demarkate.com/index.php/14-relationship-realism/67-unreliable-narrators-part-i
Hmm, what have we here? More trolling…
Kate, I know Aunt Giggles and you’re no Aunt Giggles, but you’re about as relevant.
August 6th, 2014 at 9:42 pm
Alexa (an Amazon company) knows all.
@Rollo, that was a hilarious post you linked to. It would take a lot of time to write.
August 6th, 2014 at 9:45 pm
@Rollo, lol at her idea that women require a man to have “morally appealing” employment for him to be sexually desirable. Not to mention the too-obviously telegraphed attempts to pretend that a e.g. a 56 yr old man needs to hurry up and man up already and marry some slut with kids because he’s going to look sooo much older at age 57 …
Accelerated aging in men! What nonsense! Middle aged men go into a virtual stasis field compared to women.
August 6th, 2014 at 10:21 pm
I’m sorry, who was defaming who again?
You know if you had commenting turned on, deleted the ones you disagreed with and worked out a deal with the HuffPo you’d almost make a passable Aunt Giggles.
August 6th, 2014 at 10:26 pm
Accelerated aging in men! What nonsense! Middle aged men go into a virtual stasis field compared to women.
At 69 I can tell you I have experienced that – with the first mate watching. It drives her nuts. I ask on such occasions, “Does her interest make you hot for me.” The invariable answer is, “Yes.”
August 6th, 2014 at 10:32 pm
Rollo Tomassi
August 6th, 2014 at 10:21 pm
Well Kate my former Rabbi is selling pot in DC.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/rabbi-ties-jewish-faith-medical-marijuana-dispensary/story?id=20348883
He and I are good friends.
August 6th, 2014 at 10:36 pm
And I probably should mention:
I’m also good friends with former police detective, Howard Wooldridge:
http://www.citizensopposingprohibition.org/
He lobbies Congress on Drug Legalization. All drugs.
August 6th, 2014 at 10:43 pm
And Kate – if you knew anything about alcoholism you would know that most (all?) of it is due to PTSD. Have you no compassion for those needing relief from the inner torment of prior abuse or trauma?
I have no objection to your opinion but to clothe it in the garb of morality? Can’t your opinion stand on its own?
August 6th, 2014 at 10:47 pm
Rollo,
Thanks for bringing out a side of Kate I hadn’t seen. I was beginning to like her. Now? Not so much.
August 6th, 2014 at 10:50 pm
And Rollo,
Since it seems in vogue today here is a link to my picture:
http://www.ecnmag.com/tags/Blogs/M-Simon/
August 6th, 2014 at 11:01 pm
And another funny thing. I just gave the first daughter a link to Feynman’s “You Just Ask Them” with supporting material. You should have seen her face go white. I also told her that I used Game (not in those words) to keep me and the first mate bonded as did my Dad with my Mom.
I figure shedding her illusions is the best thing I can do for her – since “society” is unlikely to oblige.
She is a bright girl. I hope once the shock wears off she gets it.
August 6th, 2014 at 11:16 pm
You know, technically, Jesus did change water to wine in order to keep a wedding reception in good spirits, thus making him a distiller (or vintner I suppose). I think Kate needs to renounce her faith in someone so lacking “moral authority”.
August 6th, 2014 at 11:27 pm
I don’t honestly think men or women are as completely happy as they can be when they are single versus when they are coupled. Aristotle’s writing on happiness is the basis of my thought.
Yes, I know where it comes from, but I disagree with him. I rather take my cue from Paul when it comes to such things. From my perspective, a relationship with a woman can certainly be additive to happiness, but it can also be subtractive from happiness. The baseline happiness of anyone, however, comes from within (and from one’s relationship with God, if one is religious). For a man to see himself as dependent on women (or having one woman in his life) for his happiness is extremely problematic for him when he should be focusing on becoming the kind of man who generates happiness from within, and thereby may, if he wishes, attract a mate based on that happiness who is additive to it.