Misogynist meetings to be held across the world

[Farm Boy]

Well, I'm not sure about the "intentionally causes"-part, but yes, it seems like a subsection of our population is perfectly fine with having had sex while too drunk to give meaningful consent and then not consider it "rape" because they don't feel abused (or rationalize it away with "Well, I got drunk, right?") in certain situations although by definition it would certainly fall under that banner.

Let's not dance around it. I think "intentionally causes" is entirely accurate. If I get hammered intending to have nearly blacked out coitus I am still incapable of consenting while having coitus should I be verging on blacking out. That I consent retroactively to the act later when I'm more sober is perhaps predictable but not guaranteed. It is certainly not required.

 

[BvBPL]

That's the main "problem" with dating in my opinion, a man always has to find the sweet spot between not giving up at the least bit of resistance and not missing the clues of a serious no. Many men quite literally "don't know when to stop" - because of inexperience, mixed signals and... well, probably also their own sexual drive obscuring clear vision.

A few comments here. First off, the course of action advised by Roosh isn't about dating; it's about having casual sex. Dating presumes an interest in an ongoing relationship. Roosh focuses upon sex as an end goal with less consideration on how to build an onging relationship. Having a relationship, regardless of how casual the relationship is, requires some degree of emotional honesty, but Roosh promotes tactics that create a false veneer of emotional content rather that helping people to develop an actual relationship.


Secondly, perhaps the reason why someone men do not recognize negative signals is because many like Roosh strongly advocate pushing past initial negative signals. Yes, a lot of men do not understand how to socialize with women. The solution however is not to treat sex as an end in itself, but to help men to socialize with women in a non-sexual environment first. It isn't unusually for a man to get nervous around women, but the resolution is just to interact more with women in any capacity rather than focus on sex as a goal. That's why people who are looking for a relationship are better served by going out and interacting with the broader community in a non-sexual manner, like by joining a volunteer group, than by going out and seeking sex or a relationship as the end goal.

Which brings me around to my third point, that men who are frustrated by not being in a relationship or not having sex need to compromise to achieve those goals. The best things you can do to get laid aren't about tricking women into bed, but about improving yourself. Getting a haircut, finding some jeans in which you look good, working out, and generally being a more attractive person will do way more for one's game than learning how to mirror a potential sexual partner. Pick up artists, however, present systems by which men can appear to shortcut those steps of personal improvements. These system appear to allow men to achieve their sexual goals on their terms without busying themselves with difficult self-improvement. In the end, those systems are less helpful because the benefits of self-improve are broad and holistic.

 

[caketastydelish]

Given he continues to promote this sort of behaviour, why shouldn't i criticise him? His claim of wanting to promote being safer due to the concept of legalised rape on private property is contradicted by the fact he has gone out of the way to have sex with people who couldn't normally consent.

When he literally stops being a rapist, apologises for the harm, damage and crimes he has committed, stops defending rape apologia and generally stops being a terrible person, i will stop criticising him.

I'd have to agree with you as far as this goes.

Also, the Manosphere are all related to each other, they feed off each other, Roosh advertises just as much to MRA's as he does PUA's, because there's a degree of overlap.

No, he doesn't. He has repeatedly said he not only isn't an MRA but despises them. Likewise on the men's right subreddit nearly all of them hate Roosh.

So im supposed to believe Roosh truly has the well being of women in mind when he made that absurd "legalise rape on private property" claim, even though he's shown by his behaviour and by his own words that he has no problem with raping women, regardless of what precautions they take; that no means "yes"? That's insane reasoning not even getting into the fact that many women probably DO take precautions, but then again Roosh goes out of his way to get women drunk so he can exploit them.

Yeah, I don't see how anyone could possibly defend Roosh... He just isn't an MRA, and people like you try to make him interchangeable with MRA's because Roosh is an extremely easy person to hate, and you want everyone ideologically different than you to overlap with things easy to hate.

Also, why can't we discuss the MRM in conjunction with Roosh? The dude is a part of the manosphere, even if he's not formally in it. MRA's and PUA's may be "different" in their intentions, but they both share a distinct dislike and hatred of women.

Because believe it or not, not everyone single handedly gets their life lessons from David Furtelle or Jezebel.

I've already addressed why Roosh isn't an MRA on page one of this thread, feel free to respond to that as well.

Anyway 'Manosphere' is an extremely vague term to begin with. Just because it's a type of site mostly made up of men doesn't mean anything. I don't hate Roosh because he has a mostly male fanbase, I hate him because of his beliefs.

Even Emma Watson bothered to address men's issues in her U.N. speech, and she talked over key MRA points which MRA's have addressed for years.

Simply talking about issues such as suicide and less males graduating college and (more recently) why only males have to register for the draft are as legitimate as anything else.

