Neomasculinity

[MMX2010]

Roosh has posted a massive article defining what Neomasculinity is.  My best summary is that Neomasculinity is a very large, whole-life approach towards being a man in these unique modern times. 

 

http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-neomasculinity

 

Neomasculinity combines traditional beliefs, masculinity, and animal biology into one ideological system. It aims to aid men living in Westernized nations that lack qualities such as classical virtue, masculinity in males, femininity in females, and objectivity, especially concerning beauty ideals and human behavior. It also serves as an antidote for males who are being programmed to accept Western degeneracy, mindless consumerism, and immoral state authority. The purpose of this article is to list and describe the principal doctrines of neomasculinity.

[Archimedes]

Sounds to me he is rebranding the talking points of the manosphere in order to create a following. I'm not really a fan of Roosh. He seems so narcissistic. Check out his latest video in which he asserts that he is the father of the manosphere and that he wants to be an elder and a captian. Sorry, not going to happen. We don't need another ideology with a predefined set of values that others have to adhere to. We are living in a different time in which more an more people decide their own value system. I guess people like him who are looking for a group to control will have a hard time adjusting to it. 

[MMX2010]

Sounds to me he is rebranding the talking points of the manosphere in order to create a following. I'm not really a fan of Roosh. He seems so narcissistic. Check out his latest video in which he asserts that he is the father of the manosphere and that he wants to be an elder and a captian. Sorry, not going to happen. We don't need another ideology with a predefined set of values that others have to adhere to. We are living in a different time in which more an more people decide their own value system. I guess people like him who are looking for a group to control will have a hard time adjusting to it. 

 

It's interesting that you see his invitation to men to adopt his list of standards, under the premise that every man who adopts them will become much happier - (and if not, he can just do his own thing) - as controlling.  And it's interesting that you see him "as some sort of narcissist". 

[Archimedes]

Why is it interesting?

[MMX2010]

Why is it interesting?

 

Because practically no one believes, "Hi, my name is John.  This is a list of things I do that work really well for me; you should try them out and see if they work for you, too!  And if they don't work for you, I'm sorry about that." is either: (1) controlling behavior, nor (2) evidence of narcissism. 

[Archimedes]

barbar wrote a good article describing the Roosh fiasco: http://sheddingoftheego.com/?p=397

[MMX2010]

barbar wrote a good article describing the Roosh fiasco: http://sheddingoftheego.com/?p=397

 

What parts do you think are most important? 

[PatrickC]

barbar wrote a good article describing the Roosh fiasco: http://sheddingoftheego.com/?p=397

 

I've been knocking around the manosphere for some time now and none of this really suprises me. I'm no particular fan of Roosh and his Neomasculine approach, other than enjoying some of his commentary about the culture men find themselves in. Also his recognition that the Left are one of the biggest enemies of men. However, there were other PUA guys before Roosh, names of which escape me now, but they did exist, same with MGTOW too. It could be argued that Stefan himself coined the red pill phrase way back in 2005 too. Although you generally find that people often use the same cultural references in unison when new ideas get discussed, so it's probably a moot point.

 

I tend to have an uneasy (silent) relationship with many of the different hues and opinions that goes on in the manosphere. But I still find it deeply fascinating all the same. However, whilst it's true that MGTOW have always had an uneasy relationship with the PUA. Lately it seems many of its bigger and now lesser exponents of MGTOW have been busy doing hit pieces on anyone that offers them the slightest of criticism. Their own criticism tends to nearly always descend into venomous name calling, baseless assertions and confirmation bias. Their shrillness in defending themselves only gives away how panicy, irresolute and unsure of their position they are. Mostly coming from those that call themselves 'anti tradcons' or 'anti traditionalists'. Of course not all exponents of MGTOW feel this way, it's mainly coming from the more vocal ones and the ones of their audience.

