Category Archives: douchebaggery
F*ck funnels, raw dogs, and garbage receptacles: Roosh on Romance
So, yeah, I’ve been reading some more Roosh.
Just a little FYI. It’s probably not a good idea to take dating advice from a dude who writes shit like this:
Your fuck funnel is the series of steps you take from the approach all the way to sex. Most girls will drop out as they go through your funnel by losing interest, declaring they have a boyfriend, flaking out, throwing up, or a multitude of other reasons that prevent sex. This means that for ever one girl you fuck, you have to approach a lot of girls. This is the basic law of averages, where no man fucks every girl he interacts with (even serial rapists have a failure rate).
Or this:
The best sex I’ve had was from mediocre girls who let me treat their bodies like garbage receptacles.
Or this:
I could probably have raw dog sex with 95% of all white girls, regardless of socioeconomic background. I only have met one girl that was super serious about using condoms, but I eventually fucked her without a condom too, so actually I change that to 100%. I could bang every white girl who lives in the United States without a condom if I desired, within three dates. I’m not kidding. I could do most of them raw dog on the same night. Here’s how to do it. ….
At this point our intrepid dating guru explains his clever Assange-esque (allegedly) method for convincing women to have sex with him sans condom, which involves repeatedly sticking his condomless penis into his dates until they stop resisting.
Note: He followed this post with another one about how terrified he was that he might have contracted HIV.
Oh, Roosh, is it entirely by coincidence that your name rhymes with “douche?”
Roosh V has a little trouble with the concept of “no.” [TW: Rape Apologia]
Recently, a nameless commenter here asked “What exactly is “rapey” about Pick Up Artistry?” The post below should help to answer that question.
Hey, fellas! Say you’ve applied some state of the art Pickup Artistry on some HB 10 (“hot babe 10”) and you’re about to add another notch to your “girls I’ve totally had sex with” belt – and she has the gall to tell you “no.” Should you be worried?
Roosh: Who needs orgasms, anyway?
Cat is not impressed with your PUA bullshit.
Pickup gurus write a lot about how to (allegedly) get sex, or how they (allegedly) got sex, but almost nothing about sex itself. It’s pretty clear that a lot of PUAs are more interested in the psychological manipulations and power games inherent in “game,” or in adding another notch to their score, than they are in the actual sex that sometimes results from all their efforts.
It goes without saying that most PUAs have little interest in their partners’ pleasure. In a post with the title It Doesn’t Matter If She Orgasms Or Not, pickup guru Roosh explained that once upon a time,
I used to try to last as long as possible in bed. I wanted to make sure the girl got hers before I got mine, and the reason I did that was because I thought she would be attracted to me more and want to see me again.
But, Roosh being the asshole he is, even this minimal level of consideration – which he extended to his partners for his own selfish reasons – turned out to be too much for him to keep up:
JohnTheOther: the Aurora heroes aren’t heroes. KEYWORDS: calculus of death, vagina, drug addled slut
Children: Not worth saving, apparently.
JohnTheOther, blabby videoblogger and Number Two at A Voice for Men, has now weighed in with his own, slightly tardy, manifesto on the Aurora shooting and the evils of supposed male “disposability.” I didn’t read the whole thing – seriously, dude, OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS – but a few things stood out when I skimmed it. For example, this lovely passage, which seems to be a longer and fouler version of that ill-advised tweet from the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto that I mentioned in my last post.
Our mainstream, which is to say, our corporate media – that which bends and fawns for access to the corrupt elected officials and modern robber barons of corporate statehood – is telling you, young man, that in order to be worthwhile, a real man, you’d better be prepared to die without complaint for the child, or the little old lady, or the drug addled slut in the next seat.
But Mr. TheOther is having none of it:
The instinct – expressing itself variously as chivalry or as fatal self sacrifice — is just one more that no longer has any discernable benefit. It is an encumbrance to any real pursuit of a civilized society in which one class of humans is not legally and socially elevated over another.
