Susan Walsh, the proprietor of Hooking Up Smart, has named Tucker Max, Roissy, and myself as an unholy triumvirate of “douchebaggery” in her post, “Stop Putting Out for Alpha Asshats“:
Tucker Max is the poster boy for treating women like crap before and after sex to keep them in their place. He may be just a narcissist pig, but he’s practicing the Game as proselytized by Roissy. If Tucker is the Prince of Douchebaggery, then Roissy is the undisputed King.
Roissy’s blog is very successful, as beta males worldwide worship at his altar in hopes of picking up tips for picking up girls. One of his disciples is a guy who calls himself Ferdinand Bardamu and writes the blog In Mala Fide (In Bad Faith).
When I first saw Mrs. Walsh following my Twitter weeks ago, I chalked it up to the sort of mass following that lazy Tweeters engage in by searching for certain keywords. For instance, my quantblogging post demolishing the primary argument for gun control lead to me being followed by a gun-grabber group. But it appears she’s the real deal. Upon reading her entry, I thought: “I’ve only been blogging for four months, and already I’m being targeted in the same breath as more popular writers for Two-Minute Hate Sessions? Hot damn.” After seeing In Mala Fide linked in Mrs. Walsh’s post, I was gearing up into “rip her a new one” mode, but I was stymied when she forced herself to bite the bullet at the end:
Charming, no? Here’s the real problem: Tucker Max, Roissy and Ferdinand Bardamu are right.
These tactics work. The doctrine relies heavily on evolutionary psychology, which states that women prefer alpha males to betas. I disagree with their definition of what constitutes an alpha male, but I frequently hear first-hand accounts of guys finding great success by demeaning and objectifying women. Women are being called whores and delightedly climbing into bed. Men approach women with the pickup line “34C?†and far too many giggle and reply, “32C!â€
Unfortunately, she follows up with this:
It couldn’t be any more clear. If you want a good man who respects you, you’re going to have to keep your knickers on until you find one. You owe it to yourself, and to all the other women who deserve more than utter degradation.
I hate to break it to you, Susan, but it’s not quite that simple. Women’s attraction for guys who are socially dominant is as hardwired as breathing. It’s not a switch you can turn on and off at will.
Susan Walsh, so far as I can tell, is part of the branch of feminism I call “prude feminism,” because its proponents oppose the sexualization in modern culture. This group of feminists is openly courted by conservatives in general and social conservatives in particular because, on the surface, they share the same goals. The prude feminists see themselves as fighting the objectification of women that occurs in the modern West, claiming that the proliferation of porn, epidemic of sluttiness, and other markers of female liberation are not reflective of feminism’s success, but its failure. The queen prophet of prude feminism is Ariel Levy, whose 2005 book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture was quoted approvingly across the right-o-sphere when it was released.
Writers like Levy and Susan Walsh who talk of extricating slut culture from feminism remind me of the Laputan scientist from Gulliver’s Travels who spent all his time trying to turn shit back into food. Their feminism is contradictory and nonsensical. The title of Mrs. Walsh’s site, Hooking Up Smart, says it all. Girls can’t “hook up smart,” because hooking up is by nature an incredibly stupid, sexual market value-killing act. She even acknowledges this, repeatedly citing a statistic that says only twelve percent of hookups lead to relationships. I don’t know about you, but if something only works twelve percent of the time, it might be a good idea to chuck it and start anew.
To her credit, Mrs. Walsh has correctly diagnosed that one of the prime reasons why the “hook up culture” on college campuses exists is the lopsided sex ratio. Thing is, instead of doing the sensible thing and addressing the failure of so many boys to succeed in grade school and make it to college (as Richard Whitmire has pushed for), or better yet, lobbying to fundamentally change the flawed, predatory, and obsolete nature of American higher learning, Susan Walsh spends “40 hours a week for pennies” dispensing dating advice that is at best marginally more useful then the usual stuff. Take for instance, the foolishness on display in her recent article, “What Women Really Want From Men“:
4. When you tease us about our weight, you make us feel completely worthless and disgusting.
It’s about the worst thing a woman can hear. And it makes us want to keep our clothes on.
We wouldn’t rib you if you would just lay off the fucking Doritos.
8. We are incredibly self-conscious about the way we smell.
Believe me, we know better than you do how gross VO can be. If you like the way we taste and smell, please say so. If you don’t have anything nice to say….well, you remember what Mama said. And we promise to keep it clean.
Don’t even THINK about me keeping my mouth shut if your lady parts smell like a fish hatchery. This is 2009. We have soap and water. Use them.
10. We know you enjoy looking at other women.
But it makes us feel terrible if we detect it. When we’re together, please don’t look at other girls.
Your brain says no, your va-jay-jay says “oui”!
11. We’re the generation of women caught between wanting chivalry and wanting independence.
It’s confusing. We are proud to be self-sufficient, but we love it when you act chivalrous and protective.
