“Marriage is no plenury indulgence from the soul ripping cenobite chains of the sexual market.”–Roissy, the Citizen Renegade
My God, what a ridiculous sentence. What does this even mean?
“Marriage is no plenury indulgence from the soul ripping cenobite chains of the sexual market.”–Roissy, the Citizen Renegade
My God, what a ridiculous sentence. What does this even mean?
Tags: Bad Writing
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 14th, 2010 and is filed under Writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Arclite theme by digitalnature | powered by WordPress
#1 by EscapistArt at July 17th, 2010
| Quote
Not sure if this comment made it (the webmonster seems to have eaten it), so resending. If a duplicate, please excuse
—————————
Hi R. Stanton Scott. It is I, EscapistArt, the perfidious female typist of the leading Alpha Dominant PUA, Sexy Pterodactyl (a parody of Roissy Game crowd, who comments there and elsewhere).
It’s good to see others who think these guys are more than a little ridiculous, and particularly those of the male persuasion (we need to show the inexperienced that it’s not all alpha male pterodactyl land out there). While we may not agree with everything the other has said or thought in their entire life, I think we have some common views on social issues (I read some of the left blogs as well, including for their views on the Roissy type brotherhoods).
You might enjoy my current post: http://escapistart.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/why-i-make-fun-of-mra-puasroissy-in-dcthe-spearhead-and-their-fanboys/
Shall we do the mutual link thing, with EscapistArt and/or my Sexy Pterodactyl compadre?
I think this is his seminal Roissyish post: http://sexypterodactyl.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/facilitating-sexytime-for-dudes/
Best,
Escapist
#2 by Dr. Anne Hauser Busch at July 17th, 2010
| Quote
Roissy and his PUA pathos is like the Pied Piper of Pimps. His made-up conquests he feeds his voracious, desperate readers is laughable if not outright pathetic.
#3 by EscapistArt at July 18th, 2010
| Quote
Roissy is also a coward and censor. Sexy Pterodactyl made a naughty comment (and I know Roissy must have laughed), but it was censored. Uh oh!
#4 by SDaedalus at July 21st, 2010
| Quote
Thanks for the linkage.
But, if you’re going to link to me, you need to know the worst, which is that I have a self-professed soft spot for Roissy’s hyperbolic writing style.
There are only three bloggers out there in the Sphere, including Citizen Lemonade, Sexy Pterodactyl, who can pull this off (I won’t mention the third because he has always been exceptionally polite & helpful to me and I’m not going to be responsible for all of you descending on his blog).
You do know that I’d like to remain neutral in any blog war which may ensue (I sense a castle siege about to start).
Have you considered the possibility that Roissy may actually be providing a service to women (and indeed other men) by honestly disclosing the depth of depravity of certain males?
My maternal grandmother (an internet fiend) loves his site, which she says reminds her of the parish priest’s sermons in the small West of Ireland town in which she grew up – basically, the weekly theme, which never varied, was “all men are beasts and all women whores”. Although I’m not sure if buttsex was mentioned, it was certainly obliquely referred to.
What would be nice would be if you guys gave your opposing view on sex and relationships, rather than just parodying Roissy, so that we women would get a different pov.
Best wishes
SDaedalus
#5 by SDaedalus at July 21st, 2010
| Quote
PS: I am NOT a Roissy minion.
#6 by R. Stanton Scott at July 21st, 2010
| Quote
I linked to you because I liked your blog, not because I thought I’d found an ally in a fight against Roissy.
I do not parody Roissy. I intend to challenge the foundation of his world view, and point out the inconsistencies in his thought (as well as his bad writing). I am also happy to point out his bad character, poor morals, and general meanness when I see it.
Blog wars do not interest me. I am interested in reasoned discourse. Since Roissy cannot engage without epithets and slurs because of the weakness of his arguments, it may look like a war. But I will not respond in kind, and he knows it.
If Roissy helps men and women by pointing out the true nature of the small subset of men who rely on PUA techniques for sexual gratification (which they must, by the way, since they have nothing of any real value to offer), then challenging his world view only expands this service to people who might otherwise be fooled.
And if you think my thoughts on sex and relationships might be interesting, I’ll happily share them with you.
#7 by SDaedalus at July 21st, 2010
| Quote
That’s fine, I didn’t want you to be misled as to my position in the politics of the Roissysphere, things seem to be getting very tense here of late.
Everyone’s world view should be open to reasoned discourse.
As a woman, I think Roissy makes some good points about women & sexual attraction, points that most women don’t admit and most men don’t realise, or if they realise, are too chicken to articulate.
