Post: #1

Roosh recently penned No One Would Have Died If PUAHate Killer Elliot Rodger Learned Game, and I would just like to point out that the premise of the article is fundamentally incorrect.

Of course, I say this with no hate or animosity towards my brother Roosh. I am merely arguing that he is mistaken and I would like to explain why.

Roosh assumes that if Elliot had game, he would have been able to get laid, get validation, and then not have the stress which led to his mass shooting.

However, had Elliot gotten laid, it just would have meant that one other guy would have not gotten laid. Thus the total amount of frustrated betas would remain unchanged.

Likewise, I see guys arguing prostitution would have solved Elliots problems, but Elliot was (like hundreds of thousands of other betas are) seeking validation in addition to sex. Prostitution does nothing for a man seeking to validate himself upon the glowing affections of a hot woman draped across his body in the warm afterglow of sex that he had conquered with his own efforts.

Thus, the "game" is zero-sum. Every time one man gets some pussy, it means some other guy isn't getting pussy. And the more men learn game, the more competitive the market becomes which makes the cost to the pussy-market even higher for young-men entering the dating pool. This creates yet even more frustrated betas.

When a man scores an attractive woman, it means he beat out roughly 1-3 men who would have also banged that woman. We know there are more available men than women because a man's sexual shelf-life is longer and the obesity epidemic has shrunk the amount of fuckable women drastically.

To give a personal ancedote to this analysis, just recently I picked up a woman on non-weekend night and banged her the same night. The condom broke during sex and I shot a big load into her. She developed urinary tract infection as a result. Later that week, she went out on a weekend night and met another man that managed to get back inside of her apartment, but he did not get to have sex with her because she was in pain due to the infection. Because I had struck first with laser tight game, it meant another guy went home with nothing.

So how can game alleviate the frustrations of beta males? More men learning game does not translate into more loving pussy for men.

The current situation is impossible. Trying to use game to save our culture is like using a band-aid for a deep flesh-wound. The bleeding continues regardless.

The only thing that works are traditional sex roles. One woman per man. Any deviation from traditional sex roles means that in the long run, there will be many leftover men without suitable partners.

This is why polygamous societies of Islam have failed. It's why our soft-polygamy of the Western world will also fail. We know these betas will drop out, dope out, or fight-it-out, when confronted with their permanent incelibacy.

So when Roosh says,

Quote:Six lives would have been saved if there was a societal mechanism to steer sexually frustrated males like Rodger into learning self-improvement, game, and masculinity, the very values that are taught here and on many other manosphere sites that inexplicably have been attacked, disparaged, and even sought for eradication by the American media and blogosphere, men’s rights activists, “PUA haters”, and progressive organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. All these groups are complicit for creating a cultural environment that allowed this massacre to occur. It is them who must accept responsibility for these seven deaths and make the moral change to their ideologies in order to prevent such an act from happening again.

In fact we do not know if any amount of lives would have been saved. If Eliot had learned game and gotten laid, it would have meant some other guy would have lost out on whatever pussy Elliot got. And that man could have been just as, if not more, violent.

Thus there is no solution to the modern world of "dating." That which cannot continue, cannot continue. It's obvious to see why our decadent society will die just like many other decadent societies have in the past, and it's not because of a lack of knowledge. It's because of a lack of love shared equitably between the sexes.

Post: #2

The 80/20 rule holds for many things in the world- economics etc...However, with dating in the USA at this time of history, we might say that less than 10% of males get over 90% of the sex (whether with hot girls or not). Maybe I am over-exaggerating, maybe not. However, with girls, it is more balanced (somewhere between 80/20 and 60/40- that is 40% of girls having 60% of the sex). There could be a middle ground between Roosh's and your arguments- that the guys having sex ratio could level out and be more like 80/20 or 70/30. Basically, rather than it becoming ever more difficult to be in that top 10% of guys, game could make it so that the top 30% of guys are getting laid. I am not sure, honestly, which scenario is more likely.