Sorry, kids; sorry, old ladies; sorry “drug addled sluts” — you’re on your own. Apparently, in a truly civilized society, no one ever looks out for anyone else. Altruism is for barbarians and Bill Bennett!
Here’s JtO’s stirring conclusion:
Those three men are not heroes, they’re just dead. The calculus of death, where one life is traded in celebration for another by preference of a vagina, is pathological and regressive. It must be recognized as the sickness it is. Those who lionized these men, whose fatal and unexamined instinct led to self-destruction; those who held them up as a heroic example to follow, are cordially invited to go first — or to go fuck themselves.
Charming as always, Mr. TheOther.
In the discussion of Mr. TheOther’s post in the Men’s Rights Subreddit, AVFM’s Paul Elam expands on the whole they aren’t heroes” theme, arguing that we need to retroactively strip away the hero status of the three men who died protecting their girlfriends — because they died protecting women.
Far from OK, Cupid
Do not reply to this man.
Every woman I know who’s tried online dating has gotten all sorts of weird and sleazy messages from guys, from crude sexual come-ons (“sorry for being forward but id love to cum on your glasses 
“) to terrible “sexy” jokes (“So ay girl, you looking for a stud? Because I got the std, all I need is u ”) to fetish-tastic examples of Too Much Information (“I WISH I WERE A DOG SO I COULD SUCK MYSELF OFF”). (No, guys, appending a smiley face emoticon does not make it ok to be a grotesque douchebag.)
You always wonder what guys like this are thinking. With the dog lover at the end, it’s clear he was trying to rattle a woman who hadn’t replied to two earlier messages of increasing creepiness. With the others, I suppose they think there’s always a tiny chance that some woman out there is as desperate and horny and undiscerning as they are.
What’s stranger are those who lead not with sexual come ons but with blatant misogyny. Do men really think that women melt at the thought of dating a man who hates half the human race? Or are they just looking for yet another chance to mansplain their Men’s Rights bullshit to the world?
Here are a couple of examples of this strange and unsuccessful approach to winning over women which I found on the delightful and disturbing blog The Ladies of OkCupid, which documents the quests of three women searching for love online.
Sometimes the misogyny sneaks up on you, as in this OkCupid profile from a “laid-back” slut-shamer (who was clearly not an English major):
This fellow, by contrast, launches into the misogyny right from the start, suggesting that the woman he’s writing is exceptional, simply because she’s not stupid and illogical like the rest of her gender:
This “edgy” fellow tries to break the ice with some lovely rape jokes:
But the strangest one I’ve seen so far comes from this dude, who uses his OKCupid profile as an opportunity to mansplain why feminism is eeeeeevil:
Oh, and that list keeps going; it’s one hundred items long.
As Jasmine from The Ladies of OKCupid writes,
Delusional and repulsive takes on a whole new level with this one, because I really don’t think he’s kidding. He has every social media outlet known to man with all the same crap, and his profile is HUGE. So either he’s attempting to become the ultimate Canadian troll, or he really thinks there’s a woman out there who exists like this AND would be interested in him, of all people. Really? He offers little more than a receding hairline and an outrageous sense of entitlement in return.
To paraphrase Animal House, delusional and repulsive is no way to go through life.
Happily for The Ladies of OKCupid, and the rest of those ladies seeking love online, not all the messages are like this. For example, take this message about a basic but delicious foodstuff:
Also, the woman who got the message above about that thinking-outside-the-box use for her glasses? She stayed on OkCupid, and is now in a happy relationship with a dude she met there who is not a shitlord.
A Voice for Men continues to spread its message of peace, love, and f*cking people’s sh*t up
Poor Paul Elam. Here he is, the self-annointed leader of the world’s greatest 21st century human rights movement, and for some strange reason people keep mistaking him for some sort of two-bit hatemonger.
No, really!