However, my personal view is that he underestimates the ability of many women to keep from acting on these impulses. I think sometimes also he fails to distinguish between what might attract a woman in fantasy and what she is actually attracted to in reality, there is often a very big distinction between the two. Also, he tends to underplay the concepts of trust, loyalty and affection, which is sad in a way, but that I suppose is his own business.
I don’t really worry myself about Roissy’s character, morals or meanness, most writers I admire weren’t particularly blessed in any of these departments. I feel it’s possible to separate the person (and is a blog persona really someone’s real person anyway? they could be better, or worse, or just different) from the message.
I agree that it is exceptionally difficult to engage Roissy in any kind of reasoned debate on his own blog, but if you put up counter-arguments on your blog, I will certainly read them.
We’ll just have to beg to differ on the question of his writing style. Being Irish, I am a sucker for hyperbole & complexity and think the above sentence a work of beauty. I guess the world would be very boring if everyone thought the same way.
It would be very interesting to hear honest views on sex & relationships from a male blogger other than Roissy. The thing about Roissy, his redeeming feature in my view, is that there is a core of honesty in what he writes, it may not be true for everyone, but it is certainly true as far as he is concerned. This is rare for men or women writing about sex and relationships.
So I guess that is my point of view. I’ve never met Roissy (and I really don’t know if I’d want to) or corresponded with him off-blog. I don’t particularly like some aspects of his blog persona, particularly the selective editing bit which I find can be very misleading, but he has some compensating factors as outlined above.
Anyway, I’m glad you like my blog, despite the fact that my politics are more centrist than yours, and I will keep following your blog too.
Best wishes
SDaedalus
#8 by R. Stanton Scott at July 21st, 2010
| Quote
Tense? How so? I am after all new to the discussion.
Roissy reduces women (and men, for that matter) to robotic creatures who always respond according to traits put in place over time by natural selection. This dehumanizes people, and fails to account for sentience, reason, and careful thought, which have far more influence on sexual choices than evolution-driven psychology.
He also tricks people, both by pretending to be someone he is not, and by straight-up lying. While he certainly should live his life as he pleases, and the women he sleeps with (if any really do) have their own agency and don’t need me to rescue them, I have no problem exposing him for what he is so that people who deal with him at least know what they are getting.
The core of my views on sex and relationships involves the idea that human beings have a wide variety of preferences which all deserve respect, and the trick is to match people with similar preferences so they can find mutual satisfaction. Now that you have asked, I plan to elaborate on this, but for now let me just say that Roissy neither respects the preferences of others, nor offers himself as he truly is. In short, he makes people unhappy on purpose, or at least doesn’t care if he does.
Mean people suck, and pointing at them with derision is the correct response.
#9 by SDaedalus at July 21st, 2010
| Quote
I agree with your point on sentience, reason, and careful thought. However the modern hook-up culture (which is not quite as bad where I come from) and alcohol tends to favour natural selection traits over the above in a bar situation. I don’t think Roissy denies that women (and presumably men too) have a choice in this regard. Certainly he has never disputed this when I have made this point on his blog.
Re lying, again, it’s very difficult to know if someone’s blog persona (particularly the blog persona of someone with a tendency towards hyperbolic discourse) reflects the way they behave in reality. He could be exactly how he portrays himself, even worse, or better. Does it really matter? The honesty I was referring to was in terms of expressing his views rather than in discussing his life.
If, for instance, he were to set up a blog portraying himself as a nice guy, reel women in and then use and abuse them, this would be different. But no woman who reads his blog can say they haven’t been warned. I don’t know about his private life (and presumably neither do you?) but at least in the blogosphere no one can say with Roissy that they don’t know what they are getting. If your aim is to warn girls he may become involved with in real life, if these girls use the internet they already know what he is like, if they don’t, well, all your work is not going to warn them.
Disagree with the guy’s views by all means, but I wonder whether or not his personal life is his own business. I know that in the US and UK there is a tendency to treat someone’s personal life as casting a light on everything they do and achieve, but I don’t really agree with this.
I agree that Roissy isn’t really interested in other people’s views, but this applies to a lot of people. His arch-enemy LR for instances, wasn’t much interested in other people’s views either.
Yes, he is mean to commenters, and enjoys making them unhappy, but there’s a very simple solution, and that is not to comment on his blog. What amazes me is how commenters, particularly female commenters, he is rude to, keep coming back for more.
I think it’s better to keep discussion of these issues impersonal, but this is a matter for you, this is of course your blog. I am not a fan of Roissy’s personalised attack approach either, which I think detracts from the rest of his material.
