Man Down

man down

A popular conservative blogger, Matt Walsh, has recently joined the male shaming parade of “man up” advocates with this piece Thursday.

Matt is actually a pretty apt dude who writes a lot of top-notch stuff. In fact, I’ve got him on my blogroll. His epic take down of female “logic” in defense of abortion is one of my favorite posts by anybody anywhere. However, this most recent advice, a letter to single men, if followed, will result in only more heartbreak and confusion in their lives. We don’t need more of that.

I’m not going to analyze the entire piece, but I will quote one part that I found most ridiculous. Following that is a comment I left on his site.

No matter what anyone does, or says, or thinks; no matter what we tell ourselves; no matter what society insists, romantic relationships are always serious business. Call it what you want — hanging out, talking, dating — there’s a woman’s heart involved in it. That means you have a responsibility, alright? You have a duty as a human being, as an adult, as a man.

She’s making herself vulnerable to you. You need to honor that, protect it. And if you aren’t looking for anything but cheap sex and another trophy of sexual conquest to hang on the wall in your studio apartment, then you need to protect her from yourself, because you’ll be bringing nothing but disappointment and chaos into her life.

While you correctly identified a few days ago that “rape culture” is a direct result of hook-up culture, you’re way off the mark here, Matt. (I’m usually a fan of your stuff, by the way.) What bothers me most is your appeal to “duty” and “responsibility.”

Duty to whom? THIS shit society? This culture of greed, deceit, and frivolity? This mass (obesity pun intended) of women who have left good men behind for the douchebag or the Ben & Jerry’s? The institution of marriage that has become laughably irrelevant yet soul crushing to those who experience the shitstorm of inane divorce settlements? The future children who will inherit even worse degeneracy and depravity? Tell me, Matt. Who is it that we men owe this commitment to?

Ultimately, men SHOULD take initiative in their lives. They should grow up, learn to take care of themselves, and stop being indecisive pussies. But growing up also means leaving the pretty little lies in the past–particularly, the lie that we men “owe” anything to anyone but ourselves. It isn’t until we embrace that reality that we become true men, and ironically enough, attract more women into our lives than the needy automatons who’ve swallowed the Disney blue pill and wish upon a star for the princess they’ll live happily ever after with.

Sadly, the “man up” phenomenon isn’t exclusively reserved to the feminist leftoid part of the population. It is a surprisingly present mindset in middle America as well, among Christians and conservatives who should know better. And then all the women coming out of the alphawoodwork to congratulate him on setting his fellow men straight. At least some of his readers know the score, though. I leave you with a few adroit musings left by others on his comment section.

From AMM:

Why is this article only about guys needing to “man up”? Quite frankly, I have never had an issue being willing or able to commit to a girl, or call it a “relationship”, or what we were doing as “dating”, it’s always been the women playing those silly games of “well it’s not really a date”, or being unable to commit, or unwilling to. Maybe this article needs to be directed at the young women these days who like to make dating ambiguous, so that us guys don’t know if we’re “dating”, “talking”, or “hanging out”… it’s not just guys who play this game.

The level of stereotyping and generalizing in this article is too damn high.

From freethinker11:

How much more weight do you plan to put on after you’re married and there’s no fear of losing him?

I think the current epidemic of obesity is having a terribly negative impact on marriage.

And a gem from thesvenster:
Let’s stop pretending that most young women WANT a committed relationship while they are “experiencing thier 20s.” Sure, they say they want a loving man in thier lives, but the Actions of American women speak louder than words.

Five Roissy Quotes: Hard Truths Edition

Welcome to another post in the Five Roissy Quotes series. Today I provide you with five Chateau insights on the cold reality of our universe. Five hard (heh) red pill truths:

  • “This is our reality, our world, our universe. Some human beings are worth more than others, and despite our grandiloquent litanies to the contrary, our actions tell us all we need to know, if we are willing to look with open eyes. Remember that the next time a palace guard of the old order tries to tell you what’s in your best interest.” (“Compare And Contrast: Two Bitter Ex-Lovers,” 20 October 2010)
  • “Appearance matters. It is not a social construct that can be willed or legislated away. Cruel human judgment of others based on appearance is an eternal reality of living in this dimension. You may not like it, but reality is never gonna bend to accommodate your tender feelings, so either get with the program and shape up or sink into a silo of snickers bars ticking down the useless remaining years of your fat, foreshortened life.” (“Fat Craps Give Michelle Obama Flak For Telling Uncomfortable Truth,” 5 February 2010)
  • “Some newcomers are aghast when they read my stuff. They think this blog must be a joke or the ravings of a lunatic, a madman driven to the brink by a particularly damaging experience with an ex. No. While I’ve had my joys and sorrows and loves and heartbreaks just like any other man possessing a wealth of experience with women, on the whole most of the women in my life have been and continue to be cherished loves. My lunacy is the clear-eyed vision of Neo after the matrix is revealed to him. Reality makes lunatics of us all, but only those with the eyes to see and the ego to spare ever embrace it unconditionally.” (“Be A Skittles Man,” 19 May 2009)
  • “People often accuse me of being too abstract in my writing; that what I say doesn’t have much real world relevance to the average person, except in the most extreme circumstances and under laboratory conditions. On the contrary, everything I write about has the utmost importance to every one of your lives. The arid world of the theoretical is always lurking there in the shadows, stalking you, ready to pounce and devour you in a flash, leaving you wondering why your dopey new age beliefs or romantic visions of love or confidence that the mudbath of human nature doesn’t apply to normal people like yourself weren’t enough to spare you the claw and tooth attack of reality. You are all slave to your beast masters.” (“A Bike Messenger Lesson,” 28 July 2008)
  • “Women by nature aren’t on your side, the law isn’t on your side, and even lapdog beta males who’ve blinded themselves to reality and unthinkingly toe the PC party line in hopes their status posturing will offer them up a scrap or two of roadworn desiccated pussy don’t have your side as a man. There is every incentive in the world to avoid marriage. It is a fetid corrupt mess, and only radical social change will make it an attractive alternative for men once again.” (“Decivilizing: Human Nature Unleashed,” 23 July 2008)

Once we see reality for what it is, and not for what we wish it was, we can begin the process of tearing down the edifices of falsehood we’ve constructed around us, and become men–men who will naturally become attractive to the opposite sex.

To see previous Roissy quote posts, follow these links:

The Chateau on Alphas

The Chateau on Feminism

The Chateau on Betas

The Chateau on Game

The New Manginany

Honey, I’m home from the Manosphere! Hope my food is cooked and you’re prepared for a black eye!

