Roosh V, Pro-Rape Pick Up Artist, Announces Worldwide 'Tribal Meetings'

[butchersapron]

"Of course, warfare and violence are not the only factors that sustain a social environment favourable for patriarchy, but it is still the major factor. Just compare the war ridden regions of the world to our peaceful and prosperous urban centers, which is more patriarchal? Even exceptions like Saudi Arabia—which have been a relatively peaceful society—has only been able to prop up its patriarchal rule through strict religious dogma and brute force. And even they are finally succumbing to changes"

This would be news to the patriarchal societies that have developed over the majority of the world in conditions of - at worst - localised conflicts. Rather, stability that can be enforced by power (of various means, religious, access to resources, territory etc) is the norm for patriarchal societies. This goon has confused what a few decades with the whole of human history. Oh yeah, and monkeys for humans.

 

[Rebelda]

"Of course, warfare and violence are not the only factors that sustain a social environment favourable for patriarchy, but it is still the major factor. Just compare the war ridden regions of the world to our peaceful and prosperous urban centers, which is more patriarchal? Even exceptions like Saudi Arabia—which have been a relatively peaceful society—has only been able to prop up its patriarchal rule through strict religious dogma and brute force. And even they are finally succumbing to changes"

Brute force = peaceful? What a fucking numbskull.

 

[phildwyer]

It really isn't, though. It is just people trying to market the same thing (or rather a proclaimed shortcut to the same thing) to a group that has nearly always existed, and been offered similar get-laid-quick schemes, in every human society.

No, this is new. The combination of the internet and legal equality for women has made it possible.

Well, it's also pretty old tbh. The philosophy expounded by Roosh et al is essentially postmodern stoicism. Fortune is a woman, virtue is a man and so forth. It's as if Marcus Aurelius had been reborn as a fratboy.

 

[frogwoman]

We humans today are witnessing a rising prevalence of homosexuality and other sexual deviances just as our society is becoming more and more urbanized and hostile to masculinity. The urban centers which we humans live in can be viewed as cages where we are sheltered. And as our society turns increasingly gynocentric like the bonobos, we can expect to see increasing number of men transform into effeminate homosexuals and future Caitlyn Jenners. Note how most sex changes are from men to women and not the other way around.

 

[frogwoman]

Not surprisingly, women too are capitalizing on men’s sexual desire by feeding on male attention using social media, using them as drones to do their bidding, and also by keeping them thirsty and desperate enough to enter marriage voluntarily for further exploitation. Women today want all the benefits of living in a bonobo-style matriarchy while using men as utilities to be exploited. This sort of arrangement allows women to eat their cake and have it too while men are left fighting for the crumbs. And after a while, many men will lose hope and end up becoming dreadfully frustrated, with some resorting to suicide or—on the extreme end—going on a killing spree.

This is so fucking weird. Wtf

 

[bimble]

Bonobos have more fun.

 

[phildwyer]

That's pretty much the essence of the "Roosh V manifesto". Before feminism, women needed a man to provide for them, so they picked one who would be "a good provider" even if they didn't fancy him as much as the "bad boy". Now they are independent, they don't need a "provider" so they are free to shag the bad boy. Of course they can also keep a "provider" on the side, on "short rations", while shagging bad boys to their heart's content. Best of all is if they manage to get the "provider" to marry them. Then they can keep on shagging bad boys and there's nothing the provider can do about it other than hand over 50% or more of his assets (much more if there are children involved) or go postal.

Yes. But what really seems to pique their outrage is the idea (and indeed the practice) that women should have sex with "alpha bad boys" until they "hit the wall," and then settle down with a "beta provider." (Note that their vocabulary is drawn from the study of apes, this betrays the Social Darwinist origin of their thought).

Once again, it apparently escapes them that men have always practiced such amoral sexual behavior.

 

[bimble]

Sure.

Hypergamy is the true sexual desire of heterosexual women (obviously there are exceptions etc.). Before feminism allowed women to express their sexuality openly, hypergamy was covert. Thus the myth that women are attracted to "nice guys" was sustainable among men (and therefore, pre-feminism, in society at large).