 

So it seems the manosphere is on the virge of a split. A lesser known split occured between the reactosphere and the manosphere. But that seemed to split with far less venom and a lot more gentlemanly like. Arguably their differences were far more controversial too. I have no idea what will happen to MGTOW, but compared with all the other ideas that get discussed on the manosphere, MGTOW seems to have very little to offer men, other than just opting out (Spetsnaz excepted). In terms of progress, I see very little coming from the MGTOW community, which is probably why Roosh sees it as disappearing altogether in the future.

 

All said and done, this is just my opinion. Arguments like this are to be expected amongst men. One thing men tend to have on their side (biologically) is a healthy dose of realism followed by a pragmatic search for the most effective solution for themselves. So we'll see I guess.

[Frosty]

My impression of Roosh has always been that he's basically just a glorified pick-up artist, he has the same kind of problems with his world view and definition of neomasculinity as every other PUA, it's gynocentric. It puts women at the centre of his world and defines masculinity as whatever gets you the most women, ignoring the fact that female sexual strategy is to use their naturally high SMV in order to extract the most resources from men. In essence he's saying "these are all the hoops that women demand you jump through, and I'll show you how to best do that", that's the perfect strategy for getting more hoops.

 

This neo-masculinity appeals to nature and traditionalism which seems a bit silly considering that human civilization is changing extremely quickly and nature/evolution has not had time to adapt yet, evolution is a very slow mechanism which takes many generations to make any significant biological changes. Our environment is evolving around us at a pace so great that even inside just 1 generation we see completely new paradigms for dating, human interactions and sexual relationships. What traditionally applied in nature doesn't apply any more, the wealthiest man is no longer the man who can carry the biggest deer on his back but the banker who can make the best investments, facial symmetry or hourglass figures won't tell you if a woman is going to use the force of the state to rob you of your money after a few years of marriage. These are static strategies that will only fail more and more as modern society evolves and diverges from our biological roots.

 

As for the MGTOW side of things, his assertion is that it will die in 10 years, however the reality is that all the evidence shows that MGTOW and interest in MGTOW is growing at an exponential rate, what people seem to fail to understand is that MGTOW is reactionary to the circumstance we find ourselves in, it's adaptive. Providing that society stays gynocentric there will be a steady stream of men either going their own way by choice and good decision making, in addition there will also always be the inevitably burned out husks of men who crashed and burned in the system, divorce is at an all time high and increasing. Stats for MGTOW growth here - http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=MGTOW

 

MGTOW isn't here to fix society or create healthy relationships, it's not here to protect the family unit and ensure a good environment for children, it doesn't value the propagation of the species, it doesn't value family units or even healthy relationships with women, it's not here as a force for the greater good. It's about what is good for you, put yourself first above others, to be independent, self reliant and mitigate the damage that modern society and especially women have on your lifestyle, to give you the most control of your future as you can possibly have. By defining what it means to be a man by your own values you eliminate the ability for other people to define it however they like and then shame you for not meeting those standards, by shedding that burden you are set free.

 

There is no progress in MGTOW because it's not a movement, we're not trying to create social change, we don't care about society and some of us don't even care about each other, only to the degree that the discourse in the community is interesting, intellectually stimulating and helpful (some people like Sandman on youtube are trying to cash in by gaining numbers and spreading the word but many older MGTOWs that aren't just Sandman fanboys reject this behaviour as inherently blue pill and gynocentric) We care about ourselves, MGTOW is a personal philosophy for the self. There are talking points in the community and there's lots of dissemination of information and strategy for minimizing impact of society on your lifestyle, like how to replace traditional systems with better ones, that is what is growing and coming from the MGTOW community, that is not diminishing, that's exploding and growing.

 

But, but, but, families and vagina and propagation of the species and the opinions of women. Sorry but if your world view is gynocentric like Roosh's is, then MGTOW has absolutely nothing to offer you. Why people like Roosh even mention MGTOW is beyond me, it's completely pointless to address a community of people who categorically and explicitly reject social definitions of masculinity and maleness because we see them as methods of controlling men, and then lecture those men on how to be a man. It's like repeatedly smashing your head on a large sign that reads "do not smash your head on this sign, it will achieve nothing".