And thus sums up the thesis of “The New Misogyny,” a vacuous piece (of steaming shit) on the Manosphere, written by Jeff Moniker of the Daily Kos. A vapid, cursory glance at a little slice of cold-hard reality, “The New Misogyny” is barely worthy of a rebuttal–but considering the readership of Daily Kos, I’ll pay Moniker’s story its due by shredding it to pieces. And by giving you a glance at the sad state of the blue pill world, hopefully this slander will achieve the purpose it’s so busy railing against.

There has been a growing internet movement of “men’s rights” activists, Pick up artists and others who call themselves “the Manosphere.” While it’s still small it has changed the way hateful ideologies function.

We’re off to a nice start. No surprise “men’s rights” is something that has to be included in quotation marks. But I am admittedly curious as to how we have “changed the way” hateful ideologies function! Perhaps the Jacobins could have learned something from us…

It’s no secret that for the past few years there has been a dramatic assault over women’s rights, re-opening questions that were thought to be settled for decades. From contraception to abortion to basic protection from rape, (seen in Congress’s failure to re-authorize the Violence Against Women Act), it seems that centuries of struggle have been re-opened.

The “dramatic assault” on women’s rights the past few years has boiled down to common-sense opposition to bad legislation. Contraception and abortions being funded by taxpayer money, with forced cooperation from religious organizations is wrong. VAWA is discriminatory by its very nature. The only thing being assaulted these days is the Constitution.

However beneath the public debates over contraception and abortion there has been a different kind of struggle over gender.  In the underbelly of the internet, what can only be called a new misogyny has emerged but hasn’t received the kind of attention it needs.

Careful with your suggestions, Jeffy. Too many people see the sensible, reality-based conclusions of the Manosphere, your hippy dippy SWPL edifice will come crashing down sooner rather than later…

The community that characterize this misogyny call themselves the Manosphere, an interlocking network of blogs for “men’s rights” activists (MRAs), pickup artists (PUA) and some online gamers. Unlike the mainstream conservative conceptions of women, the views espoused by the manosphere harkens back to what can only be described as a proto-fascist, and surprisingly, is becoming more popular on the internet.

Mussolini was the first Manosphere blogger. True story.

MRAs often favor policies as regressive as re-legalizing martial rape, preventing women from going into higher education, and with some going so far as to want to abolish female suffrage entirely (yes really) lest it interfere with women’s societal priorities as baby makers.

It should be noted now that Moniker never quotes a single Manosphere blogger in the entire piece. He can’t even be bothered to quote them out of context, or provide a context for any accusations. He’s just going to tell you what we proto-fascists all believe. By the way, Heartiste’s observation that “the worst thing to happen to America was women’s suffrage,” was just that–an observation. There are no calls for stripping such rights away; the main point of most of the red-pill writers is that we as men should take advantage of the situation we happen to find ourselves in. The Manosphere is much too hedonistic and apolitical (as Moniker admits in the next paragraph) to get around to “abolishing” anything. Why? More self-entitled, independent & amoral sluts=more sex.

What’s odd isn’t just the intensity of the regression but also the completely apolitical nature of it. Unlike conservatives who view women’s roles in a context of a broader political project, MRAs only interest is in women themselves, with little regard to politics insofar as it doesn’t affect men’s power over men [women?]. Indeed some of the hot button issues regarding women in American politics, from abortion to birth control are generally superfluous if not outright ignored by the community.

This seems to take the air out of the whole “dramatic assault” on women’s rights argument. “Those FASCISTS aren’t out to take away your rights or anything, they just have really baaaaaad beliefs!”

Originally it started off as a small movement of “men’s rights” activists in the late 1970s. However it didn’t grow until the development of the pickup community in the 80s and 90s. Much like the MRAs, PUAs base their practice on many of the same views, often relying on the dubious work of evolutionary psychology (good critiques of which can be found here and here). After pickup was popularized in the 2000s with the VH1 show The Pick Up Artist and the New York Times bestseller The Game, the communities melded with the MRAs to create the manosphere.

Ooh, two links “criticique”-ing evolutionary psychology! Guess that makes the score 200-2. Search the Chateau for all the science behind game. To say the work of evopsy is “dubious” is just as dubious. Personally, such proofs are not my main focus, as the red-pill truths are obvious to anyone willing to truly observe this culture we live in.

As an aside, I decree that Jeff Moniker’s “profession” shall henceforth only be referred to as “writer.” And you have to overtly do the quote fingers every time you say it out loud.

Recently it seems that the recession has been a major boon to their ideology. Because times are tough on both sexes, but especially hard on positions of employment typically held by men, it has been fuel for gender resentment. As the New York Times points out in an article titled The Myth of Male Decline:

“What we are seeing is a convergence in economic fortunes, not female ascendance. Between 2010 and 2011, men and women working full time year-round both experienced a 2.5 percent decline in income. Men suffered roughly 80 percent of the job losses at the beginning of the 2007 recession.”

First, this statistic is comparing income decline and job loss, two different things. And second, to the NYT, 2007 wasn’t that long ago! 80%?! Good lord! I didn’t even know that. Add a point to the cause!

It also seems the other factor growing this community, especially the pickup community, has been a lack of sex. As Sandy Hingston points out in an examination of twenty-something men, the situation is grim. The economy has made it so that “[y]oung men are now nearly twice as likely as young women to live with their parents; 59 percent of guys ages 18 to 24 and 19 percent of 25-to-34-year-olds live at home.” Indeed according to the Centers for Disease Control, even virginity has increased.

No argument here. It is grim. So men have a choice, they can keep living in the Matrix and doing the same crap they’ve been doing, or they can unplug, see the world for what it is, and improve their time on this planet.

In a way, the manosphere acts like a kind of self-help group for these kinds of problems with a clear sales pitch: “Can’t get a job? Can’t get laid? Still live with your mom? No fear, we’ll teach you how to pick up women and become a true Alpha Male. It’s those feminists trying to keep you down.”

Until Manginaker can deconstruct the techniques used to pick up women and develop alpha personas, instead of relying on sarcastically brushing aside the techniques as a hollow sales pitch, he has no argument.

It’s worth examining the pickup techniques themselves. On first examination, the techniques do seem to be effective. As one German study found, in a small group of 17 men and 23 women, men were able to pick up almost four times as many phone numbers after the training.

Failing so far…

However it came with a catch, in the same study, both men and women said they felt considerably guilt for using the techniques, a reportedly common problem for people in the PUA community.

Ah, guilt. One of the five roadblocks to game. But probably the least worrisome. Think about it this way: if I was to give the average man, one of those guys who “can’t get a job,” “can’t get laid,” and/or “still lives with mom,” a magic potion that allowed him to solve those problems, but the only side effect would be a little guilt, do you think he would take it?