Btw I suspect that his sadism is mixed with a bit of masochism as well, by getting into a personal slanging match you may just be giving him exactly what he wants.
Anyway, I’m not going to say any more about the whole Roissy thing. I just wanted to explain why I am in the rather uncomfortable position of sitting on the fence on all this.
I agree with your views on relationships as being the way life should be, I do hope though they are not too utopian, hopefully you will convince me otherwise. The difficulty as I see it is that most people don’t know, or won’t admit their relationship preferences. Also, quite frankly, people (particularly men) tend to get bored in LTRs.
I usually find that it’s better to ignore meanness and get on with building something constructive. Hopefully your blog posts on relationships will do that.
#10 by R. Stanton Scott at July 21st, 2010
| Quote
If you find sitting the fence uncomfortable, simply pick a side and jump down from the perch there.
I can appreciate a desire for fairness, and to give people like Roissy the benefit of the doubt. But the man intentionally self-publishes screeds attacking women as inhuman slaves to their ovaries with no agency, and men who choose not to take advantage of this (imaginary) female trait as witless suckers.
That anyone thinks I should reconsider shaming this antisocial behavior on the grounds that “Real Life Roissy” might differ in some way from “Blog Persona Roissy” frankly confounds me. Roissy does not share–or at least pretends not to share–social norms about respect for others and the intentional infliction of pain, both physical and emotional. This deserves shame and derision, and he will get plenty of that from me.
#11 by SDaedalus at July 21st, 2010
| Quote
Again, I’m not going to be saying any more about this, other than that I would hope not to have to pick sides.
How you choose to deal with Roissy is your own business, I was simply explaining my position. I think his analysis of women, though, is more than just categorising them as inhuman slaves to their ovaries with no agency, it is a bit more sophisticated than that, although obsured by some of the hyperbole used. But this is a question of opinion, I won’t say any more about it.
I look forward to reading your relationship posts.
#12 by EscapistArt at July 22nd, 2010
| Quote
I have a question for sdaedalus:
SD, you make much of the idea that some of us PUA snarkers (me, Sexy Pterodactyl, Citizen Lemonade, et al) and even the very measured, polite and non-snarky Stan are being mean to the emotionally delicate Roissy – the guy who treats female commenters (including yourself, to an extent) like garbage. And you must admit, none of the PUA critic _bloggers_ , on their own blogs, have treated you anything like Citizen Renegade has. Do you still comment at Roissys or similar PUA places, by the way?
Stan/all: I think the operative word for Roissy, In Mala Fide and the like is “shmendrik”: the notion that a person can be both small/pathetic (pitiable), and evil at the same time – and that as they promote and do harm, it is morally valid to show them for what they are, as a warning to the inexperienced/naïve. I have future posts which critique the Roissy type dweebii with both seriousness and snark (the two can be combined at once, to make a serious point – some cancionero poets such as Anton de Montoro were known for this method).
Best,
Escapist
#13 by SDaedalus at July 26th, 2010
| Quote
@Escapist
I don’t think Citizen Renegade himself has been that bad to me, minus one occasion of selective moderation which I am still quite annoyed about. For such a sensitive flower, he has been surprisingly tolerant of my gentle send-ups. Relatively speaking, that is.
One commenter, Tim, who also comments on Lady Raine’s blog, I see, has been less pleasant. But I’m not sure how CR, with all his faults, can be blamed for this.
True to form, I have been unable to refrain from commenting on either your blog or Citizen Renegade since we spoke last. I am sure you know this quite well already btw. No doubt I will fall prey to the lures of Sexy Pterodactyl too as soon as he puts up a new post.
I’m sure I will enjoy reading your new posts. I don’t quite agree with your views as to the evilness of CR, but that is a question of opinion. I enjoy parody and your parody of CR is very funny. I also think it is probably a good idea if someone looks critically at the CR worldview. So many of the commenters on CR don’t do this, or aren’t allowed to do this.
You know however my opinion is that although the worldview is a bit exaggerated, it is not as completely off the wall as most of the anti-PUA bloggers make out. I am not trying to be wishy-washy or even diplomatic here, merely fair and honest according to my lights.
I feel freedom of speech & opinion is important though and it is not good to put pressure on other people, directly or indirectly, as to what they read or comment on. I would say exactly the same thing to CR or any of the other PUA bloggers if they asked me had I commented on this site or your site lately.