[PatrickC]

Hi Frosty, I wanted to counter some of your points, but first I wanted to say that this is just my opinion and not a philosophical debate. There is no moral claim anyone can make about a mans choice to get married or not. If you or any other man wants to pursue MGTOW as you've characterised it yourself, that is your choice of course. As fellow anarchists we can hopefully respect each others peaceful choices in this regard. However, my counters are based loosely on statistics and how many men feel around this topic.

That said, I have found MGTOW to have been a useful approach to my life as a means to stepping back and taking stock of my own life and desires and as a way to introspect on my past relationships with women. To that end I have found it a useful approach in my life. So these are just my criticisms of the MGTOW position as I see them. I'm no exponent of Neomasculinity either. So this isn't me taking sides here just to be clear.

 

My impression of Roosh has always been that he's basically just a glorified pick-up artist, he has the same kind of problems with his world view and definition of neomasculinity as every other PUA, it's gynocentric. It puts women at the centre of his world and defines masculinity as whatever gets you the most women, ignoring the fact that female sexual strategy is to use their naturally high SMV in order to extract the most resources from men. In essence he's saying "these are all the hoops that women demand you jump through, and I'll show you how to best do that", that's the perfect strategy for getting more hoops.

I’m no fan of PUA, but as men aren't there are always going to be some hoops we naturally have to jump through in order to get close to a woman romantically. If this wasn’t the case then women would just be picking men randomly, which wouldn’t say much for our character or abilities as men. Women of course need resources in order to raise a child successfully. Healthy women will also want a man who will be a good father to her children. So this shouldn't come as a surprise to us.

 

This neo-masculinity appeals to nature and traditionalism which seems a bit silly considering that human civilization is changing extremely quickly and nature/evolution has not had time to adapt yet, evolution is a very slow mechanism which takes many generations to make any significant biological changes.

Again, not trying to support Neomasculinism here. But the changes we’ve seen in society over the past few decades have been so thoroughly detrimental to family life and particularly the lives of children. I don’t think anyone is saying life should go back to the 1950’s entirely. But that we should at least embrace the traditional parts that benefited individual men and women as a whole. Despite the rhetoric from feminists that the majority of married couples were living miserable lives, in particular women. This simply wasn’t the case for many of them and statistics seem to show that women are more unhappy now than they ever were back then.  Many of the reasons why things are developing so quickly is partly due to people having less anchors in their lives, such as marriage, employment and children. People find themselves being tossed around by the latest opinion on what those anchors are supposed to be now. Such as career, single parenthood and ‘do what makes you happiest’ rhetoric.
 

MGTOW isn't here to fix society or create healthy relationships, it's not here to protect the family unit and ensure a good environment for children, it doesn't value the propagation of the species, it doesn't value family units or even healthy relationships with women, it's not here as a force for the greater good.

This is true and certainly it’s your right to not pursue these goals as you see fit. The trouble as I see is that most men will probably disagree with you. Most men want a healthy relationship with a woman and they want kids too. Expecting them to just opt out with no solutions to these inherent desires is probably where MGTOW will find a drop off in interest eventually. Stefan has recently pointed out that men tend to live longer and be much happier and wealthier when they exist within a happy and fruitful marriage. MGTOW guys nearly always focuses only on the negative aspects of marriage and the worst traits in women. Even Spetsnaz admitted to Barborosa in a Hangout recently that he gets a lot of messages from guys asking whether they should get involved in relationships with a woman. Thankfully he doesn't put them off, but wisely offers them a cautionary approach if they must.
 

divorce is at an all time high and increasing.

The trouble I have with the way MGTOW often use divorce statistics is two fold. Firstly they tend to equate the marriage rates of the same year with the same year for divorce rates. The problem with that, is that those divorces are often from much older marriages. They were often married in a year that marriage was more prevalent in than the current year they got divorced in. Marriage has been on the decline generally for decades now. Secondly if the most popular divorce statistics are still to be believed then 50% of marriages don’t end in divorce. Which means that marriage can still be a happy outcome for many men.
 