Post: #3

This guy just needed some love. His own parents didn't love him, especially his mother. No one who loves their mom calls her 'mother'. He was alone and needed attention and he got it by killing all of those people. If we legalized hookers and gave every young man a good father and a loving mother, shit like this would hardly ever happen. Everyone needs love and appreciation, and it's hard to give everyone love with today's divorce rates and strange dating market.

Post: #4

"The current situation is impossible. Trying to use game to save our culture is like using a band-aid for a deep flesh-wound. The bleeding continues regardless"

While this is true, there are many other factors you have to consider. Learning about banging women inevitably teaches you about masculinity, femininity and how feminism is a lie. So even if men who went 100% into changing and didn't get laid that much, they would still see and understand the truth. Personal change will become societal change.

Secondly, let's not forget one major under looked factor : average girls. True, the 6's and above throw themselves at the best guys and whore it out, but the plain Janes don't get nothing. I have known plenty of them and they suffer a sexless and loveless life, because 1- nobody is interested in them or care 2- they don't feel good playing the slut and they suck at it 3- plain Joes are too clueless to get them. Plain Janes are a silent, miserable group of girls who don't understand what's going on, and they will soon catch up on the lie that is feminism.

If every man learned how to be a man, then the sexual market would even out. Some guys would be just happy with a 5, because let's face it, not every man got what it takes to bang 9 and 10s. In addition, they would change society accordingly, and restore a patriarchy.

Post: #5

There's a fantastic recent RoK article and comments which are relevant: Women should not be allowed to vote

When women get the vote they vote for more and more government, using men with guns to take other men's resources by force. Women no longer directly need a man to provide for them or protect them, because this has been socialized across all men via the government - so young women are free to chase after the most desirable men.

Women are currently in hysterics saying "men are not entitled to sex!!!!" But at the same time they feel entitled to men's resources and protection: "We deserve free birth control! Free abortions! Free child care! If you disagree you hate women!" "Women have a right to be safe wherever and whatever we do! If you disagree you are part of the War on Women!!!"

They expect men to fulfill our part of the traditional social contract without having any obligations or responsibilities themselves - and they expect men to be happy about this state of affairs!

Women and the MSM don't seem interested in the question: what causes misogyny? They ignore the raw deal that most men have in modern society and expect men to man up and be happy - happy to be used as beasts of burden for ungrateful, unfeminine women who ignore or mock their sexual needs.

The decline of Patriarchy, the decline of traditional sex roles, and the rise of feminism is the cause of the "misogyny" they complain about. Their current hysterics and demands for more feminism will just make the situation worse.

Men will get shafted more and more. Feminists will complain about increasing levels of "misogyny" - not realizing that they are causing it. More men will go off the rails and shoot up schools, theatres and universities.

The vicious spiral will continue until men are so pissed off, so downtrodden, and so many have given up, that either there is an economic collapse or there is serious, widespread violence: revolution or war.

Eventually, after much bloodshed, common sense - Patriarchy, submissive women and masculine men - will return. Hopefully the men who survive will learn from the past and prevent women from voting.

Tl;dr: Unrestrained female sexuality and female suffrage destroys civilization.

Post: #6

(05-26-2014 04:31 PM)Switch Wrote:  This guy just needed some love. His own parents didn't love him, especially his mother. No one who loves their mom calls her 'mother'. He was alone and needed attention and he got it by killing all of those people. If we legalized hookers and gave every young man a good father and a loving mother, shit like this would hardly ever happen. Everyone needs love and appreciation, and it's hard to give everyone love with today's divorce rates and strange dating market.

Where are the loving mothers and fathers going to come from when the potential future mothers are whoring themselves out to alphas and the potential fathers are sitting in front a computer sexless?

The only thing our society is good at creating are absent fathers and single-moms.

Legalizing hookers is a joke, again for the aforementioned reasons. There is no love in paying for sex. Vast majority of men do not enjoy hookers.

Post: #7

(05-26-2014 05:08 PM)player Wrote:  Women and the MSM don't seem interested in the question: what causes misogyny? They ignore the raw deal that most men have in modern society and expect men to man up and be happy - happy to be used as beasts of burden for ungrateful, unfeminine women who ignore or mock their sexual needs.

The above quoted is key. The reason the manosphere continues to grow and grow is because the reaction by the establishment only makes worse.