Any woman who talks about “wanting chivalry” is pig-ignorant about what it entails. Chivalry isn’t so much men treating women well for no other reason then because they have vaginas, but men treating women well because women are social inferiors, akin to the relationship between a master and a slave. Chivalry became obsolete the day women got the right to vote. Ladies, if you want your man to treat you in a “chivalrous and protective” way, you have to reciprocate by shutting the fuck up and doing whatever he says. If that doesn’t appeal to you, then please be quiet on this subject.
16. We can’t resist a guy acting domestic.
Cook us dinner, and you will almost certainly get laid.
Supplication = fail.
18. The things a woman longs to hear:
- You’re the only one I want.
- I’ve never felt like this before.
- You’re all I think about.
But only if you mean it.
Saying any of those things is a one-way ticket to Chump City.
21. I want to know that I’m sexually attractive, even though I’m taken.
I can get that from you, but if you don’t express how hot you think I am, I’ll wind up seeking that validation elsewhere. Don’t make me flirt with other guys.
There is not a woman alive who struggles with figuring out whether she is sexually attractive, and those who claim they do are lying to fish for male sympathy. Do random men stare at you when you’re out in public? Does your man’s man-tool get stiff looking at you naked? If your answer to one or both of those is “yes,” then you’re hot. No words needed.
26. We are incapable of understanding your natural need for sexual variety.
We view it as a direct threat to our femininity and desirability. And we worry that we are just some of that variety, not the real deal. If you are willing to be monogamous with us, let us know asap. It makes a huge difference.
Here’s what I said on this last August:
Shows what you know about male sexuality. Men aren’t women. When we wander off to bang other broads, we do so because we’re:
a) Looking for sexual variety.
b) You don’t want to fuck anymore.
c) Your weight gain has transformed you into a walrus with tits.
d) b and c.
e) All of the above.
You can avoid B and C by laying off the ho-hos and keeping your legs open. As for A, it’s unavoidable if you’re dating an alpha or a greater beta. Take pride in knowing you’re his number one girl.
Oh, I do get a tingle up my spine whenever I quote myself.
27. We love it when you ask us for our opinion or advice.
Men seem so self-sufficient that it’s rewarding when you can use a little help. We’ve been trained to offer support and nurturing since we were two, so let us do that once in a while.
There are a bunch of other posts and points to this effect, but I’d be wasting my time analyzing them all. While she gets some things right, the overall thrust of Susan Walsh’s advice for men could be termed “The Idiot’s Guide to Being a Beta.” If any of the above pointers were rooted in reality, the seduction community and the Roissysphere wouldn’t exist. Like so many writers on this issue, Mrs. Walsh is “not even wrong.” F. Roger Devlin addressed her type of thinking in his now-famous takedown of Wendy Shalit, a writer with a similar oeuvre:
In the environment in which we evolved, the careful choice of a mate was critical to a female’s success in passing on her genes. If her man was not strong enough to be a successful hunter, or not of sufficiently high rank within the tribe to commandeer food from others, her children might be in trouble. The women who were reproductively successful were those with a sexual preference for effective providers. A kind of erotic “tunnel vision” was selected for, which causes women to focus their mating effort on the men at the top of the pack — the “alpha males” with good physical endowments, social rank, and economic resources (or an ability to acquire them). Today the female preference for tall men, to give just one example, no longer makes much sense, but they, and we, are stuck with it.
What women instinctively want is for 99 percent of the men they run into to leave them alone, buzz off, drop dead — while the one to whom they feel attracted makes all their dreams come true. One of the keys to deciphering female speech is that the term “men” signifies for them only the very restricted number of men they find sexually attractive. All the dirty articles in Cosmo about “giving him the sex he craves” and “driving him wild in bed” concern this man of her dreams, who by some amazing coincidence usually turns out to be the man of some other girl’s dreams as well.
During their nubile years, many women are at least as concerned with turning male desire off (i.e., telling the 99 percent to drop dead) as with turning it on (getting Mr. Alpha to commit): they get more offers of attention than they have time to process. Cunning feminists, many of them lesbians, have exploited this circumstance to the hilt, convincing naive young women they are being “harassed.” Quietly observing the furor over so-called harassment during the past two decades, I wondered how these women could fail to realize that the men of whom they were complaining constituted their pool of potential husbands and that they could not afford to alienate all of them. Clearly, I overestimated their intelligence. And Wendy Shalit does not distinguish herself in this respect either; she uses the term “harassment” as freely and uncritically as any man-hating feminist could wish.
Monogamy means that women are not permitted to mate with a man, however attractive, once he has been claimed by another woman. It does not get a more attractive mate for a woman than she would otherwise get; it normally gets her a less attractive one. “Liberated,” hypergamous female mating — i.e., what we have now — is what ensures highly attractive mates for most women. But, of course, those mates “don’t commit” — really, are unable to commit to all the women who desire them. The average woman must decide between having the most attractive “sex partner” possible and having a permanent husband. If she were serious about seeking commitment, in fact, the rational procedure would be to seek out a particularly unattractive man, i.e., one for whom there is the least possible competition. This thought seldom occurs to young women, however.