There is no progress in MGTOW because it's not a movement, we're not trying to create social change, we don't care about society and some of us don't even care about each other, only to the degree that the discourse in the community is interesting, intellectually stimulating and helpful

If your earlier statistics on MGTOW growth are to be believed then it seems a big change is coming to society inspired by MGTOW. So by definition that would be a movement of sorts. Albeit a disparate one perhaps.

[Frosty]

I appreciate the response, it's given me some things to think about, I agree most of this is just opinion and I'm not in the game of selling MGTOW although I do feel a desire to defend it when it comes under certain types of criticism, here's my response, sorry it's a bit long winded.

 

I’m no fan of PUA, but as men aren't there are always going to be some hoops we naturally have to jump through in order to get close to a woman romantically. If this wasn’t the case then women would just be picking men randomly, which wouldn’t say much for our character or abilities as men. Women of course need resources in order to raise a child successfully. Healthy women will also want a man who will be a good father to her children. So this shouldn't come as a surprise to us.

 

Well I'm in the same camp as Stefan on this one, that PUA and game is fine if you want sex, but if you want a successful long term relationship with someone virtuous then game is more likely to hurt than help because a good woman will see straight through game.

 

Some requirements women have in men are ones which men naturally excel at, I earn a decent wage because I want that money to liberate me and give me choices in life, and I'm just naturally interested in things that come with good wages. Women will find that attractive in a man, a decent career and ability to provide, so that naturally boosts my attractiveness to some women without me jumping through any hoops at all. I'm a strong proponent of working on things because you want them for yourself, if that's your body or career or hobbies, make yourself a happy, productive and wealthy person and people will naturally gravitate towards you anyway.

 

 

Again, not trying to support Neomasculinism here. But the changes we’ve seen in society over the past few decades have been so thoroughly detrimental to family life and particularly the lives of children. I don’t think anyone is saying life should go back to the 1950’s entirely. But that we should at least embrace the traditional parts that benefited individual men and women as a whole. Despite the rhetoric from feminists that the majority of married couples were living miserable lives, in particular women. This simply wasn’t the case for many of them and statistics seem to show that women are more unhappy now than they ever were back then.  Many of the reasons why things are developing so quickly is partly due to people having less anchors in their lives, such as marriage, employment and children. People find themselves being tossed around by the latest opinion on what those anchors are supposed to be now. Such as career, single parenthood and ‘do what makes you happiest’ rhetoric.

 

I was talking more long term strategy like over 10,000+ years, neomasculinity is heavily based from natural arguments but they apply less and less in modern society, I've studied a lot of the concepts from evolution and so I agree with the mechanics and observations. It's all fantastic red pill knowledge and it's important to understand why we have lust and certain urges, but these are biological sysems built to solve a problem in a specific environment that we're no longer in. Technology is changing the landscape significantly inside even just my generation much less over tens or even hundreds of generations.

 

Let me use a specific example, men like alluring hourglass figure and we like the figure because wide hips were indicative of ability to birth children safely so biology selects for that, the biological mutation that made some men attracted to that replicated faster because it lead to better chance for a healthy birth and the passing on of the genes responsible for wide hips. But what does that matter in a society that can give birth 100% of the time because hospitals can perform life saving surgery? Will it mean even less when eventually some or maybe all of our children come from artificial wombs to spare women carrying children and childbirth?

 

These are just appeals to traditionalist methods which worked when civilization more closely matched the environment we evolved in, that's a bad argument for a rapidly changing society, we should treat arguments from nature with heavy scepticism.

 

 

This is true and certainly it’s your right to not pursue these goals as you see fit. The trouble as I see is that most men will probably disagree with you. Most men want a healthy relationship with a woman and they want kids too. Expecting them to just opt out with no solutions to these inherent desires is probably where MGTOW will find a drop off in interest eventually. Stefan has recently pointed out that men tend to live longer and be much happier and wealthier when they exist within a happy and fruitful marriage. MGTOW guys nearly always focuses only on the negative aspects of marriage and the worst traits in women. Even Spetsnaz admitted to Barborosa in a Hangout recently that he gets a lot of messages from guys asking whether they should get involved in relationships with a woman. Thankfully he doesn't put them off, but wisely offers them a cautionary approach if they must.