While men go loveless and sexless, the mainstream media continues to push feminism and homosexuality. Regular men have no use for that shit.

I wonder how much bigger this forum can get? The more hate pushed on men the more popular this place becomes. As sad as this sounds, we are directly profiting off the decline of Western Civ.

Post: #8

Samesau: re-read the article substituting 'Everyman' for 'the shooter'. Maybe I misread it, but I thought Roosh was only using him theoretically to discuss the toxic structures and institutions in society that guide and encourage men towards sexual-and-social dysfunction - subsumed masculinity - rather than self-actualisation. (healthy sexual relationships; careers; breeding a secure, loving family).

I'll admit upon first reading I thought it would be easy to misconstrue or be cherry-picked for inflammatory arguments by people with agendas against the PUA community, but also figured that might be by design to guarantee a wider-audience.

Post: #9

This situation also depends on how you approach it. From a micro level, game, a ticket to Pattaya, and some psychological help in the form of CBT might've gone a long way in helping Rodger achieve some sort of serenity. At the same time, I also agree this method is ill-effective on a macro level, since the pushback with numbers alone would cause that particular industry to change. Think about it. SE Asia, EE, and parts of Latin America are reprieves for Western men, since majority still slave it out in their own domains, subscribing to illusionary tenets that only betray them in the end. Imagine if more men populated these areas? Would they still be considered the pure drinking fountains they are now? Awhile back, Roosh posted something about how Poland is changing due to the influx of Turks and Europeans on stag party.

Ultimately, my point is this: Is the current culture of the U.S. still salvageable? Civilizations and empires rise and fall throughout history, so why would America be any different? I am not saying that we should just throw in the towel and give up. But once the pendulum of collapse is swinging too far in one direction, is it possible to get it back to normalcy? Unless some major reform happens, I'm sorry to say that the situation looks bleak.

Post: #10

(05-26-2014 04:57 PM)Daddy Wrote:  Secondly, let's not forget one major under looked factor : average girls. True, the 6's and above throw themselves at the best guys and whore it out, but the plain Janes don't get nothing. I have known plenty of them and they suffer a sexless and loveless life, because 1- nobody is interested in them or care 2- they don't feel good playing the slut and they suck at it 3- plain Joes are too clueless to get them. Plain Janes are a silent, miserable group of girls who don't understand what's going on, and they will soon catch up on the lie that is feminism.

What you describe does not exist.

I have never seen a woman go without a man, no matter how plain she is. Only the most deformed of women cannot get a man. The other group of women that end up without men are the picky spinster bitches America produces by the millions.

Quote:If every man learned how to be a man, then the sexual market would even out. Some guys would be just happy with a 5, because let's face it, not every man got what it takes to bang 9 and 10s. In addition, they would change society accordingly, and restore a patriarchy.

Kinda. Learning to be a man does not mean you are going to get laid. Learning game allows a man to get laid. But you can learn game and still be a huge feminist/white-knight. Although this forum is unique in preaching traditional masculinity for men, that is merely one type of game.

Far bigger than men learning game is the fact that most women are unsuitable to be partners.

Roosh actually wrote about this extensively in a very popular blog post,
http://www.rooshv.com/united-states-of-broken-women.

What good is it if men are manly and can get laid, but find out their "prize" is just a ballbusting cunt who is incapable of showing love?

Meanwhile, as men improve themselves, women's expectations of their men rise accordingly. For example, there is a sterotype that American men are some of the finest husband material in the world, and it's not just because they have more money than other men. It's also because American men are forced to put up with insufferable bitches and have learned to be extremely pleasing to women in order to cope.

So it's not really men changing that will fix things, it's when men start demanding their women to change will things change. But simply becoming a better man does not lead to that. Real change takes political willpower and organized men.

Perhaps if men become more masculine it will lead to this political change, but I see Western Civilization's collapse as a much more motivating force than mere individual male self-improvement.

So I guess the real difference in opinion here is that some guys think this civilization is salvageable, but given the sad state of affairs today, and the current dominance of the democratic feminist party (which uses race extremely effectively to stay in power as well), I cannot imagine how any sort of political change can occur without outright revolution.