Guilt can be overcome. Guilt does not HAVE to come from “running game.” There are basic things every man can do, from developing better body language to learning to shed his insecurities, that he can and should do to attract women. That should not induce guilt. Anyone who really gets the message of the Manosphere won’t be overly affected by guilt. In fact, the Manosphere helped me place Game (which I knew about for about a year before learning of this world of blogs) into a context that made game much more operable for me.

Also, this is based off one German study. Nicht schlüssig, Geoffrey!

larger study by the University of Kansas came with even more worrying findings. Using 850 national volunteers it was found that pickup techniques have a selection bias: they work best with men and women who already have sexist attitudes.  As it observed, hostilely sexist men (men who hate women) and benevolently sexist women (women who idolize men) were the most likely to benefit from pickup techniques. That is, the techniques create a self-fulfilling prophecy which confirms the sexist biases of the PUAs.

We wouldn’t want a benevolently sexist (aka “feminine”) woman, now would we?! Sounds like an additional point to our “sales pitch.”

I will call bullshit on this study, though, based solely on observation. Game works just fine on women who don’t “idolize” men, probably more so. They. eat. it. up.

On the one hand we might ask why we should even care. While it might have grown, the new misogyny is still a marginal force.

Moniker hasn’t been able to get the term “marginal force” out of his head ever since his first girlfriend dubbed him that.

To put it simply, it is successful because people don’t care; seeing it as an immature self-help tool and not as a full-blown ideology. Most other hateful ideologies operate semi-publicly: pointing to a scapegoat and then recruiting people to attack it. This does the opposite; it appears as neutral training and instills a scapegoat through its methods.

Wait, we’re already wrapping up? Where was the supporting evidence behind the “hateful ideology” accusation? This little drivel-filled essay would get an INCOMPLETE stamp in a freshman English class.

Imagine for instance if people gave supposedly non-ideological training to “Avoid Money Manipulation” (AMM). As part of AMM training it gives characteristics of people that will try to manipulate your money, and that these people just happened to be Jewish; you see it’s not anti-Semitic, it’s because of evolutionary-you get the idea.

Aaaaand we’ve come to the reductio ad Hitlerium portion of the show. Really, Jeff? Why don’t you look in the mirror before “giving the characteristics of people” you disagree with?

Indeed we may be witnessing a shift for hateful ideologies; no longer able to function publicly, they now rely on supposedly neutral, private training to instill and spread their values.

This in a sense has always been the refuge of hate groups, to keep their mode of operation secret, even if this now means making their beliefs a semi-secret as well. Thus, the best we have to confront these kinds of attitudes is to make them known to the public.

The first reaction the mangina has to the cold truths of reality is to dub it “hateful.” So he makes it his mission to expose this dangerous ideology, which must be confronted. And how exactly? I get the feeling the solution to that has a lot more to do with “proto-fascism” than do red-pill beliefs, centered around the idea that “love is the only thing in this world that isn’t bullshit.”

“That Man’s Words Mean Nothing To Me”

Well, it seems the pretty little lies aren’t going away any time soon. There’s a video spreading like wildfire online of Jennifer Livingston, a morning anchor on the CBS affiliate in Wisconsin, ranting on-air about a “bully” who wrote her the following email:

Hi Jennifer,

It’s unusual that I see your morning show, but I did so for a very short time today. I was surprised indeed to witness that your physical condition hasn’t improved for many years. Surely you don’t consider yourself a suitable example for this community’s young people, girls in particular. Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain. I leave you this note hoping that you’ll reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.

Short yet powerful. Tenacious yet placid. But most importantly, true. So what do we get in response to such a thoughtful message? Perhaps a humbled newswoman committed to making a positive change?

Pfft… not in 2012 America. Dream on.

What we get instead is four minutes of some of the most prolific feelgood hamster spinning of all-time.

So then, I must interject. Here goes (from 0:54 on):

Now those of us in the media, we get a healthy dose of critiques from our viewers throughout the year, and we realize that it comes with having a job in the public eye. But this email is more than that. While I tried my best to laugh off the very hurtful attack on my appearance…

Wait a second, what attacks? That her physical condition hasn’t improved for many years? I’m not from Wisconsin, but I would have to assume this is mere observation. That she’s obese? She admits it later in the video. I’m not sure where exactly the “attack” is. I don’t doubt the comments are hurtful, but, then again, constructive criticism tends to be, particularly to those who need it the most.

…my colleagues could not do the same, especially my husband, our 6 and 10 anchor, Mike Thompson. Mike posted this email on his WKBT facebook page, and what happened next has been truly inspiring.

Thousands rushed to his aid and organized an Obese Wives 5K?

Hundreds and hundreds of people have taken the time out of their day to not only lift my spirits, but take a stand that attacks like this are not okay.

Damn. Sorry, Mike. Guess you’re not too popular over there.

Now we’re gonna have more on that in just a second, but first, the truth is, I am overweight.

Good, admission is the first step to recovery…

You could call me fat.

Apparently not without being harangued as an intolerant bully on your televised soapbox…

Even obese, on a doctor’s chart.

Those pesky “doctor’s charts,” they’ve never brought ya good news, have they?

But to the person who wrote me that letter, do you think I don’t know that?

Yes, I believe he knows you’re aware of your problem. Hence the injunction to “reconsider.”

That your cruel words are pointing out something that I don’t see?

The only cruelty here is what you’re doing to your body, Jen-nay. When Mama said life was like a box o’ chocolates, she didn’t mean literally.

You don’t know me. You are not a friend of mine.

Which is why he doesn’t feel the ultimately destructive desire to tiptoe around your feelings instead of telling you the truth. His words could potentially bring more happiness into your life than anything your “friends” have done for you.

You are not a part of my family, and you have admitted that you don’t watch this show.

Would him being a part of your family or daily audience actually cause you to reconsider your lifestyle choice?

So you know nothing about me but what you see on the outside. And I am much more than a number on a scale.

I wonder if she’s ever uttered the words “much more” while on a scale.

And here is where I want every one of us to learn something from this: if you didn’t already know, October is National Anti-Bullying month.

If she’s going to change the subject to bullying, then I will follow suit. I’m so sick of all these “months” promoting  “awareness” for something or other, from autism to breast cancer to, what next, gonorrhea? And the color pink does not belong on NFL fields. I don’t need Tony Romo making me “aware” of breast cancer. Just play the damn game.

Anyway…

And this is a problem that is growing every day in our schools, and on the internet. It is a major issue in the lives of young people today, and as the mother of three young girls, it scares me to death.