In his latest post on A Voice for Men, Mr. Elam laments the evil way one Australian news site took AVFM’s rallying cry – “Fuck Their Shit Up” — and made it seem kind of mean. Also, they added an “ing” to “fuck.” Elam writes:
[Journalist Tory] Shepherd (or her editors) gave a subheading to her piece which read:
Hate site’s motto is ‘F***king their s**t up
Misuse of the transitive verb aside, and ignoring the fact that even when properly quoted it is not the sites motto (which is “Take the Red Pill”), the use of that phrase in the sub-header was calculated to make AVfM appear to be a hate site.
How unfair to tag a website with the slogan it uses constantly! And, really, how could anyone see “fuck their shit up” as anything but a spirited call for peacefulness, understanding, and love?
Facepalm of the day: “10 Top Tips to End False Rape Accusations,” courtesy of the Men’s Rights subreddit
This lovely poster, meant as a sarcastic response to this “10 Top Tips to End Rape” poster, has gotten 759 upvotes in the Men’s Rights subreddit. Well, 759 net upvotes. It’s actually gotten more than 1200 upvotes, and 450 downvotes. Because, clearly, trying to stop the small percentage of rape accusations that are false is totally so much more important than trying to stop rape itself. Mocking rape prevention programs and promoting a culture in which women (and men, and genderqueer people) are afraid to come forward with real stories of rape for fear of being harassed and ridiculed is really the only decent thing to do. Plus: Lulz!
Here one commenter explains the “logic” behind the poster:
The discussion is, well, what you’d expect from r/mensrights. But don’t worry: some people have stepped up to critique the poster.
That’s right, solidwhetstone, your rapey poster wasn’t rapey enough!
-
There is some
here.
Heartiste: Funny like a clown
Heartiste: A sad clown
Always hilarious: painfully unfunny dudes explaining how women just aren’t funny. Over on Chateau Heartiste, the Heartiste formerly known as Roissy drops some (pseudo) SCIENCE on us all:
[C] hicks dig male status, dominance and personality as much as, or more than, they dig male looks. Men, on the other hand, dig beauty first and foremost, and a woman’s comedic timing, however it might make a man laugh, won’t stir his schnitzel if she’s a dog.
Since women don’t see a benefit from humor in the competition to attract men, their sex, on average when compared to men, has not evolved a strong cortical humor module. Women are better equipped to appreciate humor than they are to produce humor.
Apparently, if you use the same words that scientists use – like “cortical” and “module” – that makes it true!
But there is more to this Old Misogynist’s Tale. As Heartiste explains, it’s cruel humor that women appreciate most of all — in their lady regions. In other words, chicks like dicks:
[W]omen become sexually aroused by men who expertly wield the soulkilling shiv of sadism. …
Cruelty that is delivered with supreme confidence, bemused detachment, and eviscerating precision is catnip to women’s kitties.
Get it? Kitties = pussies = VAGINAS.
Ba-dump-tssh! Heartiste is on a roll.
So let’s see some examples of the sort of masterfully eviscerating humor that makes the ladies weak in their knees and gets their “kitties” excited. (Note: By kitties I am, like Heartiste, referring to vaginas. Exciting a woman’s actual kitties is better done with shiny objects and mouse-shaped toys.)
Anyway, here are some of Heartiste’s examples of cruel humor at its most exquisite, which he has helpfully rendered in dialogue form:
Me: Sweetcheeks, look. That bum just winked at you. He wants to take you back to his cardboard box. [waving at bum] Hi, bum!
Her: [struggling to conceal a grin] Shh, stop that. Stop waving. You’re horrible.
Truly, bum-mockery at its finest.
But he’s only getting started:
Me: You want to take a bus? Forget it. [nodding in direction of obese woman] She ate it.
Her: [looking heavenward] Oh my god, I can’t believe you just said that.
Aw yeah. Suggesting that a fat person has just eaten something comically large: comedy gold!
After some further jests on the topics of male boobs (hmm), the size of black men’s cocks, and raping the disabled (yes, really), our hero is in like Flynn, well on his way to all-caps “TRIUMPHAL SEX.”