#14 by Escapist at July 28th, 2010
| Quote
@Sdaedalus
Hypergamous female, Sexy P does have a new post – Alpha Dominance Spaceship: MRA PUA Time Travel with Roissy and the Spearhead. Check it out: http://sexypterodactyl.wordpress.com
—Back to a normal personality:
Thanks, you’re quite welcome at my place (or SexyP’s). I’ve been crunched with work lately, but plan to resume commenting at a wide range of hangouts.
I do agree with freedom of speech. Am curious as to what you specifically like (vs. dislike) about the CR worldview?
#15 by SDaedalus at August 15th, 2010
| Quote
Sorry, Escapist, I forgot to log back in to see if there were any replies to my comments.
It’s not that I like (jesus, how could any woman like?) the CR worldview but that I feel that quite a few elements of it are borne out in reality. Depressing though it may be, I like to deal in reality, and try to make the best of it. I try to apply my own experience to what is written there to work out what I can take, and what I can leave.
I think a lot of women do tend to be attracted to men who treat them badly (I think a lot of men are the same, actually, but this is not something discussed very much in Roissy for obvious reasons). I also think that both men and women have unrealistic expectations in terms of relationships, and that many men are naturally polygamous. I don’t think women like overly domesticated men either, they think they do but when they have them they don’t really find them attractive anymore.
There’s also a lot to be learnt from reading between the lines in terms of the blog & the comments. Sometimes what someone doesn’t say tells more about them than anything else. Ironically, I never realised how hyper-sensitive men were, or indeed how sentimental, before reading the Roissysphere blogs. I really did find this enormously helpful in dealing with men in real life.
I also think the blog is useful in terms of avoiding manipulative shits. It does really draw a map in this regard in terms of techniques used. One can’t say one wasn’t warned.
Although the Roissy persona is so carefully constructed that it is very hard to say what is real, and what is artificial (I wouldn’t have a clue), certainly a surprisingly high proportion of the commenters are disillusioned romantics. Whether or not this is their own fault is of course a completely different question.
I suppose the main difficulty in terms of the site is that it only takes one so far. The commenters tend to agree with the blogger, so what you get is the blogger’s perspective. Certainly from my experience not all men would be looking for women significantly younger than them for a relationship, although they certainly like to look at them and would probably like the ego-boost of a younger woman on their arm (ah, the male ego…)
Also, if you read something enough, without any countervailing point of view, you start to believe it. This is why I read anti-Roissy blogs as well.
But I suspect the blogger is being honest according to his lights. There are some men who do like much younger women, it is a fact of life, just like there are women who like much younger or older men. The difficulty I suppose is that a woman coming to the site might think this view was universal.
I’m not a major fan of the ranking system either but unfortunately men of my acquaintance do this in real life and we women do rank (maybe not on the 9-10 scale, but in some way) other women against us in real life too. I think views on female beauty are a little bit more diverse than Roissy gives credit for. I’ve made this point a few times.
There are even some posts which are relatively pleasant (as opposed to depressing) to read. At least Roissy has spoken out against breast implants. A lot of my friends got these and they were a disaster (in one case, impending breast cancer was concealed by the implant), so if he puts off a girl from getting them, or a guy from pressuring his girl into getting them, at least this is a positive. His perfect woman post is a nice post. Probably calculated to be nice, but still. And in fairness to him, unlike some of his posters, he has resisted the impulse to say he dates only 9s and 10s.
I hope this helps. If you really want to challenge the CR worldview, I think it is useful for you to know why a lot of the commenters are there, usually I would suspect it is because something on the site has struck a chord in relation to our past relationships, I suspect this applies to men as well as women. I would be interested in seeing reasoned arguments against it.
For instance, I’m not that interested in what age Roissy is, or what he looks like, but I am interested in hearing, for instance, whether all men in their 40s would take a 25 year old over a woman their own age (I suspect not) or whether or not all men agree with his views on female beauty (again I suspect not) or to what extent men generally feel the compulsion to cheat.
#16 by R. Stanton Scott at August 17th, 2010
| Quote
I frankly don’t buy the notion that women in general like men who treat them like shit. Anecdotal evidence certainly suggests that some don’t seem to mind, but I have to wonder how much repeat business Roissy and the other PUA alphas get–if their EvoPsych BS worked, the girls would come back for more, unable to deny the instinctive lure of the Alpha Male. After all,
Roissy thinks that “biomechanics,” whatever that means, makes female desire for alpha males automatic, more or less universal, and an important part of the reproductive strategies of human males and females.
