Roosh V. Branded Rapist by Social Justice Feminists

[NumberSix]

How are they different? Rationality is the method to use means to come to a desired end. This is true on a small scale (What do I eat today?) as well for a large scale (What are my goals in life?). 

Both men and women often behave irrationally. People devise logical plans to achieve crazy goals (example: Hitler). People do crazy things to get what they want (example: praying). Also, both men and women have a conflict between what they rationally want and what their instincts are hard wired to like.

 

Women have been fed a fantasy that the right man will find them and then all their hopes and dreams will come true. In addition, mainstream media gives women a message that they are entitled to whatever they want (Oprah). So a woman expects the right man to magically appear, and that she will just “know” he is right. The book “The Secret” is an example of this magical thinking, where you get what you want because you deserve it. Women do also think rationally, and there is a conflict between these aspects of their personality. This is why women say they want a nice guy (the rational mind at work) and then date douchebags. The woman’s instincts are attracted to the dominate and cocky personality of the douchebag, and then her rational mind justifies having sex with him.  

 

Men on the other hand have been raised to embrace competition and measure men by their achievement. A man is raised to think he must go out and find a woman and win her over. He builds his worth through education, career and status. He follows a logical series of steps to get what he wants. The man will try to logically determine if he has found the right woman by evaluating her. He may however be using ex post facto justification.

 

 

[BaylorPRSer]

I don't follow how the convert women to virtue strategy is problematic at all, or incompatible with the FDR approach to relationships.  When it comes to libertarianism, Stef says make your case to the people in your life for a few months.  In one podcast he added, "years, I'm not a big fan of years."  Hardly an endorsement of the "these people are evil and cannot be helped" view.  Nor is it an endorsement of spending your entire existence trying to convert someone.  Why not take this approach with dating.  If you like a girl, try to show her what it means to virtuous and see what happens.  If after a few months, she is still shutting down communication on anything of substance, THEN move on.  It almost sounds like people here are only interested in interacting with the already-converted.  Please let me know if I'm strawmanning the opposing side, but how are we supposed to heal the planet if we assume people won't be receptive to philosophy?  The metric should be receptivity to philosophy as opposed to how philosophical one is already, in my view.  

 

P.S. MMX2010 (who I like) sent me a Return of Kings article bashing therapy, which I have gotten a ton of value from, so I'm not supporting Roosh and everything he does.   

[J. D. Stembal]

Both men and women often behave irrationally. People devise logical plans to achieve crazy goals (example: Hitler). People do crazy things to get what they want (example: praying). Also, both men and women have a conflict between what they rationally want and what their instincts are hard wired to like.

 

Women have been fed a fantasy that the right man will find them and then all their hopes and dreams will come true. In addition, mainstream media gives women a message that they are entitled to whatever they want (Oprah). So a woman expects the right man to magically appear, and that she will just “know” he is right. The book “The Secret” is an example of this magical thinking, where you get what you want because you deserve it. Women do also think rationally, and there is a conflict between these aspects of their personality. This is why women say they want a nice guy (the rational mind at work) and then date douchebags. The woman’s instincts are attracted to the dominate and cocky personality of the douchebag, and then her rational mind justifies having sex with him.  

 

Men on the other hand have been raised to embrace competition and measure men by their achievement. A man is raised to think he must go out and find a woman and win her over. He builds his worth through education, career and status. He follows a logical series of steps to get what he wants. The man will try to logically determine if he has found the right woman by evaluating her. He may however be using ex post facto justification.

 

 

 

You're almost out of the neg hole. Just six plus reps to go!

[AncapFTW]

I don't follow how the convert women to virtue strategy is problematic at all, or incompatible with the FDR approach to relationships.  When it comes to libertarianism, Stef says make your case to the people in your life for a few months.  In one podcast he added, "years, I'm not a big fan of years."  Hardly an endorsement of the "these people are evil and cannot be helped" view.  Nor is it an endorsement of spending your entire existence trying to convert someone.  Why not take this approach with dating.  If you like a girl, try to show her what it means to virtuous and see what happens.  If after a few months, she is still shutting down communication on anything of substance, THEN move on.  It almost sounds like people here are only interested in interacting with the already-converted.  Please let me know if I'm strawmanning the opposing side, but how are we supposed to heal the planet if we assume people won't be receptive to philosophy?  The metric should be receptivity to philosophy as opposed to how philosophical one is already, in my view.  

 

P.S. MMX2010 (who I like) sent me a Return of Kings article bashing therapy, which I have gotten a ton of value from, so I'm not supporting Roosh and everything he does.   

If by "convert them to virtue" you mean convince them of the truth of non-violently solving problems, then that's good.  The problem comes when you use dishonest means to do this.  Then it's a case of the ends justifying the means.  Also, how can you use non-virtuous means to show people the value of virtue?  That's like fighting for peace, a contradiction at best.