Roosh is a monster because he actively tries to make the world worse for women. That's not the same thing as discussing equality at all.

But even with "PUA's", Roosh is pretty much the worst of the worst. I've read Mystery and Neil Strauss, both of which aren't one tenth as evil as Roosh.

Likewise the worst of the worst of the MRA is probably Paul Elam (he's the worst I'm aware of, anyway).

 

[caketastydelish]

A few comments here. First off, the course of action advised by Roosh isn't about dating; it's about having casual sex. Dating presumes an interest in an ongoing relationship. Roosh focuses upon sex as an end goal with less consideration on how to build an onging relationship. Having a relationship, regardless of how casual the relationship is, requires some degree of emotional honesty, but Roosh promotes tactics that create a false veneer of emotional content rather that helping people to develop an actual relationship.


Secondly, perhaps the reason why someone men do not recognize negative signals is because many like Roosh strongly advocate pushing past initial negative signals. Yes, a lot of men do not understand how to socialize with women. The solution however is not to treat sex as an end in itself, but to help men to socialize with women in a non-sexual environment first. It isn't unusually for a man to get nervous around women, but the resolution is just to interact more with women in any capacity rather than focus on sex as a goal. That's why people who are looking for a relationship are better served by going out and interacting with the broader community in a non-sexual manner, like by joining a volunteer group, than by going out and seeking sex or a relationship as the end goal.

Which brings me around to my third point, that men who are frustrated by not being in a relationship or not having sex need to compromise to achieve those goals. The best things you can do to get laid aren't about tricking women into bed, but about improving yourself. Getting a haircut, finding some jeans in which you look good, working out, and generally being a more attractive person will do way more for one's game than learning how to mirror a potential sexual partner. Pick up artists, however, present systems by which men can appear to shortcut those steps of personal improvements. These system appear to allow men to achieve their sexual goals on their terms without busying themselves with difficult self-improvement. In the end, those systems are less helpful because the benefits of self-improve are broad and holistic.

Agreed on all accounts, except for one. I've read Neil Strauss and Mystery (both of which are PUA's). They both DO mention the very things you say... better clothes, better haircut, going to the gym, etc. "PUA" is just a terminology that anyone could identify with, so obviously some are going to be better than others. That said, Roosh V is pretty much the bottom of the barrel as far as PUA's go.

 

[BvBPL]

I don't deny that some of them do discuss the self-improvement aspect. However, the emphasis for Roosh and for many others is on the quick shortcuts rather than self-improvement. While I am not familiar with the parties you mention, I would guess based solely on their status as pick up artists that their emphasis is primarily upon pick up techniques rather than self-improvement. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that.

To break it down Bloodhound Gang style, we attract mates by appearing to be superior to the alternative, whether that alternative be other men or simply not being with someone. Pick up artists use chicanery to make themselves appear superior, but that is a mere illusion. Self-improvement actually makes one better.

 

[Senethro]

Oh look, another one of these people who make things up in their mind and then treat it as if that's what has been said!

The day women give a clear yes or no at the very beginning and stick to that decision is the day "sexual harassment" as a byproduct of the dating game is going to be a thing of the past.

This line of yours doesn't leave much to interpretation!

 

[sophie]

To break it down Bloodhound Gang style, we attract mates by appearing to be superior to the alternative, whether that alternative be other men or simply not being with someone. Pick up artists use chicanery to make themselves appear superior, but that is a mere illusion. Self-improvement actually makes one better.

This is obviously a very generalized assertion to illustrate a point, but it's also not particularly good in that it reinforces the (bad) notion that women are always looking to trade up in the world and will drop your ass the instant something better comes along. Which is not how things generally work in the real world. Relationships are about finding that special snowflake whom you click with, both on an emotional/maturity/shared interest level, as well as on a timing/circumstances level. PUA presupposes that all women can be reduced to a handful of habits and pavlovian responses, which, while also morally repugnant and...wrong, is also not really a relationship qua relationship.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

To break it down Bloodhound Gang style, we attract mates by appearing to be superior to the alternative, whether that alternative be other men or simply not being with someone. Pick up artists use chicanery to make themselves appear superior, but that is a mere illusion. Self-improvement actually makes one better.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using illusion to make yourself appear to be a better mate than you actually are though. Women do it all the time... make up, high heels, bras that make their breasts look bigger, etc. There are lines that can be crossed... infamous practices such as "negging" for example that are explicitly designed to prey on people with low self esteem... but in a general sense using "chicanery" to make ourselves look better than we are is absolutely standard practice among both genders.

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't deny that some of them do discuss the self-improvement aspect. However, the emphasis for Roosh and for many others is on the quick shortcuts rather than self-improvement. While I am not familiar with the parties you mention, I would guess based solely on their status as pick up artists that their emphasis is primarily upon pick up techniques rather than self-improvement. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that.