The way it will usually go down is like this: You revel in your cruelty. She reacts with manufactured disapproval, often stifling laughter. Her vagina moistens. A wave of hidden shame releases a continuous flow of blood to her vaginal walls, maintaining her in a semi-aroused state all day long. Later that night, the floodgates open and you slip in like a lubed eel.
Yipes. That is about as erotic as Gilbert Gottfried reading from 50 Shades of Grey.
I’m pretty sure the only reason Heartiste can maintain his belief that women can’t do cruel humor themselves is that he’s never heard what they say about him once he leaves the room.
The brief history of the brief career of the (unofficial) goodwill ambassador from planet Good Men Project
On a fairly regular basis, Man Boobz is visited by commenters of an MRAish disposition. There are many varieties. Some start off by trying to post rape threats and other such unpleasantness, and their comments never see the light of day. Some leave a few irritated comments and head off, never to be seen again. Some manage to stick around long enough to become Man Boobz institutions.
One interesting variety: the ones who come here, they claim, to discuss the issues with us in good faith. In most cases it becomes quickly evident that they are not interested in real discussion at all, as they ignore what most of the commenters here say to them to instead argue with the straw feminists who live in their heads.
Soon many of these alleged good-faith arguers drop the pretense entirely and lash out with nasty personal attacks. At this point they go on moderation, or find themselves banned entirely.
The latest such meltdown was a fairly quick one. For those who don’t regularly read the comments, here’s a brief history of John Anderson’s brief career (so far) as an unofficial goodwill ambassador to Man Boobz from planet Good Men Project.
An anti-feminist dude who generally hangs out at the Good Men Project, Mr. Anderson arrived at Man Boobz Prime on July 2nd, bright-eyed and bushy tailed, eager to learn from and about the feminist commenters here, and to convince some of us to join him and the other commenters at the GMP in healthy and fruitful dialogue.
In one of his first comments here, he explained the reason for his coming here:
I promised some feminists, who I really admire, at The Good Men Project that I would initially engage feminists without assuming that they are misandrist, a very difficult task for me at least. I think that I’ve mostly lived up to that promise so far as I’ve asked for clarifications and I’ve used qualifiers like seems. I can understand if this comment was written in frustration, but understand that I and any new visitor to the site won’t understand the back story if there is one and the comment just comes off as being dismissive of male victimization.
In a further comment he explained that he was trying to do his part to save the Men’s Rights movement from the angry ideologues:
I was on a voice for men a while back. They had nothing but contempt for the GMPers. I’m certain that I’ll cross paths with them. It is my heartfelt intent to reclaim my movement from people who would disgrace it.
Five minutes later, alas, we learned that he had determined we were all a bunch of misandrists after all.
I only promised not to assume that feminists were misandrists. Once proven, it is no longer an assumption.
Oh, wait, not all of us. But we are a bunch of meanies:
I don’t think all the commentators hate men or are necessarily closed minded to other view points. I actually stepped away from a safe space to engage people who don’t see things the way I do. The feeling that I get is that there is great hostility to anyone who may consider men to be victims under any circumstance….
I’ve quoted DOJ and CDC statistics and included page numbers or links on an article that says that we shouldn’t be angry over truthful statistics. I’ve been told that the statistics have been spun. Maybe I should have refrained from that SHOCKED bit. I probably should have considered the feelings of the people on this site. I’d consider apologizing, but too many people here seem mean.
As far as I can tell, he determined that I was a misandrist because I downplayed the fact that more men are murdered than women by writing the following sentence in the OP:
While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.”
I remain a bit baffled as to how a sentence that starts by noting that four times as many men are murdered than women is downplaying the fact that, well, four times as many men are murdered than women. You can go read the whole discussion yourself and see if you can figure it out.
The meltdown followed not long afterwards. In one comment, Mr. Anderson suggested, as far as I can figure it, that [TW: RAPE APOLOGETICS] women regularly decide whether or not to charge a man with rape after they determine how good their rapist is in bed:
When is a woman responsible for her own rape because it wasn’t worth fighting over? Maybe she liked it and waited to see how good he was before deciding on whether to fight and that whole women don’t report rape thing can’t be a big deal if she didn’t think it was important enough to report. Feminists say you should never blame the victim. What feminists mean is that you should never blame the victim unless the victim is a man.