Post: #11

(05-26-2014 05:40 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Samesau: re-read the article substituting 'Everyman' for 'the shooter'. Maybe I misread it, but I thought Roosh was only using him theoretically to discuss the toxic structures and institutions in society that guide and encourage men towards sexual-and-social dysfunction - subsumed masculinity - rather than self-actualisation. (healthy sexual relationships; careers; breeding a secure, loving family).

I'll admit upon first reading I thought it would be easy to misconstrue or be cherry-picked for inflammatory arguments by people with agendas against the PUA community, but also figured that might be by design to guarantee a wider-audience.

Roosh's article is great in getting the message of game out there to the masses. I find no reason to try and counter-attack it on RoK because this thread is more of a cold-shower intended for the forum, and this message is not intended for the average purple-pill or even red-pill reader.

I personally always stay on the forefront of thought because it's how I naturally operate, but there is no way I can speak so plainly to the masses without being misunderstood. This forum is the think-tank, while RoK and other blogs are like TV News stations for mass consumption.

So although I understand there is a fundamental flaw in Roosh's premises, I can still recognize the need for his article as well as appreciate it. I consider my role in this community to always be pushing new ideas forward and letting others figure out how to spread the message.

Soon I do intend to publish a series of articles on RoK for the more critical reader, but I expect most of my points to fall flat with the average internet audience.

Post: #12

(05-26-2014 04:10 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Roosh recently penned No One Would Have Died If PUAHate Killer Elliot Rodger Learned Game, and I would just like to point out that the premise of the article is fundamentally incorrect.

Of course, I say this with no hate or animosity towards my brother Roosh. I am merely arguing that he is mistaken and I would like to explain why.

Roosh assumes that if Elliot had game, he would have been able to get laid, get validation, and then not have the stress which led to his mass shooting.

However, had Elliot gotten laid, it just would have meant that one other guy would have not gotten laid. Thus the total amount of frustrated betas would remain unchanged.

Likewise, I see guys arguing prostitution would have solved Elliots problems, but Elliot was (like hundreds of thousands of other betas are) seeking validation in addition to sex. Prostitution does nothing for a man seeking to validate himself upon the glowing affections of a hot woman draped across his body in the warm afterglow of sex that he had conquered with his own efforts.

Thus, the "game" is zero-sum. Every time one man gets some pussy, it means some other guy isn't getting pussy. And the more men learn game, the more competitive the market becomes which makes the cost to the pussy-market even higher for young-men entering the dating pool. This creates yet even more frustrated betas.

When a man scores an attractive woman, it means he beat out roughly 1-3 men who would have also banged that woman. We know there are more available men than women because a man's sexual shelf-life is longer and the obesity epidemic has shrunk the amount of fuckable women drastically.

To give a personal ancedote to this analysis, just recently I picked up a woman on non-weekend night and banged her the same night. The condom broke during sex and I shot a big load into her. She developed urinary tract infection as a result. Later that week, she went out on a weekend night and met another man that managed to get back inside of her apartment, but he did not get to have sex with her because she was in pain due to the infection. Because I had struck first with laser tight game, it meant another guy went home with nothing.

So how can game alleviate the frustrations of beta males? More men learning game does not translate into more loving pussy for men.

The current situation is impossible. Trying to use game to save our culture is like using a band-aid for a deep flesh-wound. The bleeding continues regardless.

The only thing that works are traditional sex roles. One woman per man. Any deviation from traditional sex roles means that in the long run, there will be many leftover men without suitable partners.

This is why polygamous societies of Islam have failed. It's why our soft-polygamy of the Western world will also fail. We know these betas will drop out, dope out, or fight-it-out, when confronted with their permanent incelibacy.

So when Roosh says,

Quote:Six lives would have been saved if there was a societal mechanism to steer sexually frustrated males like Rodger into learning self-improvement, game, and masculinity, the very values that are taught here and on many other manosphere sites that inexplicably have been attacked, disparaged, and even sought for eradication by the American media and blogosphere, men’s rights activists, “PUA haters”, and progressive organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center. All these groups are complicit for creating a cultural environment that allowed this massacre to occur. It is them who must accept responsibility for these seven deaths and make the moral change to their ideologies in order to prevent such an act from happening again.