 

Most men do disagree with me, that's just a hard fact which I do not deny, and while observationally we can verify that MGTOW is in a period of exponential growth it won't always be, I do not expect the numbers to get particularly large as a percentage of the population, at least not in the current climate, if statism carries on the way it's going then who knows, I've not ruled out seeing bachelor taxes in my lifetime. But the popularity of MGTOW isn't really in any way relevant to it's success as a method of self preservation.

 

I've seen the metrics for health of men in marriage and I'm one of the MGTOWs who accept this, some don't, in fact I recently watched Dianna Davisons video on Molyneux where she really just proves her own blind ideology on the matter and I'd previously been a fan of her work. So I'd definitely say I'm one of the more level headed MGTOWs with regard to this, I have no strong reason to stand against those numbers unless I see other metrics which prove otherwise.

 

But I'd also add that statistically people are happier when they've just gone sky diving and they're on a high from adrenaline, but no one would advocate sky diving if there was a 50% chance your parachute won't open, the benefits of skydiving are not even in the sphere of concern when the odds of parachutes failing is 1:2, and right now that's exactly the kind of argument people are posing to MGTOWs, somehow thinking that discussion of relatively minor benefits is going to distract people from the horrendous drawbacks.

 

Advising caution is a nice idea in theory but in practice I just can't wrap my head around this mental image that I need to construct of the world in order to buy this advice. The way I look at this is that in order to take that line of thinking seriously you have to accept that 50% of these marriage that failed were just people not being cautious, like people routinely just jump into life long commitments that often take years to plan an execute, but do it on whim. OK so there's a small number of last minute Vegas weddings but most people take this pretty damn seriously.

 

The flip side of this is asking the question of what kind of acumen would I require in order to reasonably assess that I'm somehow making a better decision than 50% of married couples, I see this as profoundly arrogant to say that 50% of everyone else gets this wrong but I'm so sure that I can get this right because <reasons>. The truth is that everyone is saying that, including the vast majority of the people who end divorcing. Round up 100 married couples and then discuss the statistic that 40-50% of them will split and then try and have the group self arrange the pairs into the 2 groups of who will stay together and who will split.

 

How do we predict that experiment might turn out? Well I'd predict that a few marriages on the rocks might honestly classify themselves in the "fail" category, so maybe 5%. But everyone else is going to have some degree of confidence it's all going to work out and be roses and kittens forever, after all they wouldn't likely be in that position if they thought it was going to fail. Now reflect on how you'd fit into that situation. When are you going to marry the one? Well when you're sure...welcome to the delusional 95%.

 

 

The trouble I have with the way MGTOW often use divorce statistics is two fold. Firstly they tend to equate the marriage rates of the same year with the same year for divorce rates. The problem with that, is that those divorces are often from much older marriages. They were often married in a year that marriage was more prevalent in than the current year they got divorced in. Marriage has been on the decline generally for decades now. Secondly if the most popular divorce statistics are still to be believed then 50% of marriages don’t end in divorce. Which means that marriage can still be a happy outcome for many men.

 

It differs a lot, your deeper analysis is fair, and there's other issues often overlooked, these stats include people splitting and remarrying and the 2nd, 3rd+ marriages failing, first time marriages don't divorce at a 50% rate it's something lower like 43% or something, it differs from place to place as well, these are all completely fair points based on evidence.

 

But whether my chance of parachute opening is 50%, 63%, 69% or 71%, I don't care, no rational person goes sky diving unless the odds of failure is 99.99% to maybe 5-6 decimal place accuracy.

 

 

If your earlier statistics on MGTOW growth are to be believed then it seems a big change is coming to society inspired by MGTOW. So by definition that would be a movement of sorts. Albeit a disparate one perhaps.