Bullying is an irrevocable part of human nature. The strong will weather the storm. The attractive won’t need much more than a windbreaker. The rest will break.

Now I am a grown woman, and luckily for me, I have a very thick skin. Literally, as that email pointed out, and otherwise.

She says as she fights off the tears.

And that man’s words mean nothing to me.

Her hamster is running in full spin mode right now. Now, if only she could get her legs to do the same.

But what really angers me about this, is there are children who don’t know better, who get emails as critical as the one I received…

Dear Johnny,

It’s unusual that I am able to personally write a probation letter, but I did in your case today. I was surprised indeed to witness that your grades haven’t improved for many years. Surely you don’t consider yourself a suitable example of this university’s high academic standards. Ditching class is one of the worst choices a student can make and failing to study for tests one of the most dangerous habits to maintain. I leave you this note hoping that you’ll reconsider your responsibility as a potential college graduate to make better choices and focus harder on your studies.

All the best!

The Dean

…or in many cases, even worse, each and every day. The internet has become a weapon; our schools have become a battleground. And this behavior is learned. It is passed down from people like the man who wrote me that email.

Note the correlation between being an out-of-touch upholder of the blue pill world of self-deceit and adherence to blank slatist philosophy.

If you are at home, and you are talking about the fat news lady, guess what? Your children are probably going to go to school, and call someone fat. We need to teach our kids how to be kind, not critical, and we need to do that by example.

Critical is not the opposite of kind. The person who wrote that email avoided all temptations to call you names or resort to base insults rooted in the underlying stance that you’re beyond hope. He was petitioning you to take your life into your own hands, and be an example to the thousands who watch your show.

So many of you have come to my defense over the past few days. I am literally overwhelmed by your words. To my colleagues, and my friends, from today and from years ago, my family, my amazing husband…

…who wasn’t amazing enough to keep from letting yourself go…

…and so many of you out there who I will probably never have the opportunity to meet, I will never be able to thank you enough for your words of support. And for taking a stand against this bully. We are better than that email. We are better than the bullies that would try to take us down.

The letter-writer was trying to lift you up. By rejecting his admonition, you are showing that you are not “better” than him. You’re showing that you’re nothing more than a mediocre human being afraid of making a real change in your life, hiding behind the guise of tolerance.

And I leave you with this: to all of the children out there who feel lost, who are struggling with your weight, with the color of your skin, your sexual preference, your disability, even the acne on your face…

Struggling with obesity isn’t even remotely close to struggling with race. Lumping that which is a choice with that which isn’t, blurring the line between the two, is one of the signs of a society in decay.

Listen to me right now. Do not let your self-worth be defined by bullies.

By taking this route, Ms. Livingston has done just that. Real bullies are those who tear down with the motive to keep down. And with her refusal to change herself or at least acknowledge that losing weight is a GOOD thing, those bullies have won the fight. She remains unhealthy and unattractive.

Learn from my experience that the cruel words of one are nothing compared to the shouts of many.

“Reconsider your responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.”

“YOU’RE FINE JUST AS YOU ARE!” “YOU’RE BEAUTIFUL!” “MEN LOVE CURVY WOMEN!” “A FEW EXTRA POUNDS IS NO BIG DEAL!” “YOU CAN’T CONTROL THE WAY YOUR BODY IS!”

Which voice would you rather listen to?

The Uncrossable Chasm

“All you have to do to pick up chicks is to be confident, dude!”

“You don’t need to run game. Just be yourself, man.”

“If you have to go out scamming on girls to make yourself feel better, they’ll see right through it, bro.”

Odds are if a significant number of people in your life know about your aspirations to learn the Venusian Arts, you’ve heard, in one form or another, all of these retorts from eager advice-givers. Problem is, while these lines are likely fed to you with good intentions, they are all hollow platitudes, and ultimately do nothing but stunt your ability to attract women.

The reason most men get into pick-up is because their history with women is about as successful as the French Army’s history fighting wars. Obviously, these men have been doing something fundamentally wrong. And they look to the world of game to find answers.

The problem is not that these men have never heard the answers, it’s that they’ve never heard the right answers. The lines above are of the generic variety; they have no real-world application for men learning game. Naturals can get away with framing the sexual market in such simplified ways; they’ve always had confidence and never had an issue getting beautiful girls to be attracted to him. And no matter how vapid the lines may sound, they may actually help some naturals and masters keep focused on their goals.

However, recovering AFCs need a completely different brand of advice. They need more than just “confidence.” They need more than just themselves. They need systematic OUTER game intervention, the only bridge to the uncrossable chasm.

The chasm of which I speak, a chasm in which confidence is expected to appear out of the ether, is this:

MAN WITH LITTLE TO NO PAST SUCCESS WITH WOMEN  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONFIDENT MAN HAVING SUCCESS WITH WOMEN

Because inner game rests so much on possessing legitimate, unshakeable, devil-may-care confidence, there is simply no way a man who has never been able to score women will magically cross the chasm without learning more. No amount of feelgood blather to the contrary will change the fact that having the requisite inner game, or confidence, to bed attractive women consistently is based on PAST SUCCESS.

If a man has none of that, he cannot “be himself” and suddenly find success because being himself never worked in the first place. He cannot suddenly acquire confidence from the mirthful mists because he has no experience from which to derive it. Inner game is impossible to attain without positive experiences to fall back on.

So what is such a man to do? Is he out of options? Not if we listen to Roissy, who said, “People who claim that game is trickery designed to fool women into thinking the man is alpha, are wrong. Game will actually alter your perception of yourself and create a positive power feedback loop. Game even alters hormone levels.”

Fortunately, game tactics will provide a man the framework to perfect his outer game first. A man learning correct game may not get laid or even get phone numbers right away, but if he’s doing his homework, and self-aware and self-correcting in his approaches, he will be able to, in effect, fake it til he makes it. DHV routines. Attractive anecdotes. Alpha body language. All these things will assist in creating a man who can, with enough approaches, begin to have the sexual experiences with women that will eventually help him develop his inner game, and thus, foster well-rounded game (of both the inner and outer variety). That is what leads to mastery.

But one does not need to become a master to get laid. One needs to get laid to become a master.

Why Men Need Not Listen To Pedestalizing Blowhards

Even though left-wing ideology (and the feminist ilk that regurgitates it) is the root cause of the sad state of the modern American sexual market, it doesn’t mean religious conservatives don’t have blood on their hands either. As evidenced by this vacuous piece by The Washington Post‘s resident pastor Mark Driscoll, a great deal of damage can be done by taking this worldview seriously as well.