In fact we do not know if any amount of lives would have been saved. If Eliot had learned game and gotten laid, it would have meant some other guy would have lost out on whatever pussy Elliot got. And that man could have been just as, if not more, violent.

Thus there is no solution to the modern world of "dating." That which cannot continue, cannot continue. It's obvious to see why our decadent society will die just like many other decadent societies have in the past, and it's not because of a lack of knowledge. It's because of a lack of love shared equitably between the sexes.

I disagree in the sense that the more guys learn game, the more there standards would go up, which would force women to make changes and be more attractive.

If every guy in America had super tight game, it would be total domination over women and women would have to make themselves more appealing in a way that guys who have abundance prefer.

What do guys with abundance prefer?

Read the forum and you'll find out:

Slender babes without the Bitch attitudes.

Take the bitchy attitudes out of the equation. Take all the entitlement that women have out as well.

Then you have a situation where guys in a similar situation to Elliot Rodger (minus all the insanity) might have a chance, especially if they had tight game.

Why?

Because that situation wouldn't exist.

Maybe this kind of thing would only happen if the amount of guys in America with tight game reached a tipping point.

I agree that right now, it's getting tougher for betas if only a minority of guys have tight game. It might be that way if it was 50% of men having tight game.

My gut tells me that if a tipping point was reached where a certain majority of men stopped putting up with American women's bad ways (through action/game and not just complaining about it), then I believe it would galvanize the other sex as well.


Men on the whole definitely need to dominate. That said, I think only way to return to this dynamic is through game.

Post: #13

^ Then why is Toronto such a hellhole for men? Game is prolific there, yet the women suck.

Roosh has also written about this as well:
http://www.rooshv.com/15-reasons-why-tor...ca-for-men

Quote:9. The entrenched PUA culture is raising the egos of all women

I thought that Washington DC had a strong pickup culture, but I hadn’t been to Toronto. PUAs are like rats in Toronto, infecting many venues with their fake high energy, puffed-out chests, loud fashion accessories, and total sobriety. On Thursday night I went to Madison Avenue Pub where I got to see at least 50 of them approach every woman in the bar. As much as I want to hate on them for increasing the girls’ bitch shields, I now understand why they do it: they have to. The best game in Toronto is not being an interesting man but just approaching a million girls with your freezeouts and spin moves and negs until you find the horny girl who wants to fuck.

The more game men learn, the more options women have. Mere game is not the answer.

Post: #14

(05-26-2014 06:07 PM)Samseau Wrote:  ^ Then why is Toronto such a hellhole for men? Game is prolific there, yet the women suck.

Roosh has also written about this as well:
http://www.rooshv.com/15-reasons-why-tor...ca-for-men

Quote:9. The entrenched PUA culture is raising the egos of all women

I thought that Washington DC had a strong pickup culture, but I hadn’t been to Toronto. PUAs are like rats in Toronto, infecting many venues with their fake high energy, puffed-out chests, loud fashion accessories, and total sobriety. On Thursday night I went to Madison Avenue Pub where I got to see at least 50 of them approach every woman in the bar. As much as I want to hate on them for increasing the girls’ bitch shields, I now understand why they do it: they have to. The best game in Toronto is not being an interesting man but just approaching a million girls with your freezeouts and spin moves and negs until you find the horny girl who wants to fuck.

The more game men learn, the more options women have. Mere game is not the answer.

Is game really prolific there?

It sounds like there are a lot of guys who have terrible game running around in Toronto.

Roosh describes them as rats.. with an air of desperation. That's anti-game.

I'm talking about real, solid players.

Post: #15

I disagree. More guys meeting women's basic threshold of attractiveness will mean the wealth of pussy gets shared a bit more evenly.

Some girls like to be the center of a decent guy's world instead of an alpha male's #7 fuck buddy. More decent guys means more opportunities to pair up with one of them instead of getting pumped and dumped by some hot guy.

Post: #16

(05-26-2014 05:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Roosh's article is great in getting the message of game out there to the masses.