For an ordinary man to mate with a woman, either (1) he must work himself into her field of erotic vision (e.g., by amassing wealth and achieving status — not by demonstrating that he is “kind” and “respectful of women”); or (2) she must take off the blinders and widen her own field of vision until it includes him. This latter is what I term the “grandmother effect.” Young women used to be routinely advised by their elders not to base their behavior toward men upon sexual attraction, despising ordinary men and immodestly throwing themselves at good-looking, high-status men. Most young women concluded from this that grandma was just too old to understand love.
Mrs. Walsh claims to agree with me and Roissy that women prefer alpha males, but her weak-sauce advice suggests she is not truly cognizant of the problem’s origins. The issue is that the natural female instinct of hypergamy has been heightened in Western society by what Roissy terms “The Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse” (cheap and easily available contraception, no-fault divorce, female economic emancipation, and feminist laws that discourage men from getting married). Contrary to what she claims, the current crisis is not a result of women having too little power, but a result of them having too much power, given to them by feminists and their mangina allies. The “hookup culture” that Susan Walsh derides is itself a product of the Sirens (albeit one of the few where men have the upper hand), as it would be impossible without the Pill and Roe v. Wade. Her hope that “women will own up to not enjoying a steady diet of casual sex, and hold out for something more emotionally satisfying” is as pointless as hoping a snotty brat left to his own devices will stop eating candy and cookies and have some nutritious broccoli. If women can’t even get over the fact that men don’t think like they do, how the hell are they going to adjust their behavior on something as important as this?
Game is nothing more then an adaptation to evolutionary pressures. When you subsidize something, you get more of it, and right now women are being subsidized to choose sexy men – in other words, men with game. If you want to get women to stop chasing alphas and playing the field right up until they hit Wile E. Coyote territory, you need to remove the incentives they have to do so. No-fault divorce, VAWA, welfare, affirmative action – they all gotta go. If you’re unwilling to concede these points, you might as well hang up your spurs.
And this is why “prude feminism” is ludicrous. Its adherents may want the sexual dystopia to end, but because they stubbornly cling to the ideology responsible for its creation, they are left intellectually impotent in the face of reality. Say what you will about sluttastic harpies like Jessica Valenti who write tomes on why chastity is a myth – at least they’re ideologically consistent. Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative recently authored a must-read piece on this subject:
By the 1970s, second wave feminists began to demand sexual liberation. What this meant, in its historical context, was the pursuit of relationships by women without regard to marriage or to male expectations of romantic love.
It’s not surprising, therefore, that feminist women often spoke negatively of women being put on a pedestal (idealised) and of marriage being an oppressive feature of a patriarchy.
And so feminism helped to usher in (with the help of male sexual liberationists like Hugh Hefner) the modern culture we have now, in which many young people are oriented to casual sexual relationships.
But there’s a catch. What do men who are oriented to one night stands look for in a woman? One thing: hotness. That’s what matters most if all you are looking for is sex.
Feminists thought that they could control the outcomes of the sexual revolution in favour of female agency, but many seem to be angrier than ever about a culture of relationships that they themselves largely instigated.
Susan Walsh, you claim that the current culture of women pursuing “alpha asshats” “is NOT what our mothers and grandmothers fought for.” Au contraire, my dear, it is precisely what they fought for – total sexual freedom. What they didn’t realize was that Newton’s Second Law of Motion applies to the sexual marketplace as well as the physical world. The Roissysphere is part of that pushback. We are here to save you girls…save you from yourselves. Harsh taskmasters we are, but you would do well to listen to what we have to say.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Beautiful tour de force, Mr. Bardamu. I was remarkably surprised you were mentioned in the same breath as roissy/Tucker Max, though, and I think that’s really unfair to you.
Correction I would make:
“18. The things a man longs to hear:
You’re the only one I want.
I’ve never felt like this before.
You’re all I think about.
But only if you mean it.”
“21. I want to know that I’m sexually attractive, even though I’m taken.
I can get that from you, but if you don’t express how hot you think I am, I’ll wind up seeking that validation elsewhere. Don’t make me flirt with other guys.”
I agree with her on this one, though, if not her blaming her other half completely for giving her the desire and for her actually flirting with other men. That’s something you’re doing, sister, so do please take responsibility for it.
The idea of my other half talking to me about how hot he finds me (and, expanding on that on a general sexual theme) is hot. That seems very common.
Keep in mind also that Ariel Levy is lesbian, and as such has no personal tie-in to the heterosexual alpha-chasing culture of young women. I remember when I read her book, thinking “how stupid it is for a lesbian to write a book like this, because she clearly doesn’t understand the sexual motivations and dynamic of these young straight women at all”. Nope, not at all. Of course, there *are* some lesbians who are reflective about stuff like this, like female mysoginist, but they’re pretty rare — much more commonly they are clueless about straight women and their motives like Levy is.