For starters, I believe people like Driscoll have their heart in the right place, and science to back up their case– their underlying point, at least– that marriage is good for society. Indeed it is. Children raised in strong, two-parent households are less likely to fall into lives of crime and other assorted ne’er-do-well behavior. The stronger our families, the stronger our society. It’s a simple point many liberals refuse to concede.

Beyond that, however, people sharing Driscoll’s mindset are severely misguided. In the article, the pastor employs the “man-up” method of guilt-tripping guys into taking the plunge into marriage. Add that to the fact that he never specifies why exactly men need marriage, and you have something in serious need of the Colonel’s critical scrutiny.

His intro is laughable to anyone who’s ever taken a step back and put two and two together:

She was smart, funny, interesting, successful, attractive, kind, in her 40s, and still single.

After my wife Grace and I spent some time with the woman from our church, we could not fathom why no one had married her.

I’ll take Marky for his word and believe this 40-something was attractive. Regardless of whether or not it is true, her looks are nowhere near what they were at 25 and she is on the brink of sexual irrelevancy.

There is one subtle clue pointing to the reality of this poor woman’s situation, though– she is described as “successful.” More than likely, she followed the script so many females of her generation before her did– working her way up the corporate stepladder focusing on her “career” while in her 20s, meanwhile falling for and getting plowed by alphas, proceeding to get her heart broken by those alphas, ruining her forever to provider betas, continuing her ultimately pointless pursuits along the stepladder, seeing the alpha love slowly wane, causing her to develop a personality (becoming “smart, funny, interesting”), turning 40, and then suddenly realizing aloud, “Hey, wait a second! I’m not married! What gives?!”

Driscoll then solidifies my point by pointing out the statistics, which include the fact that more women are currently attending college and working a career track job than men. But instead of coming to the realization that it is women choosing these things over men, he predictably follows the pattern of all the other pedestal crafters like him. He absolves them of all blame.

What are the guys doing? Often, they’re acting like boys who can shave, getting drunk, watching porn, attending sporting events, and treating responsibility like Superman does green kryptonite.

Attending sporting events? Oh the humanity!

He continues:

So, many women are waiting longer to marry. Eventually, some get tired of the fools parade and settle for some guy who is more likely to act like a baby than help raise a baby. These guys make the worst husbands: gambling away the money, out late with the boys a lot, unfaithful, can’t seem to fit a full-time job in around his hobbies, and eventually trading in their 40-year-old wife for two 20-year-old girlfriends.

Basically, his argument is that the beta provider is a woman’s first choice, but because they’re too busy avoiding responsibility and getting drunk at baseball games, they “settle for” the cheating, aloof, immature badboy alpha.

Sorry, Mark. You’ve got it turned around. Those “babies” are choice numero uno in the ids of attractive women the world across, all to the detriment of the hard-working, responsible, ready-to-be-a-papa-for-scarce-pussy betas. And the effect of this rejection? You got it! Shunning responsibility and watching porn!

Even though he correctly points out the dynamics of the situation, his analysis of it is all fucked up. He’s not understanding what is the cause and what is the effect.

Seeing this dismal fate and unwilling to settle [read: marry a niceguy] or suffer [read: dump an alpha even though they’re still hopelessly in love with him], other young women just give up hope and decide it’s better to be single than sorry.

And ultimately, it is that decision that is the cause of the whole problem of men resorting to becoming boring directionless betas or arrogant asshole alphas. It’s not an effect.

Rather than some public outrage against irresponsible addictive selfish boys who can shave, what do we have? Comedies. From inane television shows like “The Big Bang Theory” to “How I Met Your Mother” to bromance movies and pull-my-finger comedies from Seth Rogen, Andy Samberg, Zach Galifianakis and the like, we just laugh. Many men are not funny, but they are a joke.

For every caddish TV protagonist like Barney from “How I Met Your Mother” there are at least three celebrated female characters living life by the same standards. How else would you describe the “Sex and the City” phenomenon?

If you want to rage against irresponsible addictive selfishness, Mr. Driscoll, be my guest. But don’t pin it all on one sex. And just remember that where the ladies go, the men follow. Not the other way around.

Men are like trucks: they drive straighter with a weighted load. Young men are supposed to load themselves up first by being responsible for themselves and not expecting their mom to fill up their sippy cup with beer and push them in a stroller to the unemployment line. Young men who take responsibility for themselves are then ready to marry and take responsibility for the life and joy of their wife. And, as they grow in that responsibility they are then ready to take on the additional responsibility of being a father, invested in and devoted to their child or children.

It’s fine to become a responsible adult, but it would take an ignoramus to look at the current state of marriage in this country and conclude that it would be a responsible decision to leap into a lifestyle in which everything is suddenly stacked against him.

I know plenty of good-hearted men who would be good husbands and fathers. And these guys aren’t as rare as guys like Driscoll would have you believe. Now, disregarding the fact that most of them are ultimately rejected by those girls they find most attractive, why should they gamble the life they’ve built on the shaky foundation that is modern marriage?

After appealing to the Bible to make his point about marriage being necessary, he finally adds in the standard slap-on-the-wrist chastening towards the ladies:

To be sure, there are some terrible women in the world. But, if you believe the statistics, men have been on the losing end of this cultural ‘evolution.’

Ladies, are you part of the problem? Are you the mom or girlfriend letting a boy who can shave live at your house eating your food and mooching off your hard work? Are you enabling some guy who is using you to live foolishly without having to suffer painfully?

Are you the girlfriend who has allowed one of these guys to be with you although there is no clarity regarding what your relationship is or direction for where it’s going?

Again, he’s treating it like it’s a problem caused by men while women are only responsible for allowing it to flourish or etiolate. Women hold the cards in the sexual market. And in the end, they’ll obtain what their animal natures crave. Men must either adapt (learn game), settle for less (further skewing the SMV of females in the direction of more bloated egos), or go into hiding (watching porn and letting their lives waste away as career celibates). Whatever road they choose, marriage isn’t going to do them any favors unless they luck out in the wife lottery.

And I would ask the men, do you want to leave a good time or a good legacy? Do you want to one day be the dirty old man alone in the strip club on Christmas, or the grandpa who loves his wife and has their children and grandchildren to their home to share in their joy? Do you have a plan to get there, or are you expecting the life fairy to take care of that for you? Would you want your sons to be like you? Would you want your daughters to marry someone like you?

Why must this argument always be framed as a false dilemma? One who avoids marriage does not necessarily have to become a “dirty old man alone in the strip club on Christmas.” He can find fulfillment in relationships that don’t involve the government and a ridiculously expensive rock on his girlfriend’s ring finger. And granted, as he approaches old age, he may not continue to have the experiences he once had, but those he did have will have been worth it. And probably much more memorable than cold, once-a-month sex with a nagging wife. Not to mention age is far from being the SMV killer to men like it is women.