Roissy then argues that treating women like shit is an alpha trait–it shows masculinity, and proves value to the woman. Manhood, that is, consists of treating women as if they had no value beyond their role in male sexual gratification (since he doesn’t want to actually mate with them), and line up to become nothing more than receptacles for whatever sexual fun the Alpha Male wants to have that night. They deserve no more, the bitches, since they only want the highest value males, and will abandon their men–if only sexually–when presented with a more alpha alternative.
This dehumanizes women and depends on the idea that none of the things which provide context for the way we respond to our sexual biology–e.g., culture, sentience, socialization–matter. Real human beings are not slaves to their subconscious desires–they use their ability to analyze the world around them and consider factors beyond hip to waist ratios and pre-selection when choosing potential mates.
Roissy discounts this agency, and then he takes things a step further by suggesting that otherwise “beta” males should learn to trick women into having sex with them by pretending to be something they are not. Fake having a lot of women in your life, he says, and learn a certain story to tell them–make it up if you have to.
To be sure, this almost certainly works on some level (though the only evidence of this is that PUAs say it does), but think about what he advocates: lying to women as a way to get them into bed. He tries to justify this by suggesting that he only wishes to give women what evolution forces them to want, but in the end he is nothing more than a narcissistic prick–not to mention a sexual predator–who cannot be bothered to consider the wants, needs, or feelings of other people as he makes his way in the world.
His commenters and other sycophants show up there because they want to learn how to fake this “alphaness,” since they cannot be bothered to actually become alpha males by becoming an expert, a leader, a soldier or otherwise successful. They define their self-worth in terms of notches, not real accomplishment, and the Roissysphere offers a haven of others who do the same–a support group for liars, fake masculinity, and sexual predators.
Even his drunken ranting about breast implants, which you characterize as some sort of public service, is in fact really all about his gratification, not the dangers you point out:
“You look great under a sweater with augmentation.
But I’m not fucking a sweater.
And that’s what really matters.”
He offers nothing here about the dangers of this sort of cosmetic surgery, nor even an argument that dissatisfied women should resist the urge to disfigure themselves in the name of conforming to the Playboy version of female beauty. Indeed, Roissy spends a lot of time arguing that Hefner’s version of a 10 is the only one that really matters. All he says about implants is that he doesn’t like them and they reduce his desire and pleasure, so the women who get them are manipulative whores.
Of course not all men in their forties want women fifteen years their junior. And though people of all types can appreciate beauty when they encounter it, men in healthy relationships almost never feel the compulsion to cheat. Human beings are sentient creatures, and though biology matters it does not enslave us–or at least not all of us. The mere fact that we develop mating strategies, and do not leave reproduction to instinct, supports this view.
#17 by SDaedalus at August 17th, 2010
| Quote
I don’t think most women like men who treat them like shit per se. What I do think is that a lot of women are fascinated (this would be a better word than “like”) by a mixture of nasty & nice (it’s the combination that works, pure nastiness doesn’t have the same effect). Certainly in the right mix, it has this effect on me. Recognising this helps in terms of resisting it.
I agree that it is possible to resist this, but I think to do this some recognition that it works on one is necessary. Also, alcohol makes it very hard to resist. It’s no surprise in my view that so many PUA approaches & initial dates involve alcohol. I agree that real human beings are not slaves to their subconscious desires, but it’s easy to slip up occasionally, particularly if one doesn’t fully understand the process that is being employed.
Of course it dehumanizes women, this is exactly what Game is all about. The whole 1-10 scale is a form of objectification. It gives the courage to approach, it is a form of protective shell, maybe a highly lethal one but protective nonetheless. I don’t think it’s possible to maintain the objectification though. I think men are far too emotional to do this. Women actually find it easier to objectify in the long term. That’s why we make better spies & so forth. I would suspect very few of the PUA approaches actually end up as long term relationshps, or if they do, they are probably relationships that would have happened anyway if the guy had been able to approach without Game. I think the reason they fail to develop into LTRs is not always because the women regret it the next day but probably at least as often because the guy fears losing objectivity & either over-compensates by excessive coldness or bolts.
Yes, of course it’s lying to women as a way to get them into bed. Sadly, we women lie too with men, whether we want to admit it or not. I’m not talking about push-up bras, lipstick & so forth. It’s a personality thing. We pretend to be nicer than we are. Maybe there are saints out there who don’t do this, but I’ve never met any of them.
Re Roissy & what he is and isn’t. It’s fairly obvious to anyone with a brain that there are multiple writers on that blog. I have no idea how long this has been the case but it has been certainly the case for as long as I’ve been commenting. I have no idea what any of them are like, how attractive they are in real life, what relationships they have and I don’t really care.