The sexual revolution was inevitable once women had political and economic power. Why? Because many women chafed under monogamy. Monogamy is a system that benefits most men and hurts most women, as Devlin states so eloquently. The people who are hurt by the hypergamous polygyny set-up of today are most men and the most attractive women. Most women, and the most sexually attractive men, are the beneficiaries of it. That’s why it happened. Even if women go husbandless, more women today have sexual access in their 20s to “men of their dreams” than they have had in thousands of years. And that is the crux of the sexual revolution. If some women like Walsh don’t like it, all I can say is that they are too late to the party, and that this particular trend isn’t going to be reversed any time soon, because the underlying reasons for it (stated by Roissy and others) are not going away anytime soon themselves. Nope, ladies, you made this bed, and now you get to sleep in it.
Nova:
Monogamy is a system that benefits most men and hurts most women, as Devlin states so eloquently.
I am a big fan of Devlin, but do not agree with this statement.
“Monogamy is a system that benefits most men, and for most women it has less benefits than state/society supported hypergamy”, is the way i’d put it.
I do not see how it is hurting women to have a husband who slaves his life away in order to support her and her kids in an environment where state/social support is non-existent.
today? We got state/social support mainly payed by men, and mainly received by women, so there is a economic/social monogamy between state and women, and a sexual/romantic hypergamy between women and top men, with all men financing it.
26. We are incapable of understanding your natural need for sexual variety.
We view it as a direct threat to our femininity and desirability. And we worry that we are just some of that variety, not the real deal. If you are willing to be monogamous with us, let us know asap. It makes a huge difference.
This worry that they are not the real deal, that they are some sort of variety is mostly seen with promiscuous/ sexually liberated women.
As having been with men under the context of free variety, and having had men just for the sake of variety, they will never be sure of themselves that they are indeed the special one.
Oh, consciously they will come forward as “I am special, treat me special, I deserve this and that” but these are just masks for being just another spice in many men’s sexual soup.
A woman who has not been around the block may also have the same issue, but she will also have the knowledge that her sexuality had not been distributed in the village market, but was (mainly) shared under a romantic roof. Thus this problem will not be as big, as deep in her mind she knows (thinks/feels) that her sexuality has retained value.
I am talking about the value of the woman’s sexuality, not her human value. Though for a man looking for a mother for his kids, these two should be closely related. you dont make babies by discussing problems in Africa.
SHould be “paid” not “payed”…
”””””’11. We’re the generation of women caught between wanting chivalry and wanting independence.
It’s confusing. We are proud to be self-sufficient, but we love it when you act chivalrous and protective.”””””””’
Love it when we can financially benefit and materially benefit and can’t be fired.
Speaking of chivalry, I have a request to make…
STOP REFERRING TO WOMEN IN GENERAL WITH THE WORD “LADIES.”
It is demeaning to the nearly extinct sub-species of modern women that actually still is ladylike.
You’re with the big boys now. *sniff*
You grew up so fast.
BTW, fun post
Damn it, that last comment was from me and it came out anonymous.
[And you apparently can't spell your own name right, either. - ed.]
Her hate is disingenuous as she’s just marketing her book. Following you on twitter was a wink and a nod that she means no real harm. Think pro wrestling.
Ferdinand:
overall good post, but i disagree here.
“18. The things a woman longs to hear:
You’re the only one I want.
I’ve never felt like this before.
You’re all I think about.
But only if you mean it.
One way ticket to chump city”
I believe that women do want their men to feel this way about them. There’s a difference between saying it occasionally or even once and saying it all the time to the point it loses all meaning. exposing vulnerability and true feeling – fleetingly – will endear a woman to you. in my own personal relationships including my current one, i’ve always felt that there’s a barrier that i can’t break through. that barrier is expressing myself as you mention above. if i turned to my woman today, grabbed her in my arms, and told her she means the world to me; we’d have the hottest sex we’ve ever had. she’s *longing* for me to do that. she’s not longing for me to chase after another girl. she wants to feel that my emotional energy is flowing towards her; unfortunately, i’m unable to do that most of the time.
There is no emotional connection in relationships. That’s just as much men’s fault as it is women’s.
I was wondering how long it would take you to reply to Mrs. Walsh.
So many commenters, so little time.
Bhetti:
“I was remarkably surprised you were mentioned in the same breath as roissy/Tucker Max, though, and I think that’s really unfair to you.”
I WAS offended at the Max comparison, but what’s wrong with Roissy? He’s a man of distinction and sophistication, and a damn good writer to boot.
“The idea of my other half talking to me about how hot he finds me (and, expanding on that on a general sexual theme) is hot. That seems very common.”
Getting turned on sexually from being praised by your man isn’t the same thing as needing praise in order to not feel insecure about your desirability. Walsh is implying the latter.
Novaseeker:
“Keep in mind also that Ariel Levy is lesbian, and as such has no personal tie-in to the heterosexual alpha-chasing culture of young women.”
Goddamnit, I forgot about that. If Levy is a lesbian, she’s even more useless then I thought.
Mike T:
“STOP REFERRING TO WOMEN IN GENERAL WITH THE WORD ‘LADIES.’
It is demeaning to the nearly extinct sub-species of modern women that actually still is ladylike.”