Post-feminist women see no need to equivocate about the sexual desire, and thus hypergamy is practiced and discussed openly today.

Roosh and his ilk are outraged at what they see as modern women's hypocrisy. "How dare women omit moral considerations from their sexuality" they chorus.

But they are hypocrites to do so. Because as they openly admit, their own sexuality also omits moral considerations, being concentrated entirely on physical characteristics.

One way of looking at this would be to say that men are just learning a truth that women have always known: ethical considerations have no place in sexuality.

This hypergamy word, outside of the MRA world it just means people marrying 'above their station', right?

 

[phildwyer]

This hypergamy word, outside of the MRA world it just means people marrying 'above their station', right?

Aye. Basically the idea that women are sexually attracted by male dominance.

 

[irf520]

The philosophy expounded by Roosh et al is essentially postmodern stoicism. Fortune is a woman, virtue is a man and so forth. It's as if Marcus Aurelius had been reborn as a fratboy.

Funny you should say that. This guy:

Quintus Curtius

is one of Roosh's buddies, and he writes books on Stoicism.

 

[phildwyer]

This is bollocks. I agree with a lot of the 'it always was so' but you lost me with 'before feminism'. Really that is bollocks. if what you say were even a bit true, places like Iceland would be exploding. They're not.

Iceland exploding is a nice image.

But I beg to differ regarding the impact of feminism. Feminism has made it acceptable for women to express and pursue their true sexual desires, probably for the first time in human history (on any large scale).

It will be interesting to observe the influence of this fact on male behavior. I have a nasty feeling that Roosh is a straw in the wind

 

[phildwyer]

Funny you should say that. This guy:

Quintus Curtius

is one of Roosh's buddies, and he writes books on Stoicism.

Fortune is a woman amigo, forget it at your peril.

 

[bimble]

Aye. Basically the idea women are sexually attracted by male dominance.

thats what you meant by "female sexuality"?? Your whole post up there reads quite Roosh-like I think.

 

[phildwyer]

thats what you meant by "female sexuality"?? Your whole post up there reads quite Roosh-like I think.

I do believe that women are sexually attracted by male dominance, I think that's pretty obvious actually.

My point however is that men are sexually attracted by women's bodies. Which is just as amoral, and arguably worse.

Therefore, I argue, Roosh and his like are blind hypocrites, vainly attempting to apply ethics to sexuality--which is a pointless exercise. If you like, it is a version of the "double standard."

 

[kabbes]

People are sexually attracted by whatever their particular combination of environment, upbringing and genetics happens to have triggered within them. There is certainly debate about where the balance lies between those factors. But I really don't think you can boil down to "women are sexually attracted by" any particular thing.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

"Of course, warfare and violence are not the only factors that sustain a social environment favourable for patriarchy, but it is still the major factor. Just compare the war ridden regions of the world to our peaceful and prosperous urban centers, which is more patriarchal? Even exceptions like Saudi Arabia—which have been a relatively peaceful society—has only been able to prop up its patriarchal rule through strict religious dogma and brute force. And even they are finally succumbing to changes"

If he thinks Saudi Arabia is such a paradise, I suggest he not let the doorknob hit him on the ass on the way out. I have an idea though that if he tried his shit there, he'd end up with his balls cut off.

 

[bimble]

People are sexually attracted by whatever their particular combination of environment, upbringing and genetics happens to have triggered within them. There is certainly debate about where the balance lies between those factors. But I really don't think you can boil down to "women are sexually attracted by" any particular thing.

Ye, dont really know where to start with Dwyer's post.. Maybe by suggesting that if for a thousand years women have had their lives determined by the status of the men they 'belong to' (their fathers then their husbands) it's not surprising that status is still attractive, however that's measured.
But that's not the same thing as finding 'male dominance' sexy.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I do believe that women are sexually attracted by male dominance, I think that's pretty obvious actually."

How is it obvious?

 

[camouflage]

No, this is new. The combination of the internet and legal equality for women has made it possible.