The question is really the blog itself and whether or not
(a) it is all bullshit
(b) it does more harm than good.
I don’t think it’s all bullshit, some of it is, but not all.
Re. more harm than good, it has certainly been of great benefit to me in working out what men to avoid. I appreciate that the writers may not have good motives, but I think that it does serve as an Awful Warning to women to be very careful before jumping into bed with men they don’t know. It’s possible to do good accidentally. Ditto re. breast implants, the point is not the motive of the writer, or whether it shows he’s of good character, it is whether or not it is generally beneficial or not.
I just think we have to separate the personal life of the writers from the content. I’m amazed at all this focus on their personal lives. I like reading lots of writers who were absolute shits in real life, and I find I learn a lot from their writing. I don’t feel their personal lives preclude me from reading their work, even if the ideas in it are unpleasant too, if there is some accuracy to them.
I’m sure most men aren’t as bad as Roissy & Co. However I do see certain traits there, a sense of entitlement (my god, are these lads entitled), an emphasis on looks over and above any other characteristic, a fear of the female ageing process, an eye for other women, that I see over and over again with men I know in real-life. I suspect the answer is somewhere between Roissy’s worldview & yours, and depends a lot on the individual person.
Thanks for replying. Could you answer two questions for me – firstly, why does the claimed personal life of these writers (which may or may not be true) matter so much? Isn’t fronting just a characteristic of the web generally? I wouldn’t rely on Roissy’s claimed experience when making up my mind about what he says. I take his statements & weigh them against my own experience.
Secondly, is there any part of the dogma you accept? I know you say that people can control their instincts, does that mean that you accept the view that the instincts as outlined do exist?
#18 by SDaedalus at August 17th, 2010
| Quote
By the way, I work among high-achievers, and I think that defining self-worth in terms of accomplishments is overrated. I know a lot of very accomplished and high-achieving people who are of bad character. I’m not sure the alpha achiever thing is any better in terms of mate selection than the alpha PUA thing. High-achievers are very often hell to live with. Genius and happiness are not good bedfellows. There’s a quote on this somewhere, if I find it I will put it up.
#19 by R. Stanton Scott at August 19th, 2010
| Quote
Roissy does not argue that women prefer a mix of nasty and nice, nor does he count on occasional slip-ups. He believes that women only want the nasty side–since this shows alpha traits–and he counts on a consistent attraction to this sort of “masculinity.” He throws out bones of “nice” as part of the trick but thinks that caring about a woman and her feelings shows beta traits and will in all cases destroy the “tingle” and make the woman seek another male–a more “alpha” one.
I have no truck with antisocial behavior, whether or not some ultimate good comes of it, especially if the author could achieve the same goals using other techniques. It sounds like you think that we should tolerate evil just so we will know what it looks like. Huh?
How can you separate the writer’s work from his personal life when this is the subject of his work? Roissy uses his own personal life, and that of other PUA’s, to frame antisocial behavior as a good thing. This invites attacks on his personal life, since it consists of this antisocial behavior, and this is why it matters.
I agree generally with Roissy that women like powerful men, and that reproductive biology matters. I do not, however, agree with his oversimplified construction of what it means to be “alpha,” and I don’t think biology matters as much as he claims. Treating women like shit had nothing to do with manhood, leadership, or accomplishment. And instinct has little to do with female mate selection in a sentient species.
Finally, I never said that accomplishments by themselves show good character. I said they show alpha traits–real ones, not the fake alphaness Roissy recommends. Many accomplished men have solid values, and can show them to prospective mates once they have attracted them. Roissy thinks good character makes a man “beta” and carries “sexual marketplace” costs, not advantages. Indeed, he regularly advises showing bad character, especially lying.
In the end, Roissy is nothing more than a sexual predator who lies his way into the beds of vulnerable women who have low self-confidence, daddy issues, or simply too much to drink. He manufactures bad character on purpose just to get laid. At least the high-achieving men you know come by their foibles honestly.
#20 by SDaedalus at August 19th, 2010
| Quote
Perhaps I’ve missed some of the blog (maybe there are posts that have been taken down) but who are the vunerable women with low self-confidence or daddy issues you refer to? And what are the lies?
If you could be more specific about this, with reference to specific posts, it would be helpful.
As stated above, I’ve never taken the personal element of the blog seriously myself, basically because anyone can, under the cloak of anonymity, put up anything they want about themselves on the internet. I’ve been more interested in the principles, and whether they are borne out by my real-life experience. As far as I’m concerned, the subject of the work are the principles he outlines, and I have never taken the personal anecdotes seriously as evidence of those principles, I’ve worked from my own experience in testing their veracity, so perhaps this influences my view.