On the other side of his fallacious scenario, marrying a woman and having children and grandchildren is no guarantee of happiness. That is, if a married man is even able to achieve such a legacy, what with the whimsy of his bride and the no-fault divorce laws that exist all over the place.

He concludes with a continuation of his exhausting rhetorical admonishments:

Are you a fool? Was your father a fool? When will the folly stop?

To answer your last question, when women decide that their careers aren’t the be-all-end-all of female happiness on this planet and stop rejecting good men for cocky badboys. Don’t hold your breath.

And to answer your first question last, no. Because I don’t plan on getting ass-raped married any time soon…

The Inconsistency Of The Haters

I was flipping through an old Maxim magazine (November 2008) at the garage the other day and came across a nauseating article attributed to the “Maxim Staff” (aka ignorant bitches) analyzing the tenets of game. Although the piece was written three years ago, I felt it was a good summation of the continual stupidity of the mainstream media in regards to game.

With the exception of the first two paragraphs (a try-hard humor intro discussing all the “gimmicks” men have “invented” over the years to pick up women), I shall post the entire article, with my comments below each paragraph.

Enter the modern pickup artist. Ever since the bestseller The Game depicted a bizarre but supposedly successful society of “PUAs” (pickup artists) a few years ago—one of whom now coaches dateless geeks via his own show on VH1—men have been following all their sketchy, seemingly counterintuitive advice to the letter. But the result is a population of misguided and increasingly desperate guys striking out more spectacularly than ever. So do any of these new classic pickup tips actually work, or are they all guaranteed to bomb? To help you sort through all the conflicting information, I asked 20 women to weigh in. Their breakdowns will help you get real game—and get laid.

It’s already pretty easy to tell this is going to be a crack analysis written by women or men who have no clue how to attract women, considering the use of the phrase “sketchy, seemingly counterintuitive advice.” It’s as if the majority of men relying on their pedestalizing intuitions actually attract the women en masse.

And any time a relationship article is based on getting “20 women to weigh in,” you know you’re in store for an enormous expanse of beautiful lies. “Their breakdowns will help you get real game.” Mm-hmm… Do girls really think their shitty advice (“Get her flowers!” “Treat her like a princess!”) gets guys anywhere with them? It’s as if they’re purposely sabotaging the whole thing just so that the only people left playing the game would be the alphas they all secretly crave under the cover of night.

Ploy No. 1: Give Her a “Neg”
The most famous tactic from The Game, a “neg” is a “seemingly accidental insult delivered to a beautiful woman to demonstrate a lack of interest in her.” An example: “Your hair is pretty. Are you a natural blonde?” The purported objective of a neg is to approach a hot girl who’s accustomed to getting compliments and nudge her self-confidence into the basement through subtle criticism—to the point where she’ll even concede to sleeping with you (or at least giving you her number) for validation. Charming!

Negs are not insults. Neil Strauss should have used different language to define it (if that truly is the definition right out of The Game— after a quick scan through I couldn’t find it). In The Mystery Method, it is written, “A neg is not an insult but a negative social value judgment that is telegraphed.” And the example given here is nowhere near an insult. It’s a question with the most subtle hint of negative social value judgment sprinkled in. Negs are the antithesis of the pedestalization to which most guys gravitate. Strange that despite all that sucking up girls encounter from hoards of men, it doesn’t make them want them any more.

Gamers, beware: Every woman I spoke to despises this trick. “If a guy gave me a backhanded compliment like that, I’d tell him to fuck off,” says Tori, a 28-year-old stylist.

Sure you would.

Alix, a 27-year-old bartender, described her firsthand experience with a neg. “A customer told me his favorite movie, and I said, ‘Oh, I love that one, too!’” she says. “Then this other guy who was waiting to order said, ‘That’s pretty lame. Don’t you have any opinions of your own?’ He thought he was flirting. I thought he was just being an asshole.”

Sounds like Alix (note the slutty “i”) still remembers that asshole moment to this day. How many “how are yous” can she specifically remember?

Simple as it may seem, most women agree that genuine flattery (without the jibe at the end) is the quickest way into our shorts. Just skip the clichés and focus on the details. Jalisa, a 31-year-old real estate broker, was impressed recently when a guy commented on a feature that often goes unnoticed. “I was wearing a strapless top, and I caught his eyes drifting to my shoulders while we talked,” she says. “Final­ly he said, ‘I’m sorry for staring, but you’ve got such a beautiful collarbone.’ He reached out to touch it, sweeping my hair back while he did it, and my knees almost buckled. I knew that second I was sleeping with him that night.” Make us feel interesting and sexy and we’ll reward you. Tell us our pants are a little snug [ed: that’s not a neg] and you’re going home alone, Spanky.

While it is true that if you’re going to compliment women, noticing something specific about them is always good, this whole paragraph is a red herring. It’s talking about two entirely different things. No PUA ever said to neg a girl all the way to the bedroom; obviously rapport needs to be established.

And “genuine flattery is the quickest way into our shorts?” What are these girls smoking?

Verdict: Except for emotionally crippled broken wings, women don’t respond well to being insulted.

One of the biggest myths of them all is that only “emotionally crippled” women respond well to negs and teasing. In reality, it is the hottest women who respond well to it.

Ploy No. 2: Have a Routine
PUAs are former outcasts who need crutches in social situations. That’s why they advocate approaching women with “prepared material”—a joke, a quiz, even a magic trick. Um…yeah. If we wanted to see magic, we’d be home watching reruns of Criss Angel Mindfreak, not sitting in a bar with friends, having a life. In fact, anything that feels that rehearsed is likely to flop. “I had a guy come up to me recently and say, ‘Pick a number between one and 10,’” says Zoe [ed: Bitch], a 28-year-old set designer. “I told him, ‘Zero—which represents the number of seconds more I’ll be playing this game,’ and I walked away.”

The fact of the matter is that most girls will respond more positively to a man who is interesting than your average boring beta bear. If someone has to memorize a few routines to get the courage to approach a girl (and it does take courage, especially considering you might run into a girl as sweet and playful as dear Zoe), then more power to them. These routines should never be “crutches;” they are designed to get a man out of his shell and nab a pretty woman’s attention. When done right, they almost always work to get a man to the next stage of the pickup.