 

It depends how large it gets, the grass eaters in Japan are something like 60% of the young healthy male population displaying at least some "herbivore" like tendencies while outright disinterest in sex and dating is about half that, their population is set to shrink to be about two thirds by 2060 which is an insane U-turn in population. MGTOW and the grass eaters aren't exactly the same, but they both share certain things in common, there are social pressures which expect men to behave in certain sacrificial ways which men are now rejecting, in both cases the demands of women are seen as unreasonable. In Japan its typical the man to work a high powered job and hand over his pay cheque to the wife a the end of the month and she gives him an allowance - it's not hard to see how modern Japanese men might scowl at that tradition.

 

But I don't think I'd ever classify it as movement, the Japanese men were labelled herbivores by their peers they didn't self identify as such, MGTOWs however do self identify as such and there is a sense of community among us because many of us are lost once we've woken up from the red pill and need good advice on how to proceed, dissemination of information is extremely important.  But what we share in common with the grass eaters is that there's no real interest in fighting to actually affect change or achieve goals in society, people often call MGTOW the same as feminism but there's a clear and distinct difference, feminist get together and plan to solve their problems by changing other people and changing government and society at large, MGTOW is inwards facing, we look at how to change our own behaviour to mitigate the madness of modern society.

 

It's entirely possible that we bounce back as a society, if marriage and kids become rarer and that's something women want then they might be faced with having to sweeten the deal for men by using legislation to reform the institutions that give men a bad deal in the first place, that will be entirely coincidental to MGTOW however.

[PatrickC]

Thanks for the response. Your position seems to hold much like some of the older (more rational) MGTOW's (no longer on the internet) I've reached out to in the past.

 

My only contention with current MGTOW thinking (rather than yours), is that I tend to see the problems men face as mostly statist ones and less so gynocentric. Although I do accept that gynocentrism has been allowed to run amok with the help of the state. It's really no surprise when you saw men (at the time) opposed to women getting the vote. They knew exactly where it would lead. The trouble was, the state was already a corrupt institution, so it was kind of powerless against the corruption of women in this regard.

[Frosty]

Gynocentrism manifests through statism for sure, I do often say to other MGTOWs that being a MGTOW is great for preservation of your personal life but ultimately if you want to protect yourself against impending bachelor taxes and societies response to MGTOW then you need to take a political stance and that should be as libertarians, the original MGTOW meaning did have a libertarian leaning which was sadly lost. Gynocentrism is deeper than that though, it's just a lot more powerful when you give it the gun of the state.

 

This reminds me of the short harry enfield comedy sketch, "Women know your limits" which was a sort of parody of this old school way of dealing with politics.

 

It makes me laugh, there's a small part of me that can't help think we'd be in a better place right now (no welfare state, more freedoms, no rampant SJWs) if this trend had been allowed to continue. We see absolutely insane SJWs these days who are just reinventing the entire language to cram it full of ideological nonsense and we try and make calm and reasoned points but we get nothing but hate and bile back, white men are labelled oppressors and we're all rapists, now we're seeing gender bias laws, predominant aggressor policies and the president is on the TV talking about the 77 cents wage gap.

 

And I shake my head and wonder how on earth did we let this crazy run so rampant, at some point men stopped putting their foot down, and there's always a small part of me that thinks our forefathers had it right in how they dealt with this. Watch that clip again and then imagine the discussion not being about the gold standard but about something like women wanting to reclassify rape so they it can only be men who assault women, or some other such SJW nonsense.

 

I'm a little bit of male chauvinist and stuff like this always appeals to that side of me

[fractional slacker]

I know Patrick already mentioned this is not a topic of philosophy.  FWIW my two cents.
Feminism is a made up word devoid of any metaphysical or epistemological foundation. I would argue the same for the word neomasculinity.  You can't counter BS with a different form of BS and maintain philosophical street cred.

[MMX2010]

I know Patrick already mentioned this is not a topic of philosophy. 