Also, I think the women in question have to bear some responsibility there. We are not after all unthinking, stupid animals (I’ve made this point to a PUA blogger already on my blog). If manufacturing bad character actually gets Roissy or his co-writers laid (which I have absolutely no idea one way or the other about, and I have to say am not particularly interested in), isn’t that equally the fault of the women involved.
I think we have to accept that other people will behave in a way that we don’t like or approve of, yes. Evil is a very serious word. Child molestation is evil. Deliberately taking advantage of and torturing someone for one’s own pleasure in full knowledge of what you are doing to them is probably evil as well. Roissy may well be capable of the latter. But I haven’t seen any clear evidence of this Provide me with it, and I will take it into account.
I’m not a huge fan of the whole alpha-beta distinction generally, its only value is as a (somewhat misleading) shorthand so I’m afraid whether or not Roissy unjustly classifies high achieving men as alpha or not is somewhat irrelevant to me.
My personal view is that neither outstanding achievement nor number of sexual partners is any measure of character and that in fact the reverse may well be the case in the former as well as the latter situation.
People often forget the many moral compromises that have to be made in order to be perceived as accomplished, often just as many as those that have to be made in notching up a high partner count. Not all accomplished men in all fields are like this of course, but quite a few are. One doesn’t get to the top without walking over a few bodies, I’m afraid.
#21 by R. Stanton Scott at August 19th, 2010
| Quote
Read the approach stories, especially when Roissy answers questions from readers. He often recommends lying (e.g., pretending to have other women interested to pass the “preselection” tests). And he classifies women on both beauty and behavior scales which include self-image and family issues as factors. I can’t believe you’ve read much of the site without also getting this tone, but I’ll find some specific examples when I have the time.
Yes, of course women have agency, but responsibility for what? Have they done something wrong by placing trust in the false personas these PUAs create for use when they hunt women? When fooled, am I an agent or a victim? I think it’s interesting that you think the women these men seduce have done something they should regret.
I think that culture, socialization, and changing environment influence mating strategies far more than instinct or biology. They repress these instincts, and that is exactly why we developed them: to shame some behaviors and promote others. I am participating in the shaming of Roissy’s behavior. Nothing more.
#22 by SDaedalus at August 19th, 2010
| Quote
No offence, but if pretending to have other people interested in us to attract attention were an evil lie 95% of the human race would burn in the flames of hell. I’d need more evidence on this before I could classify him as evil.
Again, if you could find some specific examples, it would be useful. Comments to the effect that a woman with a poor self-image is easier to manage are not necessarily that unusual among men.
Also, what false persona? As far as I can make out, the false persona consists of being somewhat obnoxious in a smart-ass fashion. A girl might be entertained by someone like this but would hardly place trust in them.
If you were to tell me that Roissy was luring girls in by pretending to be Mr Nice, Caring and Ideal Husband material when in fact he was just going to dump them after bedding them, this would be a false persona. But there’s nothing nice or caring about the persona he presents either on his blog or in his descriptions of his antics nor (as far as I remember) has he ever said he promised marriage or anything else to a girl to get her into bed.
So could you give me an example of how he has fooled people other than by pretending to be in demand with other women, which is hardly a mortal sin, barely even a venal one? I would certainly see a woman as a victim to some extent if for instance she slept with a man who had specifically promised her long term committment and marriage when having no such intention. But I would not see a woman as a victim just because she slept with a man thinking him to be more attractive to other women than he was. This is a very weak example.
I do think that everyone has to face up to the fact that it is their own responsibility to look after themselves. I would say exactly the same thing to men who complain about being treated badly by women who exploit them for their money. There are some categories of people who are peculiarly vunerable and in such cases special considerations may apply. Again, if you could give more detail on the fake persona you are talking about. But it does not appear to be a nice persona. If women deliberately go for men who act nasty, what do they expect, when they get nasty? Yes, I think they should regret not using their brains. Let’s face it, if any of the women bloggers here were to get involved with Roissy, your friends over on Lady Raine’s site wouldn’t be very sympathetic. They would say it was their own fault (indeed, this is what they’ve said about Anoukange (whom they call Anoukcringe) as regards her treatment on Roissy’s site.
When abused, is she an agent or a victim? Why do they feel she has done something she should regret? You can’t have one standard for the anti-Roissy camp and another for those of us who don’t belong to this camp. You have to be consistent in your appraoch.