[BaylorPRSer]

If by "convert them to virtue" you mean convince them of the truth of non-violently solving problems, then that's good.  The problem comes when you use dishonest means to do this.  Then it's a case of the ends justifying the means.  Also, how can you use non-virtuous means to show people the value of virtue?  That's like fighting for peace, a contradiction at best.

Yes, you understood me correctly.  Where has it been established that PUA or anyone in this thread is advocating dishonest means?  As we all know, disagreements in philosophy stem from imprecise definitions.  PUA seems to reflect a wide range of attitudes and approaches to dating, some of which may be dishonest, some of which are not.  It isn't precise to say PUA is dishonest unless PUA's NECESSARILY use dishonest means.  Also, in a different thread that touched on PUA, there were a lot of participants who lacked the ability to differentiate between philosophy and joking around.  If I set up some goofy role play for a girl such as "hey I got a sleigh pulled by unicorns ready to take us to Atlantis, hop on!" am I being dishonest?  No, I don't own a sleigh.  I am aware there's no such thing as unicorns.  I'm aware that the globe has been completely mapped.  There are seriously posts on this topic on this site that cause me to wonder if some members just stay in philosophy mode constantly and can't hear a joke without getting hyper-literal.  No offense meant to anyone, I've caught myself doing this several times.

[NumberSix]

You're almost out of the neg hole. Just six plus reps to go!

 

“There is nothing that is going to make people hate you more, and love you more, than telling the truth.”

― Stefan Molyneux

[J. D. Stembal]

If by "convert them to virtue" you mean convince them of the truth of non-violently solving problems, then that's good.  The problem comes when you use dishonest means to do this.  Then it's a case of the ends justifying the means.  Also, how can you use non-virtuous means to show people the value of virtue?  That's like fighting for peace, a contradiction at best.

 

I'll send you a picture of my abs, and tell me how dishonest they are. What's your email?

[J. D. Stembal]

I'm several chapters into Day Bang, and enjoying Roosh's wit, and no-nonsense attitude regarding women and interacting with them. I've learned that I get away with a lot more than most guys around women, probably because I'm attractive.

 

I've had women give me the digits unsolicited before during the day and this is almost unheard of in pick-up.

 

I am currently growing my beard out because "Winter is Coming" and this should attract the attention of more women my age as it makes me look five to ten years older than I am. Women are almost universally more attracted to older men.

[J. D. Stembal]

The Change.org petition is almost nearly at 223,000 signatures.

I'm halfway through Day Bang. I'm sick in bed so I plan on finishing it today.

[Jot]

Where is MMX when you need him lol.

[J. D. Stembal]

Where is MMX when you need him lol.

 

He's around, but squelched.

[Jot]

I'm several chapters into Day Bang, and enjoying Roosh's wit, and no-nonsense attitude regarding women and interacting with them. I've learned that I get away with a lot more than most guys around women, probably because I'm attractive.

 

I've had women give me the digits unsolicited before during the day and this is almost unheard of in pick-up.

 

I am currently growing my beard out because "Winter is Coming" and this should attract the attention of more women my age as it makes me look five to ten years older than I am. Women are almost universally more attracted to older men.

 

I'm several chapters into Day Bang, and enjoying Roosh's wit, and no-nonsense attitude regarding women and interacting with them. I've learned that I get away with a lot more than most guys around women, probably because I'm attractive.

 

I've had women give me the digits unsolicited before during the day and this is almost unheard of in pick-up.

 

I am currently growing my beard out because "Winter is Coming" and this should attract the attention of more women my age as it makes me look five to ten years older than I am. Women are almost universally more attracted to older men.

It was a decent read for me but I don't enjoy Roosh's day game that much...it is way too structured and rigid for my taste...and that GALNUC shit doesn't work in eastern Europe...neither picking up in coffee shops because over here there are not that many for one and second girls always go there with their group of friends. 

[Jot]

I see you got kicked from the Facebook group, Jonathan. Maybe you should work on your people skills?

JD remembers me of MMX.

[shirgall]

JD remembers me of MMX.

 

Any particular reason we are paying attention to personalities and not principles here?

[Jot]

Any particular reason we are paying attention to personalities and not principles here?

I did not intend making any argument.

[J. D. Stembal]

JD remembers me of MMX.

 

There's a reason for that. Listening to his call, it's clear that our fathers have similar qualities.

 

In my personal opinion, my posts have a much more digestible syntax than his do.

Any particular reason we are paying attention to personalities and not principles here?

 

What's the purpose of the this question? It's a bit confusing to me. Is the reason or principle behind me creating the thread not completely clear to you?

[shirgall]

What's the purpose of the this question? It's a bit confusing to me. Is the reason or principle behind me creating the thread not completely clear to you?

 

I was chiding the poster for making the thread personal about participants of the thread and not about the principles in question (that is, an attempt to poison the well by calling Roosh a rapist, which devalues the term and leads to marginalizing the power of calling out real rapists).

[J. D. Stembal]

I see you got kicked from the Facebook group, Jonathan. Maybe you should work on your people skills?