I can’t use it sarcastically? Aw, shucks.
Talleyrand:
“You’re with the big boys now. *sniff*
You grew up so fast.”
The Legend of Ferdinand Bardamu grows daily.
Roosh:
“Her hate is disingenuous as she’s just marketing her book. Following you on twitter was a wink and a nod that she means no real harm. Think pro wrestling.”
She doesn’t have a book, unless you saw something on her page I didn’t. And I wouldn’t call what she wrote “hate” – “extreme dislike” would be more accurate.
Chuck:
“I believe that women do want their men to feel this way about them…unfortunately, i’m unable to do that most of the time.”
I’m not 100% opposed to that sort of thing so long as it’s combined with the proper alpha behavior, but that’s not what Walsh is advocating. If one followed her beta advice to the letter, getting all gloopy like that would repulse the woman. Additionally, a certain amount of time in the relationship has to elapse before those statements will work – I’d say a year minimum.
Alkibiades:
“I was wondering how long it would take you to reply to Mrs. Walsh.”
[Newman from Seinfeld voice] “What took you so long?”
i’m always amazed at women with knowledge of “game” theory, who admit it works, but then in the same breath will talk about what women “say they want”…if women wanted what they SAY they wanted, more beta males would get laid, there’d be less divorces, less alimony/child support payments…and chicks would be happy. to quote Chris Rock: “I never met a happy woman in my life.”
Such fucking idiocy.
I’m amazed at how many women, hell, people in general don’t understand that the feeling of WANTING something is not the same as the feeling of GETTING something.
Ah you’re right. Well she is a consultant.
From that woman’s page on “hook ups”
“44% of the time guys have an orgasm during a hookup, while girls have orgasms only 19% of the time.”
I can’t speak to the second number, but are they telling me that these college guys only blow their wads 44% of the time that they have hook up sex? Even though they are doing it with a brand spankin’ new partner? I could see not cumming 1 time out of a 100 if I was really really drunk, but wow. Kid’s today. Sheesh.
I don’t think I believe that stat, unless excessive porn made young men completely impotent. Maybe they are defining hookup in such a ridiculously broad manner that it includes just kissing, or something like that.
Don’t even THINK about me keeping my mouth shut if your lady parts smell like a fish hatchery. This is 2009. We have soap and water. Use them.
Dude,
You cracked me up with that one! I’m going to have to steal that one, and use it when appropriate, hehehe…
MarkyMark
I suppose you can use it sarcastically. I just think it’s a bad idea to encourage them ;)
Anon:
“Maybe they are defining hookup in such a ridiculously broad manner that it includes just kissing, or something like that.”
That IS the definition of “hooking up” – it runs the gamut from making out to blowjobs to full-on sex.
Ferdi, I bow before your greatness, sir! Excellent piece, one definitely for the record books. You gotta archive this one, Man.
While I definitely have my problems with Tucker Max, and will delve into that issue a great deal more in the coming weeks (Obsidian: The Blog, launching Oct 31 2009), I have to openly and freely admit that Asshole Game WORKS.
Yes, that’s right. It works. Emphatically. And one need not be a PUA or a Dating Advice columinist of whatever stripe to see and know this-all you need are your lying eyes. We’ve all known complete and utter jerks who get more ass than the proverbial toilet seat, while the nice guys not ending up finishing last, but they’re feverishly working it out w/the Five Fingers Of Death on a lonely Saturday night in Anywhere USA.
And, as you rightly put it Ferdi, its in the genes. Women are indeed hardwired for this sort of thing, *especially when they’re younger*, ie, btw say, 20 and 30 or so. Truthfully, I think its a lifelong thing. A few examples, ripped from the Obsidian Files, will suffice.
Just last night I had to resort to a bit of Asshole Game w/my Woman, Brown Sugah. Like virtually every Woman I’ve ever had, she goes off the rails at least once a month, and I have to set things straight again. Last night was no exception. After giving me a day’s worth of snarky text messages and playing “hide and seek makeout”, I abruptly ended the session and turned to watch the tv. When she tried to touch me, I violently shrugged her off and kept watching the tv (btw, Michael Clayton is a very interesting movie, check it out if you haven’t already). In Game parlance, this is known as a “Freeze Out”, and trust me when I tell ya fellas, IT WORKS.
Brown Sugah sat there, befuddled for a few minutes, then slowly rose up from the bed and walked aimlessly around the house. Then, as she washed dishes, she started crying.
I wasn’t moved in the slightest. I let her stew in her shit for an hour, then went back to Good Cop and consoled her. The resultant hummer rivaled Vanessa Del Rio’s.
Second story…a true one:
My grandfather was a Good Man in every sense of the word; a true Virgo Gentleman. But he happened to be married to a firecracker of a lady in my grandmother, and I could only imagine what she was like when they were youner and courting. He should have gotten an award just for simply marrying her in the first place, and I say that out of sheer love for both of em, lol.