#23 by R. Stanton Scott at August 20th, 2010
| Quote
I’ve never pretended to have women in my life to impress girls, and I don’t buy the “it’s OK because everyone does it” frame. The problem is not simple lies like this, but the aggregate of bad character these people display.
Yes, of course people have a responsibility to look after themselves. But Roissy and his people do in fact deliberately torture the women then prey on, at lease emotionally, just to get them into bed. They discuss techniques for avoiding emotional commitment, arguing that “one-itis,” or actually caring what the other human being thinks, is a beta trait to be avoided–since it will reduce the ability to notch another conquest.
You can say that characterizing this behavior as “evil” goes to far. But I would say that lying to women, faking alpha traits, pretending to care, and then dumping them after sex makes them sexual predators who use false “alpha” personas to trick others into giving them what they want, without regard to the feelings or emotional well-being of other human beings. Instead of seeking like-minded women who wish to enjoy their sexuality along with them, and forming mutually beneficial and healthy relationships based on honest interaction, Roissy and his ilk hurt others on purpose just to get what they want. And doing this to women made more vulnerable by alcohol only makes it worse. This is antisocial, if not exactly evil, behavior which deserves social shaming.
#24 by SDaedalus at August 20th, 2010
| Quote
arguing that “one-itis,” or actually caring what the other human being thinks, is a beta trait to be avoided–since it will reduce the ability to notch another conquest
It is their own loss really. To the extent that I actualy think about it, I tend to view these guys as their own worst enemies.
Re. pretending to care, my point was that they don’t actually bother to pretend, what they fake is their appeal to women, not a caring persona. In fact, reading between the lines, I’d suspect that what some of these guys at least (I’m not talking about Roissy here, his personality is too contrived for me to possibly say) are faking is that they don’t care, when in fact their emotions are so hard for them to manage that they have to hide them behind the mask of game.
Men unfortunately have always taken advantage of women who have imbibed alcohol. I’m not sure you can distinguish PUAs specifically in this regard.
My point in relation to Roissy & his ilk. They are easy to spot and avoid – even at 13 I knew an unadulterated male shit when I saw one (the closet shits are harder to detect). If they are as bad as they say, which may or may not be the case, I know not and care less, they are never going to be able to form a healthy relationship and this is as obvious as the nose on one’s face. But this is their own business and the business of any woman who is stupid enough to get involved with them. Again, if I had evidence that they were targeting mentally handicapped women, women whose partners or children had recently died etc. this would be slightly different.
But as far as I can make out the girls they are going after, in their tales at least, are well-educated, superficially confident, even intimidating young women. They clearly make the deliberate decision to get involved either because they are not looking for long-term committment or because they believe that they are able to tame these men. I’m sorry, but a woman who does this takes her chances in this regard in terms of being pumped and dumped.
I’m not a major fan of social shaming, primarily because who decides – who is to be shamed. I think the whole word “shaming” is a bit unpleasant anyway, it reminds me of the stocks. If someone acts within the law, I don’t think they should be “shamed” – avoid them, if you want, advise people against them in reasoned terms but otherwise let them do their own thing.
If you think they are talking bullshit & their stories are made up, say so. If you think that their view on how men and women operate is not accurate, say so. But I think there’s too much mudslinging round here, it stops sensible discussion and tends to polarise people.
I’m glad that we’ve managed to have such a polite & considered conversation by the way, even though our views will probably never completely accord on this issue. It makes a change. I will bear what you have said in mind.
#25 by R. Stanton Scott at August 22nd, 2010
| Quote
Roissy would say that culture and socialization have little to do with human mating strategy or choices, and your question about who decides what constitutes shameful behavior is beside the point. Since I believe that culture and socialization matter far more than our evolutionary past, your point resonates with me.
But I would respond that I am the one who decides–and so are you and every other individual human. We all have our normative preferences, and should shame those who violate them as a strategy for making the world look the way we prefer. Roissy does this himself when he promotes a normative social structure based on a sexual marketplace and characterizes those who disagree as ignorant or stupid.
Still, this suggests that as an academic who studies norms and their construction I should perhaps inject myself less into this shaming process itself and more into the study of how it works in this case. Thank you for pointing this out.
Yes, I believe that most of their stories are made up bullshit, and that their story of how men and women operate has serious flaws. I wrote about this here, and claim truth as an affirmative defense against mudslinging, since criticizing their view and asserting that objectifying and dehumanizing women makes them “not very nice people” hardly qualifies.
Yes, I share your happiness that we can discuss this politely and in a measured way. On some level you can find out all you need to know about the Roissysphere and their true faith in their world view by the dearth of such discussion there.