That's the thing: Roosh is willing to take the bullet for all of us and be the hated face of PUA, including writing an inflammatory article couching uncomfortable truths, knowing he'll be reprinted under the filter of 'an insane misogynist', which gives him a way to let the harsh truth bombs slip through under the radar underneath the clickbait-friendly parts.

It's worthy of our respect.

Post: #17

(05-26-2014 06:21 PM)bacan Wrote:  I disagree. More guys meeting women's basic threshold of attractiveness will mean the wealth of pussy gets shared a bit more evenly.

Why would the fundamental hypergamous nature of women change just because men become more attractive?

No matter what kind of men exist, women will naturally gravitate to the top 20-30% of men. Improve the men and then the women increase their standards.

Post: #18

(05-26-2014 05:48 PM)Samseau Wrote:  What you describe does not exist.

I have never seen a woman go without a man, no matter how plain she is. Only the most deformed of women cannot get a man. The other group of women that end up without men are the picky spinster bitches America produces by the millions.

The thing is, women who grew up in the countryside and moved to the city and women from other countries immigrating to a big city are often been brought up to be traditional. They didn't learn how to be hoes and it's too late for them to change when they're in their 20's. Some are even beautiful but still lonely, because for them getting a man is keeping him for a long time, and they don't want to be fucked for one night. They want to be wined and dined. Of course they could get fucked by the occasional player but it makes them miserable and they try to avoid it. For them, it's being tricked.

Even for the average women who grew up in the city, a lot are not good at being hoes. In public they act like sluts, but it's just a front. My experience might be different though since I'm from Canada.

Quote:What good is it if men are manly and can get laid, but find out their "prize" is just a ballbusting cunt who is incapable of showing love?

Meanwhile, as men improve themselves, women's expectations of their men rise accordingly. For example, there is a sterotype that American men are some of the finest husband material in the world, and it's not just because they have more money than other men. It's also because American men are forced to put up with insufferable bitches and have learned to be extremely pleasing to women in order to cope.

So it's not really men changing that will fix things, it's when men start demanding their women to change will things change. But simply becoming a better man does not lead to that. Real change takes political willpower and organized men.

Perhaps if men become more masculine it will lead to this political change, but I see Western Civilization's collapse as a much more motivating force than mere individual male self-improvement.

So I guess the real difference in opinion here is that some guys think this civilization is salvageable, but given the sad state of affairs today, and the current dominance of the democratic feminist party (which uses race extremely effectively to stay in power as well), I cannot imagine how any sort of political change can occur without outright revolution.

As I see it, if men become real men, ie free strong individuals , leaders, capable of getting what they want , like sex and money, then inevitably they will influence society in their direction. That's the definition of man to me.

If there are enough of these men, things will change naturally without the need of a big revolution :

- Men will choose foreign women over locals if they don't change. I mean, how long before men get the damn memo? When they see another man from same social status with a beautiful obediant asian girl, they will understand that their cunty american girlfriend ain't worht shit. Then they can tell those american girls to change or be alone, because they won't need them for anything anymore.

- Men will stop marrying hoes, because they will know the game. They will have made all their mistakes in their youth. Every good man understands the difference between a hoe and a wife.

- Men will gradually leave offices that have became so hostile to them, which I think is already happening. Offices filled with women and disabled people will crash fast once they can't compete with small businesses that are more efficient and aren't burdened by affirmative action laws.

-Men will stop buying products from companies that make anti male advertisements. Advertising will start to change, and I already saw it.

- Men will drop out of school, diplomas will lose most of their credibility, and women will struggle to get good jobs, because women are largely dependant on education.

- Women who have been slighted by feminism will support these changes. Lots of women who want to stay home and raise children can't right now because society tells them they're inferior and should get a job instead.

- Etc

This will all be sped up when western societies start losing their economy and culture to patriarchal societies in Asia for instance. Feminism can only exist in times of great prosperity. In times of struggles, nobody will listen to their bullshit and women will #getbacktothekitchen

Post: #19

I live in Toronto and it all depends on where you go and who you end up talking with. Keep in mind, this is the fourth largest Metropolitan area in North America so labelling it in any way is kind of silly. Depending on the person, you can have more luck in low-key hotel bars/lounges, or you can do well in the club scene.