To break it down Bloodhound Gang style, we attract mates by appearing to be superior to the alternative, whether that alternative be other men or simply not being with someone. Pick up artists use chicanery to make themselves appear superior, but that is a mere illusion. Self-improvement actually makes one better.

My PUA learning experience is pretty much limited to the two I've mentioned, so I'm not exactly well-read in the PUA universe. Although Neil Strauss and Mystery are both very famous as far as PUA's go (in other words they're mainstream) so if you haven't heard of them then I'm guessing you aren't exactly well-read with PUA's either.

Anyway think of it this way: Most people are not going to make six figures. Most people are not exceptionally attractive. That applies to both men and women.

But some people just can't find a partner at all. I don't think a PUA will make an ordinary guy date supermodels. But sometimes ordinary guys can't even hook up with ordinary women, because the ordinary guy isn't going about it the right way.

Think of one stereotypical example:

The ordinary guy actually makes a decent living, and he works in the computer field. However like most computer guys when he goes home he spends all his time in his house playing video games, and as a result not only is there little chance he will meet women, but the few times he does go out to talk to them he will not even know where to begin. The man already has his 'life' together as far as a decent job. Perhaps he stays out of trouble, doesn't do drugs, etc. But he hasn't learned how to talk to women. A PUA would help him with that. If he were a homeless man instead of who he is, however, he'd have had no value from the start, even after reading PUA material.

If all of that makes any sense.

@owen: I think when they say "women will leave this guy for the guy a little bit better" they are referring to guys at a bar looking for a one night stand. Obviously in established relationships most women (or men for that matter) will not leave their current partner just because they found someone off the street who seems more attractive in some way.

 

[BvBPL]

This is obviously a very generalized assertion to illustrate a point, but it's also not particularly good in that it reinforces the (bad) notion that women are always looking to trade up in the world and will drop your ass the instant something better comes along.

As you say, it is a broad analogy offered to demonstrate the specific point that pick up techniques are engineered to create the illusion of desirability rather than material desirability. It was not offered as a commentary of how women act and should not be read as such.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using illusion to make yourself appear to be a better mate than you actually are though. Women do it all the time... make up, high heels, bras that make their breasts look bigger, etc. There are lines that can be crossed... infamous practices such as "negging" for example that are explicitly designed to prey on people with low self esteem... but in a general sense using "chicanery" to make ourselves look better than we are is absolutely standard practice among both genders.

Preening as a means to be more attractive is fundamentally different from using emotionally manipulative techniques to engender a false rapport as advised by many pick up artists.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Preening as a means to be more attractive is fundamentally different from using emotionally manipulative techniques to engender a false rapport as advised by many pick up artists.

You'll need to tell me which specific techniques you're talking about before I can respond to this.

The (admittedly rather limited since I've never had any interest in the movement) PUA stuff I've read tends to fall into one of two camps:

1. The psychological manipulation. This is the sort of "classic PUA" stuff that everyone is familiar with because it gained a fair amount of mainstream notice due to being objectionable.

2. The helping men do better. This is, in my experience, what the majority of PUAs are about. This includes things like helping men be more confident, helping them understand what women want, helping them understand how to dress and behave in a way that makes them more attractive. This aspect of the PUA movement is in my experience far more common than the first but also not as famous because it's pretty innocuous so nobody pays it any mind.

So I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. I think everyone in this thread agrees that practices like negging are pretty despicable so I'm not sure what we're even supposed to be talking about with this line on inquiry, I don't think there's any difference in opinion to hash out.

 

[Ryika]

This line of yours doesn't leave much to interpretation!

"The day shops stop having cash in their registers is the day shops will no longer be robbed."

I'm still struggling with this idea that shop owners are ultimately at the fault of their being robbed.



It's a purely factual statement. "If the cause of X is no longer there X will no longer happen."

I could also have said "The day men master the art of reading women's mind is the day "sexual harassment" as a byproduct of the dating game is going to be a thing of the past." and it would have been just as valid, but of course to "misunderstand" something there needs to be something to misunderstand in the first place, leading back to the root cause.

You're the only one reading an accusation of "fault" into this.

 

[BvBPL]

However like most computer guys when he goes home he spends all his time in his house playing video games, and as a result not only is there little chance he will meet women, but the few times he does go out to talk to them he will not even know where to begin.

And that's the problem!

The average guy needs to shut off the Xbox, get up off the couch, and get out and socialize. Will it be difficult? Yes. However, that difficulty can be eased by going into low risk situations. Which means socializing in a non-sexual manner. Join the Elks, a running club, a bridge club, the rod & gun, a book club, go to a poetry reading or the theater. Do something in which you are interacting with the opposite sex in a manner
where neither side is thinking sexually. That's how you learn to talk to women, by talking to them in a manner where you are both comfortable. Once you know how to talk to women generally then the rest, the flirting and establishing mutual attraction, is much easier.