Anyway, one day while at the dinner table, my grandmother was really on the rag and on a tear, bithing up a storm. She had been at it nonstop for at least a half and hour. When it got to the 45 minute mark, my grandfather, a Man I’d known all my life, who didn’t believe in whipping his own kids (RARE in the Black community let me tell you, especially bck in the 50s-60s) and was always, always, always a most concilliatory guy-turned into the Incredible Hulk.
Out of nowhere, he smashed his fist on the glass dinner table and bellowed “ENOUGH!!!” the table? Toast. Had a big assed crack that ran the full length of it. My grandmother? That was the first and only time I saw a Black Woman turn as white as a sheet. Her haughty, snarky tone was completely gone, replaced w/a barely audible mousy whisper, begging my grandfather to calm down and that she was sorry. I could see the veins in my grandfather’s neck bulging. That shit scared me.
We ate in silence, and directly afterward, my grandad got up from the table and went upstairs, followed closely behind by my grandmother.
I don’t know if old folks screw or not, and I certainly wasn’t trying to find out if my grandparents did, but I do know this: had they been my age at the time, and knowing what I do today about Human Nature, they’d be humping like rabbits.
My point? That you simply cannot be too nice w/Women. They can and will see it as a fundamental weakness, even though, in a modern and advanced world, such reasoning, if one can call it that, makes about as much sense as their liking for exclusively tall guys. Nevertheless, its TRUE. And the Freeway of Love is littered with the corpses of Nice Guys who didn’t know the rules of the road.
I am philosophically opposed to Asshole Game; at heart, I’m a chip off the ole block that was my grandfather. But I see and realize a simple, yet profound truth: Nice Guy=Supplication=Beta Male=Five Fingers Of Death. The ONLY way you can be a nice guy and get away with it, is to, every once in awhile, let your Woman know that you can and will go Rambo on her or anyone else who fucks with you. Not only do Women respect this, it makes them dripping wet.
Women like the one you wrote about above Ferdi, can afford to write the things they do, because it in no way is connected with their ability to get Dick On Demand; simply put, there’s a reason why Witchcraft and the Paranormal are such hue draws for Women, while hard sciences and High-Tech are such huge draws for Men, and Game is no different. The reasons why are simple: Women really don’t need “Game”-all they need is to be hot, be feminine, and be available, and the line will soon form to the left.
For guys, unless they were born w/the rarified Alpha Gene, they need to figure out ways and methods that actually net him poon and the chance to win the evolutionary arms race-or, he’s toast. Game exists because Men HAVE to figure Women out. Women don’t HAVE to figure Men out, at least until they hit their Wile E. Coyote Moment. All a Woman’s gotta do, as Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton showed the world so very well, is lay back, and spread her legs.
As we all know here, but ladies like the topic of this post either don’t, can’t, or won’t accept, is that the sexual marketplace is as real, and for my money, even moreso, than anything Wall Street could cobble together. Because the stakes are so high and impactful, not a lot of abstract concepts and Fed Chairman speak. And when it comes to the sexual marketplace, Women set the price-Men, mostof them anyway, have really only one of two options: “buy” at the going rate, or, refuse to buy. Like most consumers, most Men would rather pay a little more than go without.
Natural Alphas and Men w/Game, though, have a third option-they can haggle over the price that Women set. In fact, that’s how I see Game-the extent to which you, as a Man, can negotiate for a better deal with the seller. Until very recently in the sexual marketplace history, it was a Seller’s Market. Noawadays, with the advent of Game, things done changed-it’s a Buyer’s Market for those who are saavy enough.
Asshole Game, much as I may personally dislike it, is the “negotiations with a lightsaber” of the entire system. And again, I have to say, it works.
No doubt.
If Women don’t want assholes winning out, they can change that situation overnight. But, as you said Ferdi, we guys and the only ones that are led around by their nether regions.
The Obsidian
Contrary to what she claims, the current crisis is not a result of women having too little power, but a result of them having too much power, given to them by feminists and their mangina allies.
Don’t forget the role played by… wait for it… ALPHA MALES. How did the women receive power? By those who already were in power giving it to them. And who occupied positions of power in pre-sexual-revolution America? Alpha males! Who decided Roe v. Wade? Supreme Court Justices–i.e., alpha males. Who passed the no-fault divorce laws? Elected legistlators–i.e., alpha males. The list goes on.
The “hookup culture†that Susan Walsh derides is itself a product of the Sirens (albeit one of the few where men have the upper hand), as it would be impossible without the Pill and Roe v. Wade.
Which is why misandric social conservatives deludedly claim that contraception and abortion really represent male power over women.
Hermes:
“Don’t forget the role played by… wait for it… ALPHA MALES…The list goes on.”
I thought I covered that adequately with “mangina allies.” And not all feminists are women. The alpha feminists you write of are like John Dolan described here:
“Because — and this was another wrinkle I, like Dworkin, was far too naive to grasp — most meanstream men were in on the joke too. They were, in fact, more aware of what a joke it was than the young women students who in many cases, truly thought they believed their own clenched-fist chantings. The male response to 70s feminism was horror from old fools like Mailer, but a tolerant smile from the cool dudes whose job it was to disarm and fuck the feisty ladies. Their stance was a slightly more subtle, coy version of “you’re so cute when you’re mad, honey.”"