I find guys to be quite sedate, but the women here are very much aware of game. I had a buddy run game once in a hole-in-a-wall and the girl openly called him out for it, while her friend and I talked about anime and it morphed into a ons.

That said, it is relatively easy to approach girls here, because so few actually do it. This is especially true in a place like the Drake as opposed to the big clubs where it is pure meat market mentality.

Would game save lives? That's a bigger question that has far too many variables. Again, it all depends on the guy and his environment. Elliot was stuck in the mindset of getting straight 9+ without any experience. Any reasonable person would expect to build up to that.

Post: #20

Quote:As I see it, if men become real men, ie free strong individuals , leaders, capable of getting what they want , like sex and money, then inevitably they will influence society in their direction. That's the definition of man to me.

If there are enough of these men, things will change naturally without the need of a big revolution :

- Men will choose foreign women over locals if they don't change. I mean, how long before men get the damn memo? When they see another man from same social status with a beautiful obediant asian girl, they will understand that their cunty american girlfriend ain't worht shit. Then they can tell those american girls to change or be alone, because they won't need them for anything anymore.

- Men will stop marrying hoes, because they will know the game. They will have made all their mistakes in their youth. Every good man understands the difference between a hoe and a wife.

- Men will gradually leave offices that have became so hostile to them, which I think is already happening. Offices filled with women and disabled people will crash fast once they can't compete with small businesses that are more efficient and aren't burdened by affirmative action laws.

-Men will stop buying products from companies that make anti male advertisements. Advertising will start to change, and I already saw it.

- Men will drop out of school, diplomas will lose most of their credibility, and women will struggle to get good jobs, because women are largely dependant on education.

- Women who have been slighted by feminism will support these changes. Lots of women who want to stay home and raise children can't right now because society tells them they're inferior and should get a job instead.

- Etc

This will all be sped up when western societies start losing their economy and culture to patriarchal societies in Asia for instance. Feminism can only exist in times of great prosperity. In times of struggles, nobody will listen to their bullshit and women will #getbacktothekitchen

Your first point could happen but not on a large enough scale for there to be any worthwhile change I think most men wife up the first regular pussy they get

Your second point men won't stop marrying hoes, girls are just too god damn clever and can trick most men in to thinking their chaste princesses most men just don't have a good slut detector. Girls have been manipulating men for thousands of years and this wont stop anytime soon.

Third point men won't leave offices on a large scale especially young men, I hate to say this but my generation on the whole expects the world to owe them a living and working in a "cushy" office job is perfect.

Fourth point men wont stop buying products with anti-male theme in large enough numbers for them to care and anyway women are the biggest consumer spenders so that's why all adverts are aimed at them so they won't worry.

Fifth point could work as a lot of people are weighing up whether a "degree" is actually worth the debt

Final point the problem is that alot of women that want to look after their children in a traditional home can't because of financial burdens. Most families need 2 incomes to support it due to high cost of living so this makes women have to go out to work.

Sorry if this seems to critical they are good points and may be right from your perspective this is just my perspective a 20 year old guy from the UK.

Post: #21

This argument that pussy is some kind of zero sum game and that this douche would have just been replaced by another (had he got some ass) to recreate this killing spree is deeply flawed.

1. There's plenty of pussy everywhere. We all know most pussy is available even if it's in a 'relationship'. Especially at college.

2. Not all virgin betas are on the verge of homicidal rampages. Porn and video games can keep you occupied. This kid somehow getting ass might have saved lives, but you'd have to go so far back in his life to put him on the right path that inserting game 6 months ago might have been too little too late. The kid cried for an hour after being rebuffed on one cold approach, for god's sake.

There's such a confluence of factors that lead to this that trying to pin down an element that either could have prevented this or definitively caused it is a fool's errand.

We all have been parroting the things we know lead to shit like this for years and this culture won't have the balls to agree, ever. They're going to double down on feminism, gun control and that 'game' is poison until we hit the iceberg.

Kid was a weak little cunt and I'm glad he's dead. Too bad he took decent folks with him.