 

For God sakes, don't try to be popular. You're trying to find love, and these days - as has been the case through most of human history - love is the opposite of being popular. Don't try to be liked. If you try to be liked, you will never be loved because trying to be liked is manipulative, and love is your authentic, take it or leave it, love me or hate me, who I am.

 

Stefan Molyneux, FDR 2733, The Cost of Not Listening, 46:57

[J. D. Stembal]

I was chiding the poster for making the thread personal about participants of the thread and not about the principles in question (that is, an attempt to poison the well by calling Roosh a rapist, which devalues the term and leads to marginalizing the power of calling out real rapists).

 

Which poster where you chiding? The remark might have applied to Kevin Beal, me, Ferssitar, or all three.

 

To update everyone, I have misplaced my Roosh V. book. I was in the habit of taking it everywhere with me to use as a conversation piece with other men, but I left it behind somewhere, and the exact place escapes me at the moment. Hopefully, the value contained therein will find a eager vessel to fill.

[shirgall]

Which poster where you chiding? The remark might have applied to Kevin Beal, me, Ferssitar, or all three.

 

To update everyone, I have misplaced my Roosh V. book. I was in the habit of taking it everywhere with me to use as a conversation piece with other men, but I left it behind somewhere, and the exact place escapes me at the moment. Hopefully, the value contained therein will find a eager vessel to fill.

 

The poster was clearly labeled in my quotation of the statement to which I responded. No need to make this into a federal case.

[J. D. Stembal]

The poster was clearly labeled in my quotation of the statement to which I responded. No need to make this into a federal case.

 

Fair enough. You used the pronoun "we" in the reply in question, so I was confused by that.

 

Back to the thread...

 

I've located my copy of Day Bang, and have continued reading it. Up to this point, I have found value in it.

 

For example, after you receive the woman's phone number, and are ironing out the logistics of the first date, you have to be mindful of how long it takes the woman to respond to your messages/calls/texts in order to gauge her interest. If it takes her 45 minutes to respond to you, make sure that you take at least 50 (n+5) minutes to respond in kind. This assures that you are not coming across as emotionally needy, which most women find to be repulsive.

 

This is just one of the little nuggets of information I have learned from Roosh that my father never taught me.

[Jot]

Fair enough. You used the pronoun "we" in the reply in question, so I was confused by that.

 

Back to the thread...

 

I've located my copy of Day Bang, and have continued reading it. Up to this point, I have found value in it.

 

For example, after you receive the woman's phone number, and are ironing out the logistics of the first date, you have to be mindful of how long it takes the woman to respond to your messages/calls/texts in order to gauge her interest. If it takes her 45 minutes to respond to you, make sure that you take at least 50 (n+5) minutes to respond in kind. This assures that you are not coming across as emotionally needy, which most women find to be repulsive.

 

This is just one of the little nuggets of information I have learned from Roosh that my father never taught me.

Dude, I was talking about these 50(n+5), GALNUC and other shit like these when I said that I find Roosh's approach to day game rigid. 

Roosh justifies the need of such techniques because he says that day game is not natural, but I will go insane and it will be a complete exhausting experience for me to go out while having any kind of routines in my head. I would feel like a sociopath that needs to rely on theoretical understanding of communication and empathy in order to communicate with people.  

[J. D. Stembal]

Dude, I was talking about these 50(n+5), GALNUC and other shit like these when I said that I find Roosh's approach to day game rigid. 

Roosh justifies the need of such techniques because he says that day game is not natural, but I will go insane and it will be a complete exhausting experience for me to go out while having any kind of routines in my head. I would feel like a sociopath that needs to rely on theoretical understanding of communication and empathy in order to communicate with people.  

 

All you have to do is practice babbling about inane topics in the mirror. Women like men who love to hear themselves talk. Women masteurbate to Stefan's videos for a reason - he's loquacious. You don't have to memorize anything, just keep talking. You go for the digits after the woman asks you a personal question:

 

1) Where are you from?

2) What do you do?

3) How old are you?

4) Where do you live?

[PatrickC]

It seems this thread went a little off topic. But this recent interview with Gavin Mclnnes might be of interest to some of you. Points to some of Rooshes new approaches and thoughts of late. I don't agree with all his thoughts, but it does seem to provide yet more evidence that Roosh is beginning to take a more K approach to his life.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5qxMhaXC_o

[J. D. Stembal]

In celebration of finishing Day Bang, here's a clip of Roosh V from the State of Man address called The Fall of America and its Women.

To briefly summarize why Day Bang may be a book that interests you, first ask yourself a few questions:
 

1. Do you go to bed late?
2. Do you enjoy attending night clubs or bars?

3. Do you like mean women?

4. Do you strive to be flashy and assertive?
 

If you have answered no to all of these questions, you are a lock for reading Day Bang in the near future. Learn how to pick up women at coffee shops, retail stores, and even public transportation!

 

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about the book or Roosh's writing.