How do you ask a woman out? You walk up to her and you say "hey, I'd like to take you out for a beer this Friday." If doing that makes you nervous then the solution is not to mirror her or touch her as a means of establishing a rapport, but by interacting with other women in a non-sexual environment first to cut your teeth as it were and by being confident in yourself.

Plus, if you get out of the house you will have a lot more to talk about and be a more interesting person generally.

You'll need to tell me which specific techniques you're talking about before I can respond to this.

The (admittedly rather limited since I've never had any interest in the movement) PUA stuff I've read tends to fall into one of two camps:

1. The psychological manipulation. This is the sort of "classic PUA" stuff that everyone is familiar with because it gained a fair amount of mainstream notice due to being objectionable.

2. The helping men do better. This is, in my experience, what the majority of PUAs are about. This includes things like helping men be more confident, helping them understand what women want, helping them understand how to dress and behave in a way that makes them more attractive. This aspect of the PUA movement is in my experience far more common than the first but also not as famous because it's pretty innocuous so nobody pays it any mind.

So I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. I think everyone in this thread agrees that practices like negging are pretty despicable so I'm not sure what we're even supposed to be talking about with this line on inquiry, I don't think there's any difference in opinion to hash out.

Well Roosh falls into the former category and he's the subject of thread so there you go.

As for the second category, I still find it skeevy to the point that it is geared towards sex as an end rather than self-improvement or establishing healthy interpersonal relationships. I'm less concerned about the latter category, but I'm also not really sure why anyone would turn to these guys when GQ exists.

 

[Tahuti]

That sounds more like a troll rather than any serious statement, though. I mean one would have to be downright cretinous if he actually thought he will set up local 'tribes' for this plan.

It's an insight into what he actually believes. He tries to conceal it carefully, yet shouts it out eventually.

Tribes are a pathological creation. Whoever is not part of the tribe is to be subjugated to it. To be frank, this could have been used for a lot more nicer stuff like space exploration.

 

[Senethro]

"The day shops stop having cash in their registers is the day shops will no longer be robbed."

I'm still struggling with this idea that shop owners are ultimately at the fault of their being robbed.



It's a purely factual statement. "If the cause of X is no longer there X will no longer happen."

I could also have said "The day men master the art of reading women's mind is the day "sexual harassment" as a byproduct of the dating game is going to be a thing of the past." and it would have been just as valid, but of course to "misunderstand" something there needs to be something to misunderstand in the first place, leading back to the root cause.

You're the only one reading an accusation of "fault" into this.

Thats the thing though, it wouldn't. Men already ignore a woman saying she is not interested, so why would they stop just because they can read her mind? You've even excused the ignoring of "No" in your previous post.

 

[Cheetah]

Speaking for myself, I've found some useful stuff among PUA blogs. I'm pretty grateful for their existence. I used to by shy and completely clueless about how to flirt or engage women in a "sexual" way, so to say. Never had any problems interacting with people, whether men or women, but I just couldn't get past that and to the next stage if I liked someone.

Reading some PUA stuff really did help me in a very real way. Among other things, it was the first place which really discussed and tried to analyse and explain body language, dating (dating activities, locations, etc.), building rapport, and how different body postures are perceived by others. Learning and thinking about all that small stuff really helped. Far more than the suicidal "Just be yourself"-strategy ever did!

That said, the whole PUA community is a very mixed bag. To find the gems I needed to help me develop myself, I had to wade through a lot of misogyny, racism, conspiracy theories, trolls and craziness. I tried to read Roosh sometimes, but never found much of interest there.*

As for this whole meetup thing... I can't bring myself to care too much. This is mostly going to be a joke, with few people showing up. It's not like this will change anything in any way.

* One interesting thing. He had a very fascinating post which turned to some thoughts on women's point-of-view: How It Feels Like To Be A Hot Girl

 

[Cheetah]

Once you know how to talk to women generally then the rest, the flirting and establishing mutual attraction, is much easier.

Nonono! That step right there was really seriously damn hard!

Also, what the hell is GQ?

 

[Tahuti]

Speaking for myself, I've found some useful stuff among PUA blogs.

To my knowledge, most PUA's aren't sexists or MRA's, rather, socially awkward men who like to discuss tricks to grow out of it.

Roosh is definitely a dirtbag.

 

[Farm Boy]

Also, what the hell is GQ?

A yuppie publication. >.> <.< >.>

Srsly though, fashion and style, pop culture. I lump it in with non-pictoral Playboy and Maxim and the like.

 

[Ryika]

Thats the thing though, it wouldn't. Men already ignore a woman saying she is not interested, so why would they stop just because they can read her mind? You've even excused the ignoring of "No" in your previous post.

"as a byproduct of the dating game" - as in "caused by misreading signals".