Telling a joke is just as risky. Most shtickfests are juvenile or just plain bad, and plenty walk the line of good taste. Humor can work, however—when it’s spontaneous. “I was at a crowded bar when a guy turned to me and said, ‘Who do I have to show my tits to to get a beer around here?’” says Lisa, a 31-year-old attorney. “I started laughing and said, ‘You show yours, I’ll show mine—we’ll see who gets served faster.’ The conversation was sexual right off the bat. I had my hands down his pants in the bar bathroom by the end of the night.”

If gamed correctly, the target is going to have no idea whether the humor is spontaneous or not. The guy’s tit line could have been planned for three years for all Lawyer Lisa knows. Girls love to imagine a world where everything magically happens without any rhyme or reason; in reality, it almost always requires a decent amount of planning by the man to pull it off.

Verdict: Maybe you can hold our attention by levitating for a second, David Blaine, but it doesn’t mean we want to screw.

No PUA ever said routines led directly to the screw; they are meant to establish some higher value and get one’s foot in the door.

Ploy No. 3: Disarm Your Competition
Attractive women are almost always being hit on by someone. An intimidated guy will get scared off by the rival and seek out a different object of affection. But followers of the Game see this as an opportunity to assert themselves. They call it AMOGing (the verb form of the acronym “alpha male of the group”) or outalphaing: “to remove a potential male competitor through physical, verbal, or psychological tactics.” Basically, that means pushing your way into their conversation and showing you’re smarter and funnier than the other guy.

Now, if the guy in question is the woman’s boyfriend, you could be in for a fight. But if you see a sexy girl being hit on by someone she’s clearly not interested in (her eyes are darting around the room; she’s maintaining a physical distance), step in. Jodie, a 28-year-old architect, had been cornered for 10 minutes with “a monotoned loser” when a stranger swooped in pretending to be her boyfriend. “He said, ‘Honey, what’d I tell you about not charming the pants off the whole bar while I was gone?’ I played right along by throwing my arms around him—and when we looked at each other we just spontaneously kissed. It was so hot that as the first guy slunk away I pulled my ‘boyfriend’ outside for a make-out session.”

Verdict:
Every girl loves to have men fighting over her. And if you rescue her from some tool’s story about his high school’s math Olympics, you’ll be her hero.

Five bucks says the “monotoned loser” hitting on her was employing all the classic niceguy methods women claim to love too.

How do our writers think a guy is able to AMOG the competition in the first place? They sure as hell ain’t gonna do it by introducing himself and politely asking his competitors to leave the premises.

Ploy No. 4: Call Right Away
You’ve heard for years that you should wait at least two days before calling a woman to ask her out—otherwise you’ll look like a desperate loser, right? Not according to practitioners of The Game. When too much time lapses between securing a girl’s number and calling her, they call it going “stale.” They assume the girl has lost interest by then—and they’re right.

While it’s true you shouldn’t call at 9 a.m. the following day to see if she’s free for brunch, you can’t wait too long or she’s going to write you off. Sometimes you can even contact her right away, as long as you keep things light and flirty. Maggie, a 27-year-old author, said she once slept with a guy the first night she talked to him, because he texted her when they were both on their way home. “He wrote, ‘Can’t wait till tomorrow. Turn around?’ I wrote back that I was almost at my apartment, but he could come by for a nightcap. I never bothered offering him that drink—as soon as he walked in the door, I started tearing his clothes off.”

Verdict: Women aren’t put off by being wanted. If you like her, call her.

While we come to agreement on this one, I’m curious if the reason behind it was to further stroke the egos of women. In other words: don’t make her wait! She’s a prize catch!

Ploy No. 5: Dress Like a Cock
In the PUA world, “peacocking” means wearing something flashy in order to stand out from the rest of the herd. The term was coined by “Mystery,” the MPUA (or “master pickup artist”) who hosts The Pickup Artist on VH1 decorated in eyeliner, black nail polish, and furry top-hats with goggles strapped over them. He insists that all his protégés radically alter their style in this way, advising them to accessorize with things like feather boas. But the message I got from women was clear: Do not do this.

“Guys should just stick with what they like,” says Jeri-Ann, a 25-year-old teacher. “You’ll look like a total dipshit if you throw on a velvet vest and choker with your old Dockers.” Jill, 30, a clothing designer, recalls hitting it off with a “conservative preppy dude” at a party. “But when we met up the next night he was wearing a tight-fitting vintage T-shirt and had his hair all greasy and mussed up. He looked uncomfortable and frankly a little bizarre,” she says.

Verdict:
Do not take fashion advice from a guy in six-inch platform boots, no matter how much he claims to get laid.

I’m not the biggest practitioner of peacocking, but again, the writers are analyzing guys “who looked uncomfortable” doing it. A confident man wearing bizarre clothing will still turn the women on. Remember, the point of peacocking, as Mystery writes, is to invoke “more social pressure on you than you would normally experience, which can be used to your advantage. You demonstrate higher value when people perceive that you’re accustomed to this social pressure and otherwise unaffected by it.” So in other words, it’s not about the clothes. It’s about how you will handle the attention the clothes will undoubtedly direct your way.

Ploy No. 6: Hit on Her Friend
According to skilled PUAs, every pair of women you encounter can be broken down into a “target” (the girl you like) and a “pivot” (the girl you use to make the target jealous). The idea is, when you approach the pivot, the girl you want immediately wonders why you’re not interested in her—and does whatever she can to get your attention.

Technically, a pivot is a girl you already know (whether as friends from before or from earlier that night) acting as a wingman to increase your social value, not an unknown girl in a set you’re approaching. She is an obstacle.

The reason why the obstacle is approached first is not simply to get the target jealous; it is to establish rapport with a person who currently has more power over the target’s decisions at that moment than you do. It doesn’t matter how tight your game is; if you don’t win over your target’s friends early on, she will be following their whimsical designs, not yours.

Most women say this tactic fails on two levels: one, it’s extremely slimy; two, women are sensitive to the fact that our friends need to get laid, too. You know the old adage “Bros before hos”? Most of us have that same solidarity thing going on with our girls. If we suspect you like her, we’ll simply move on to someone else. Also, bear in mind that no girl ever wants to feel like she was a second choice. “I had a guy try that once,” says Sasha, a 28-year-old dance instructor. “He was all over my friend, but when she went to the bathroom, he said he thought I was cuter. I poured my drink on his crotch.”

Verdict:
This trick puts you in the unique position of potentially pissing off two girls instead of just one—whoopee!

I don’t believe the majority of the PUA community teaches that men should hit on obstacles. They teach to address them, talk to them, and generally telegraph less interest towards your target (at first) to win over the group. The guy who got the drink poured on his crotch was probably inebriated and thus lacking the ability to properly calibrate to the situation.