 

In my opinion, it is, because Roosh has become a philosopher.  Will add more later. 

[PatrickC]

I know Patrick already mentioned this is not a topic of philosophy.  FWIW my two cents.

Feminism is a made up word devoid of any metaphysical or epistemological foundation. I would argue the same for the word neomasculinity.  You can't counter BS with a different form of BS and maintain philosophical street cred.

 

Actually you raise an excellent point here Fractional. Ideologies whatever they are, are normally just 'collectivised' short cuts to preferred states. Except they nearly always fail their protagonists eventually, because of the over simplification of how individuals actually interact with each other in the real world and how that might change over the long term compared to the short term.

 

The best I think we can do with them is examine the best parts and discard the rest using reason and evidence. The best I can tell about Neomasculinism (just my opinion of course) is that it provides men (and some women) with at least a concept of a solution. You and I might not agree with that solution, but it does at least have one, compared to all the other ideas swimming around in the manosphere. Together with an attempt to examine past traditions, which progressives (Leftists) have largely and successfully characterised as either abusive or at best outdated and irrelevant.

 

It is interesting that Roosh is taking this position now. He's getting much older of course, so it makes sense that he's looking into his long term future. I just wonder what with all his shennanigans travelling around the world getting laid left, right and centre. Just how many successfully happily married men he's actually gotten to know over the years. My concern, as has always been with PUA, that this is some kind of Lord of the Flies attempt at solving the marriage crisis. That it's just men learning from their peers, rather than from those men with a real history and knowledge before them.

[PatrickC]

However, there were other PUA guys before Roosh, names of which escape me now, but they did exist

 

I eventually recalled one of the PUA guys before Roosh. Eban Pagan, otherwise known as David De'Angelo in his PUA days (double your dating). He now discusses entrepreneurship these days and interestingly I think he is now married.

[PatrickC]

Eban was actually good friends with Sean Stephenson (the paraplegic). Who has completely rejected the PUA method now for a more hollistic approach to coaching people through their anxiety and performance issues.

[Kim Lee]

http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-neomasculinity

 

Neomasculinity combines traditional beliefs, masculinity, and animal biology into one ideological system. 

Isn't it hypocritical for Roosh to discuss "sexual moderation" after he spent years travelling as a "love tourist"?

[MMX2010]

Isn't it hypocritical for Roosh to discuss "sexual moderation" after he spent years travelling as a "love tourist"?

 

Not in my opinion.  To me, it gives him massive street cred. 

 

When an old grandpa who has had one sexual partner in his life says, "Don't indulge your every sexual whim; it's irresponsible!", he has no street cred - (especially if his marriage is unhappy). 

 

But when Roosh says it, it's different. 

[Kim Lee]

"Don't indulge your every sexual whim; it's irresponsible!", ... when Roosh says it, it's different. 

I understand your point.  But Roosh is almost 36, and has never had a long-term romantic relationship.  Instead, he has left "mini-relationships" within a month.  I would believe him more if he went on a sexual fast, or stayed in a relationship.

[MMX2010]

I understand your point.  But Roosh is almost 36, and has never had a long-term romantic relationship.  Instead, he has left "mini-relationships" within a month.  I would believe him more if he went on a sexual fast, or stayed in a relationship.

 

We'll see what happens, won't we?   

[shirgall]

I understand your point.  But Roosh is almost 36, and has never had a long-term romantic relationship.  Instead, he has left "mini-relationships" within a month.  I would believe him more if he went on a sexual fast, or stayed in a relationship.

 

I got married when I was 35, after having several relationships that lasted more than a year. I am amazed he hadn't had one that lasted what, for me, would have been 5-6 dates. Perhaps Roosh is rushing things a little.

[Kim Lee]

Esther Vilar, better known for her book The Manipulated Man, also wrote about "Nuevo Machismo".

 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/209950318/Modelo-Para-Un-Nuevo-Machismo-Esther-Vilar#scribd

http://www.scribd.com/doc/244512321/Test-Vilar-nouvelle-pdf#