Post: #22

(05-26-2014 06:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:21 PM)bacan Wrote:  I disagree. More guys meeting women's basic threshold of attractiveness will mean the wealth of pussy gets shared a bit more evenly.

Why would the fundamental hypergamous nature of women change just because men become more attractive?

No matter what kind of men exist, women will naturally gravitate to the top 20-30% of men. Improve the men and then the women increase their standards.

Hypergamy wouldn't go away, what would change is the cost benefit analysis for women in actually acting out on the hypergamy. If the top 20-30% of guys aren't so far removed from average, the risk of breaking up a stable relationship/family becomes too great to be worth the extra benefit a top guy might offer. Visually, the quality ladder of men probably looks something like this now, in order of high quality to low quality:

The Dos Equis Guy

Top Tier Alpha Types




Average Guys

Dregs

A girl with an average guy can easily justify leaving for a top tier type and above because there is so much more value to be attained that whatever collateral damage can be dealt with. In a dating market after all men improve themselves, it probably looks more like the following:

The Dos Equis Guy
Top Tier Alphas
Average Guys


Dregs

It would be much harder for a girl to act on her hypergamy in this scenario because the level of men has risen to the point that any individual guy is highly likely to satisfy her. It becomes pointless to then throw away a good thing just because there is a slight chance that you might get slightly greater tingles. Note that if all guys improved such that the levels resembled the second example, the hypergamous tendencies would be checked because of a collective male elimination of thirst and pedastalization.

In other words inherent in the improvement of men is the understanding that commitment should be kept at arms length until the girl proves she is worthy of that consideration. It's essentially Darwin style elimination of sluts from the marriage pool. If a girl knew that fucking the hot guy at the bar could automatically shut her out of stable marriage, and a lasting family situation, she might think twice. Don't underestimate the reactions of other women, who no doubt would backstab their whoring sisters in order to elevate their own position. In light of that, women are going to be forced to check their own hypergamy if they don't want to be cat ladies, which they will do if they know that NO MEN will bail them out at 35.

Because of this, I do think that game can save Western Civilization, but it won't because there is no external imminent threat that will force men to improve themselves en masse. Underlying that is an economic situation which mirrors a lot of what I've written. It's too easy for the West to sit back in its decadence and take the line of least resistance, in this case pandering to women. Ultimately nothing will change until there is a collapse, but at that point game and masculinity will reassert itself. The problem for us is that it might come too late for us to lead the individual lives in the sort of communities that we envision, so the best we can do is at least set the foundation for future generations to do so.

Post: #23

**Delete**

Post: #24

I disagree with the OP because it's self defeatist and seemingly deterministic.

If we adopt changes like legalizing prostitution it will better the entire sexual market, as women will have to up their game in order to be at least as good to a man as a prostitute. A cash (rather than merit) availability to sex will help most everyone out in the long run, particularly these privileged losers.

Post: #25

EDIT: My post was replying to Apollo's post which it seems he's now removed. It questioned my previous post and the feasibility of removing the vote for women.

***

Yes, I agree that universal suffrage will not be repealed - until society goes off a cliff and there's some sort of reset.

Plato foresaw the stages of government 2000 years ago. He considered democracy the second-to-worst form of government, which he predicted would degenerate into tyranny.

I think limiting voting rights to those who are net contributors to the government would be fair. But limiting voting rights won't happen. The government will get bigger and bigger until it runs out of other people's money to spend and there's an economic collapse - at which point life is going to become brutally hard for the useless parasites currently sucking at the government teat.

There are two things we should do:
- enjoy the decline and make the most of all the rampant debauchery and sluttiness.
- prepare for the coming economic disaster: learn valuable skills that will be needed and build strong connections with like-minded, masculine men.

In any serious crisis there are huge opportunities to amass vast wealth, power and harems of women. We should plan to make the most of the coming shit-storm.

Hades - prostitution isn't enough to motivate men to contribute to society. Prostitutes don't provide validation or love - the things Elliot wanted. To make men work as hard as possible to contribute to society, they must be able to have and keep families with women they love and children they can guarantee are theirs. They must be looked up to and appreciated for their hard work and sacrifice. Patriarchy.