Fair enough, I just didn’t think “mangina” could refer to alpha males. I thought “mangina” meant beta, herb, etc. The wispy, limp-wristed, latte-sipping, hummus-munching SWPLs who date my female classmates, white-knightingly reassuring them that of COURSE they agree it’s a travesty that LGBTQ persons don’t have the same rights as the rest of us and they hope Obama will put the evil insurance companies out of business.
Interesting point about alpha feminists, though. I haven’t considered the possibility of such men existing much before, but it does make sense that when feminism was ramping up, there were alpha men who said to themselves, “well, I don’t really believe any of this, but it looks like it will get me even more tail while the nerds and losers get even less, so I’m all for it.”
Incidentally, this brings to mind a topic that would probably make a good blog post/essay in and of itself: the beta who supports feminism and the sexual revolution out of the mistaken belief that it benefits “men” by allowing them greater access to sex, and thus benefits him as a man. Just as women really mean “alphas” when they complain about “men.” It’s kind of like the complaint the left is always making about how working-class Americans refuse to support higher taxes on the rich, which would supposedly be in their own interest, because they mistakenly believe that someday they will enter the ranks of the rich and won’t want to pay those taxes when that day comes. These betas support the new order because they see themselves as the men who are freed from sexual confinement to one woman, ignoring the fact that they are currently getting NOTHING and would be better off under the pre-sexual-revolution system in which they’d at least be getting regular sex with a devoted wife.
Ferdinand, coming back from two weeks abroad and finding your post is like sitting down to a good crossword puzzle. I enjoy the dialogue, as well as the challenge. Let me say right off that you have my respect. I recently stumbled across your blog through a Google alert, and found it well researched and well written. I follow you on Twitter because I am interested in what you have to say. Although I don’t agree with all of it, I believe you’d be surprised how frequently we’re on the same page. I had no need to bite the bullet to validate Game. We’re fighting for the same thing in different ways, with different populations. You’re on the getting laid side, I’m on the relationship side. For what it’s worth, I consider you a formidable force to be reckoned with.
I don’t really see you, Roissy and T. Max as an unholy triumvirate, though the religious symbolism is appealing. You are indeed a disciple, working tirelessly to spread the gospel of Roissy (or is it Mystery?), a doctrine that has successfully captured the hearts and minds of a great number of youngish men (though not all of mankind, as one might suppose from reading your blogs). And why shouldn’t you spread the Word? As I acknowledge in my own writing, Game works. It is awesomely effective. When a guy writes to me and tells me all he wants is to get laid, I’ll be more than happy to point him to Roissy, or you.
A little bit about where I’m coming from: As roosh pointed out, I’m a management consultant. My background is primarily in economics and marketing, two disciplines that lend themselves very well to analyzing relationships. I’m 53, mother of a 22 year-old son and 20 year-old daughter, married for 25 years to a man who was most definitely born beta. His high IQ, work ethic, and education enabled him to climb the social ladder and enjoy high mating value in his mid-20s, which is when I met him. It was parenting that got me interested in hookup culture (and Tom Wolfe’s “I Am Charlotte Simmons). I write Hooking Up Smart because I love to do it, and because a lot of people respond to it. Not so much for the pennies, though I’d be happy to buy you a cup of coffee next time you’re in Boston. One reader told me I’m like “a mom without the “I told you so.â€â€ That sums it up pretty well.
Game is marketing. Plain and simple. As a strategy, it is effective in helping men to get laid. I believe one commenter on Roissy said, “this blog is all about screwing.â€
You describe yourself as an average-looking guy. Let’s say you’re a physical 5 and a mental 9 or 10. (I won’t ask you if your teeth are white and straight, or if you have six-pack abs, or a great head of hair with no sign of recession, because I don’t want to hurt your feelings.) You went through high school and college feeling like you didn’t exist for girls. Maybe you even got laughed at. You were a virgin a lot longer than you’d like to admit. Frat rats and dumb jocks got all the ass. Eventually, you got mad as hell, and you decided you weren’t going to take it anymore. Who could blame you?
Enter Roissy. Roissy has the answer. Women like being dominated. It’s true. We all do, to some extent, at least some of the time. Though Roissy was inspired by The Story of O, my favorite example is Lina Wertmuller’s Swept Away (1974, don’t bother with the Madonna remake). Though this film infuriated feminists, I’ve never known a woman who wasn’t seriously turned on by the working man’s debasing treatment of the socialite when the tables are turned and she must rely on him for survival.
Women do penalize guys for being too kind or respectful. See “Why Nice Guys Ignore the Girls They Like:â€
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/06/11/hookinguprealities/why-nice-guys-ignore-the-girls-they-like/
We’re agreed, a good dose of game is good strategy.
What I don’t understand about Game is how it could possibly work in the long-term. It’s one thing to spend every night having sex, swearing off marriage and exulting in your dominance over women when you’re 25.