Ploy No. 7: Make Her Work for It
Women love to be challenged. If you offer us the opportunity to show off a quality that goes beyond looks, we’ll definitely be intrigued. For pickup artists, this usually translates to inviting a woman to play some kind of conversational game, a rapid-fire series of questions and answers. But it’s just as effective to challenge her to a more physical contest.

Funny, I thought negging and teasing a girl would be considered the perfect example of making her “work for it.” Turning the tables and establishing yourself as the prize to be won, through tactics such as negs, is exactly what a woman wants from a man. Sounds like somebody’s worldview is a bit inconsistent.

“I can’t say no if a guy asks me to play pool, Buck Hunter, darts…even flip-cup or any other kind of drinking game,” says Mary, a 27-year-old pastry chef. “I’ll immediately want to prove I can kick his ass.” And it never hurts to up the ante. “At a party recently, I took on this guy at quarters,” says Kirstin, a 22-year-old student. “After a few rounds he said we should make it ‘strip quarters.’ Ten minutes later we were sitting across from each other shirtless and pantsless—we had to take the game upstairs to his room before it got indecent.”

There is nothing anti-game about playing pool or “strip quarters.” In fact, the latter sounds like something invented by a master PUA.

Verdict: No girl wants to be considered boring or weak. Dare her to beat you at something and she’ll take you on. And if you get rejected, don’t take it personally. Remember: We almost never hate the player; we just kind of hate the Game.

Well ladies, the Game exists because you make the rules. If flattery and pedestalization were indeed the way into your pants, then the Game would look more like a gentleman’s chivalry competition. But it isn’t.

Then again, I wouldn’t expect you to understand. We’re talking about the deep dark recesses of your id, that which is responsible for the tingles you feel for assholes, badboys, and other assorted cads who use the principles of game to seduce you right into bed. What reason would you have for admitting the truth?

“It’s Not Our Faults We’re Pretty”

So I was texting an ex-fling the other day (I’m not sure why I still talk to this girl, mostly because her naive mindset amuses me). A little background on our little princess: According to my source (her), she has given blow jobs to 20-30 guys. She has had sex with at least 10 guys, probably closer to 20. Now she’s back with her boyfriend whom she cheated on (slutting it up with at least 3 other guys) about a year ago. This information is all shit she’s voluntarily shared with me, no coercion necessary.

Oh, and these impressive stats are all a reflection of a girl who just turned 20. So in other words, she’s a slut. Sweet girl, but a slut. No getting around it.

Our little conversation started as the result of an old man she works with at a nursing home propositioning to have sex with her. Now, the guy is probably suffering from Alzheimer’s or lung cancer or 40 years of sexless solitude, but whatever the case, she found it to be the perfect chance to springboard into an “I hate guys” rant. Among the things she texted me (followed by my commentary after each statement):

Guys are pigs. Us girls have to put up with it the rest of our lives.

Well, at least until you turn 35 or so. As for your current situation, you poor thing. Being attractive to the opposite sex must be pure torture. Tell ya what, try living your first 25 years on this earth as a clueless (and near sexless) beta getting friend zoned by women en masse and tell me how that feels.

When she’s 50, she’ll probably begin to understand.

Girls can’t rape guys. Unless they use Viagra. Girls can be mean but so can anyone. But I’ve never heard any guy complain because he didn’t want sex.

I’ve read this back to myself multiple times and it still makes little sense to me. Trying to be funny with the Viagra statement I see. But I’ll analyze it as far as I can anyway.

Sure, girls can’t rape (though it has happened), but they can cuckold, lead along, use men at their leisure, and falsely accuse of rape. In this feminist utopia we’re currently enjoying, a girl can basically destroy a man’s soul and be considered by the masses an egalitarian hero.

And complain about no sex? As opposed to what? Should he complain that he doesn’t want sex? Should he not complain that he does want sex? Oh female “logic.”

Girls don’t thing about sex all the time or are always trying to get into guys pants.

Hahahahahahaha… A classic case of projection. For someone trashing the vice of getting into people’s pants, she sure has a lot of experience doing it. Her legs open faster than the door at Walmart on Black Friday.

Psht easy? You crazy mister. I wish we could trade places one day. You can see how hard it is really.

How hard it must be to walk into a room and watch every guy drool over you, and then, ultimately, you have your pick of the litter. Talk to me when you’re in an aspiring alpha male’s position, having to shed all your natural, friendzoney attributes, fundamentally changing your interaction style and then having to do the right things in the right order just to give yourself a chance at getting laid. You can “psht” me all day long, but I’m right. You as a an attractive 20-year old female… have…it…easy. (I’m talking about receiving sex that is, not necessarily receiving love.)

As Roissy said, “Failing to get laid is not how women are rejected; they are rejected when they don’t receive romance, love, and long term commitment from the men who fuck them. Most women under 25 with a slim and healthy 17-23 BMI profile have no trouble getting laid from the men they find attractive. Given that most young women can get sex fairly easily, falling into bed with a man, even high status men, is not much of an accomplishment.”

If we traded places i’d totally get you laid.

If you put in the work learning and applying game like I have, then sure. But if you expect to just show up and find it magically happen (like with the scores of men who have performed sexual acts with you), you’ve got another thing coming, sista.

Girls like guys they are attracted to. Not bad boys and such. That’s awful that you say that. And you wonder why girls use guys. It’s not our faults we are pretty.

For clarification, she was reacting to a shocking and completely unjustifiable (yeah, right) statement I made about how girls like bad boys.

And as far as what she wrote here, is this representative of all girls’ mindsets? Are they all this delusional when it comes to their own natures? I’m beginning to think so. To accuse someone who points out a truth obvious to anyone who opens their eyes for two seconds of being “awful” is complete and utter blindness.

And how ’bout we turn those last two sentences around on you and see how you feel about it: “And you wonder why guys use girls. It’s not our faults we are charismatic.” Did I cross a line there, darling?

The most shocking thing about this statement is that it comes from a girl who generally exhibits a very sweet and innocent demeanor. I know her true nature, but she really is as friendly of a girl as you’re going to meet. Yet she still harbors such disturbing untruths. Obviously having great looks and a nice personality doesn’t shield girls from believing their own bullshit.

I don’t usually like to have full-on conversations with people via text, but I could tell this would be golden from the start. If I was trying to game this girl, this dialogue would have never taken place. But since I wasn’t, and since I have a blog, I figured I’d allow her to elaborate. Her words confirm to me the game principle of not taking girls too seriously. Doing so (with a girl you’re pursuing or not) will drain the life out of you quicker than a knife to the brachial artery. I treat her inanity seriously on this blog however to show that… bitches… you crazy!