But he still hoped to lure some of us over to the Good Man Project for more scintillating discussion about how feminists are evil and mean and how dudes like him think women think about rape. Oh, and that movie about the stripper dudes.
Come by and visit. Right now there are discussions focusing around the objectification of men because of the Magic Mike movie. There are also multiple discussions around men and feminism. Come and visit.
Then, for some reason, he decided to bring up his cock:
Kyrie says,
“Fuck. You.”
No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun.
At this point, I put Mr. Anderson on permanent moderation.
Or tried to anyway. Due to a little glitch, it didn’t take, so Mr. Anderson was able to post freely for a while. Among other things, he tried to explain away that previous comment with this:
David says,
“And that line about cocks and faces wins Mr. Anderson the prize of permanent moderation. Congrats!”
You forgot bags. It’s bags, cocks, and faces. You have to admit, that statement was a classic.
Not so much.
Then he whined about being moderated:
Dude, I can’t even keep up with the comments directed at me. If I have to deal with moderation, the situation would be unworkable. It should earn me props on a voice for men when I decide to return at least until I start commenting on their discussions. It only took two or was it three days to get semi-banned from the site. Gotta be a record.
The only record set was for how quickly Mr. Anderson devolved from an earnest man of alleged good faith to a cock-talking troll.
Spearheader to feminists: No, YOU’RE the malignant solipsistic predatory narcissists without conscience!
And another thing …
Some threads on The Spearhead are virtual gold mines of crackpot misogyny. Today, from the same thread I drew upon for a post the other day, I present to you yet another long-winded antifeminist manifesto from a dude who doesn’t know shit about feminism. This time the dude in question is someone calling himself Darryl X.
Here’s his little screed:
There is only one kind of feminism. There is no first- or second-wave feminism. There is no ecofeminism or radical feminism or socialist feminism. There is no left and right. No conservative or liberal. (With which many feminists would hope to rationalize their egregious misconduct and criminal behavior – “Oh, but I’m not THAT kind of feminist.”) …
Feminism = the Borg
There is only feminism and it is evil and civilization depends upon its complete and utter elimination. Feminism is the product of false constructs and straw men and false flags and lies and fraud and is a political campaign of hate against men and children. Period.
And apparently Darryl loves the word “and.”
It has coopted our financial and legal and political and social institutions to affect the enslavement
[citation needed]
and murder
[citation needed]
and imprisonment and exile
[citation needed]
of men and the forcible separation of children from their fathers. It is responsible for the collapse of our economies worldwide and the fall of civilization.
[citation … oh, forget it. Every single thing he says needs a citation.
Feminists are comprised of mostly women but there are some men (manginas and white knights and other descriptions).
Manginas represent!
Feminists are psychopaths and malignant narcissists, without conscience and driven to do evil. They are solipsistic, manipulative, opportunistic, parasitic and predatory. They are compulsive pathological liars and deceptive and manipulative. They have no empathy, remorse, shame or guilt. They have no analytical skills and cannot plan ahead and are short-sighted. They are shallow of affect and are remorseless and are insincere and disingenuous. They are faithless and in the absence of any analytical skills, they do not have faith in the analytical skills of others, no matter how much evidence there is of its benefits. They are career and life-long con-artists.
Huh. Are you perhaps familiar with the psychological concept of “projection,” a defense mechanism whereby you project some of your own characteristics – particularly your most unsavory ones – onto someone else, or perhaps a group of people?
Just curious.
No matter how we define or relate to one another as men in the MRM, understanding the distinction between men in the MRM and feminists is more important. That is the enemy which must be destroyed. The other men in the MRM from which each of us are different are our brothers and the only important difference is that between men in the MRM and feminists. That’s the difference which defines us and on which civilization depends.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the future of civilization doesn’t actually depend on a bunch of bitter, hateful dickwads grousing on the internet about how much ladies suck.