Do you really see yourself pulling ass in bars for the next 40 years? Who do you think will lap up your technique when you’re 50, assuming you’re not worth millions? Even Roissy, pretty boy though he is, will have trouble in a few more years if he’s not showing up in a limo.
Do you not want sons? For that matter, do you not want smart sons?
If you had a daughter, born in this era of equalish rights for women, would you celebrate her being utterly degraded sexually? Would you applaud her limping home with a bloody rectum? Would you endorse some guy tossing her a towel and telling her she needs to wipe his cum off her face?
Do you feel any desire to be loved in this life by a woman, and to love her unreservedly in return?
Do you not understand that the best, mind-blowingest sex requires more than a physical joining?
Do you ever crave the companionship of a female who is smart, interesting or funny? Someone, in other words, whose IQ may top Roissy’s limit of 120? Do you not have women friends who are all these things but only average looking? And do you never develop feelings of any kind for them?
Wake up guys, for the geek shall inherit the earth. Geez, look around you. Who do you think is running the show? In the 23 years I have spent raising my children, I have been surrounded by other couples, most of whom have only been married to each other. Many of them met in graduate school. Almost every single successful man in my own social milieu is a beta. They’re the professional class and the thinkers. They are socially dominant and have considerable economic resources. Most of them are average looking. All of them are smart. And they didn’t have to spend ten years as man whores to find good sex. (By the way, as an interesting aside, some very ordinary looking people have absolutely gorgeous kids, and some very unathletic dads find themselves with jocks for sons. Betas sire Alphas, and vice versa. The genetic dice are wonderfully unpredictable.)
As I said in my post, Roissy sums it up best:
“You get what you give, ladies. Give your pussies to assholes, you’ll get nothing but assholes in return.â€
That’s what Hooking Up Smart is all about.
And as F. Roger Devlin says (wait, wasn’t that Cary Grant’s character in Notorious?):
“For an ordinary man to mate with a woman, either (1) he must work himself into her field of erotic vision (e.g., by amassing wealth and achieving status — not by demonstrating that he is “kind†and “respectful of womenâ€); or (2) she must take off the blinders and widen her own field of vision until it includes him.”
You’re working on number 1. Hooking Up Smart is all about number 2.
We both want the same thing.
i guess i’d be identified as a “prude feminist”.
here’s my question regarding sexual market value;
a woman is considered highly valuable in that market if she looks hot, acts hot and performs hotly in bed.
she will be the woman men in that market want.
women who are tame and appear low-key will not even get looked by ANY guy, what to speak of the cute ones.
how can you say that a woman’s sexual market value goes DOWN the more she sleeps around?
its a SEXUAL market, not a RELATIONSHIP or MARRIAGE market. her value can only go up in a sexual market, the more she is, well, SEXUAL.
again, there is no incentive to be a good girl.
ALL the boys are drooling after the wild ones.
Interesting that no man here answered Susan Walsh’s questions. Guess y’all aren’t thinking that far ahead.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
You’re an idiot. The sexual marketplace covers all forms of sexual interaction between men and women, including relationships and marriage. A woman’s value comes from her beauty and ability to leverage said beauty into a long-term relationship with the most valuable male she can get – it has nothing to do with “acting hot” or “performing hotly in bed” (female sexual experience is massively overrated). Guys love sluts for a roll between the sheets, but no sane man will knowingly marry one – meaning that once her beauty is gone, she’ll have nothing to show for her efforts.
Click “The disease is in your genes, part deux” above for my response.
Hahahahaha…
FB, I saw your name on the next reply to Dont think dont speak, I knew I was in a treat. the first sentence made me burst outloud.
Female solipsism indeed.
They cannot fathom that preselection does not work for men.
its a SEXUAL market, not a RELATIONSHIP or MARRIAGE market. her value can only go up in a sexual market, the more she is, well, SEXUAL.
Thinking like a female.
Let me explain,
Her value does not go up in a sexual market, her availability goes up, and that is that. Availability. Not value.
A man unlike a woman, enjoys sex with a chaste woman more than a well performing slut.
The best blowjob cannot match the pleasure of sleeping with a girl who has valued her sexuality.
and no, been there, heard that, fought over that, sluts do not value their sexuality, no matter how selective, etc they are, no matter if it was a choice or not.
Bardi’s under 30?
Probably why he doesn’t understand women (over 30).
Walsh is speaking from a mature woman’s point of view. We don’t want men to cheat on us. We want their loyalty.
I dumped a dude just for his consistent looking at other chicks in my presence. I let it slide once or twice but when it started happening daily, and he made no effort to conceal it out of respect for my presence, he was gone.
I know several women who divorced their husbands due to cheating.
Unless we are in a pre-agreed, open, polyamorous relationship (all he had to do was ask , but he kept insisting he wanted monogamy), no, it’s not alright to date other women or openly lust after them.
Mature women like things clear cut.
Don’t know what the bar-hoppers are into…..
{ 6 trackbacks }