Well, it's also pretty old tbh. The philosophy expounded by Roosh et al is essentially postmodern stoicism. Fortune is a woman, virtue is a man and so forth. It's as if Marcus Aurelius had been reborn as a fratboy.

Similar to your point I think...



Actually attributed to Ghenghis Khan... although the Mongol attitude toward women was probably more er... progressive than the likes of Roosh et al, as Mongol women lived in the saddle with a bow in hand as the men did.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Sure.

Hypergamy is the true sexual desire of heterosexual women (obviously there are exceptions etc.). Before feminism allowed women to express their sexuality openly, hypergamy was covert. Thus the myth that women are attracted to "nice guys" was sustainable among men (and therefore, pre-feminism, in society at large).

Post-feminist women see no need to equivocate about the sexual desire, and thus hypergamy is practiced and discussed openly today.

Roosh and his ilk are outraged at what they see as modern women's hypocrisy. "How dare women omit moral considerations from their sexuality" they chorus.

But they are hypocrites to do so. Because as they openly admit, their own sexuality also omits moral considerations, being concentrated entirely on physical characteristics.

One way of looking at this would be to say that men are just learning a truth that women have always known: ethical considerations have no place in sexuality.

I fundamentally disagree with nearly everything in this post.

 

[phildwyer]

Ye, dont really know where to start with Dwyer's post.. Maybe by suggesting that if for a thousand years women have had their lives determined by the status of the men they 'belong to', their fathers then their husbands, it's not surprising that status is still attractive, however that's measured.
But that's not the same thing as finding 'male dominance' sexy.

Yes it is. Unless you're going to quibble about a difference between "status" and "dominance?"

 

[phildwyer]

How is it obvious?

By observation.

 

[kabbes]

By observation.

Confirmation bias.

 

[butchersapron]

Confirmation bias.

If they confirm my bias, they're evidence.

 

[phildwyer]

People are sexually attracted by whatever their particular combination of environment, upbringing and genetics happens to have triggered within them. There is certainly debate about where the balance lies between those factors. But I really don't think you can boil down to "women are sexually attracted by" any particular thing.

Of course there are exceptions, no-one denies that (except maybe Roosh). But in general, as a general rule, and in general terms, women are attracted to men because of status--whether that is expressed in terms of money, fame, intelligence, popularity or charisma.

Men on the other hand have little sexual interest in women for such reasons. They (again the above qualifications apply) are primarily sexually attracted by women's bodies.

There is little point in condemning either gender for their sexuality, as Roosh and company do, for ethics have never played a role in determining sexual preference and I doubt that they ever will.

 

[bimble]

Yes it is. Unless you're going to quibble about a difference between "status" and "dominance?"

Err.. Roosh & co teach that men should dominate women, in every way, that they should not listen to them, should not treat them as people at all, and that women find that sort of thing irresistable.
That's not at all the same as saying that it's easier to pull if you have relatively high status in your given society, be that physical strength, wealth, respect, power or whatever, is it.

 

[camouflage]

By observation.

I suspect your observations reflect the results you get by the specific words you type into google when you've the house to yourself.

 

[phildwyer]

Err.. Roosh & co teach that men should dominate women, in every way, that they should not listen to them, should not treat them as people at all, and that women find that sort of thing irresistable.
That's not at all the same as saying that it's easier to pull if you have relatively high status in your given society, be that physical strength, wealth, respect, power or whatever, is it.

That's right. That's why Roosh is a twit (among many other reasons).

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Err.. Roosh & co teach that men should dominate women, in every way, that they should not listen to them, should not treat them as people at all, and that women find that sort of thing irresistable.
That's not at all the same as saying that it's easier to pull if you have relatively high status in your given society, be that physical strength, wealth, respect, power or whatever, is it.

Often its just the difference between people who have something going on in their lives and those who don't. I've met many men that would otherwise be acceptable, not have anything to say because they do nothing in their lives other than eat take-out and play video games. Someone who goes out and actually does things (anything) is going to be more interesting to talk to by default.

 

[Idris2002]

By observation.

My (female) French colleague once said to me, "polyandry has always existed, women just don't tell men about it".