Category Archives: rhymes with roosh
Innovative New “Bread” Metaphor Explains Why Most Women are “Stale” and “Moldy”
Some men are also Bread
On his newish blog Return of Kings, pickup-guru-turned-philosopher Roosh V has come up with yet another way to justify his creepy obsession with women a lot younger than his hairy self: he compares them with loaves of bread.
When a loaf comes out of the oven (puberty), it’s warm and delicious. You can’t help but stuff yourself. (18-24 years old)
When you leave the loaf out, it gets a little hard. You have to heat it up with a toaster first, but it still won’t taste fresh. (25-29 years old)
If you leave the bread out for too long, mold develops. You can cut away the mold, toast the bread, and still be able to eat it, but you won’t enjoy it. You’d have to be starving. (30-34 years old)
If you leave it for even longer, mold takes over and completely destroys the bread. There is no way to excise the toxic portions. You must throw it away before the mold makes you sick. (35 and up)
The lesson in this? Live next to the bakery.
Well, that was creepy as fuck.
Also, he seems a bit confused about when puberty actually happens. Or he just doesn’t want to state outright that he’d really rather be “dating” 15 year olds.
Eww.
“Wherever i turn there is a pair of titties mocking me, looking at me with it’s poking eyes,” and other actual PUA.txts
Old School PUA.txt
There’s a new blog out there that I think a lot of you will appreciate. I would say “enjoy,” but your enjoyment of it will no doubt alternate with despair over the future of the human race. Which makes it sort of like this blog!
Anyway, the blog is called PUA.txt, and, as the name suggests, it features horrible quotes taken from forums and other websites where would-be pickup artists like to congregate.
Gold-digging c**ts and over-inflated pussy: An A Voice for Menner “refutes” Roosh
Paul Elam has so far refrained from responding to the halfway-on-the-mark, halfway-completely-ridiculous criticism of the Men’s Rights movement leveled by rapey PUA douchenozzle Roosh that we discussed yesterday. Not even that bit comparing the very serious dudes reading A Voice for Men to silly ladies reading Cosmo was enough to provoke the oh-so-easily provoked Elam. Either he’s gotten very Zen about criticism from PUAs, or he’s spent the last several days punching pillows and muttering under his breath about evil “pussy beggars.”
But some of Elam’s acolytes took it upon themselves to respond for him. My favorite comment is this bait-and-switcher from MrStodern, which starts off with a vaguely reasonable observation before descending into misogynist nonsense.
Apparently feminists love pickup artists, and the only legitimate reason for dudes to have sex with women is to teach them a lesson. Who knew?
PUA douche Roosh V: Men’s Rights Activists “use their illusionary movement as an excuse to sit on their ass and be a loser at life.”
Roosh V, making the world a better place
Men’s Rights Activists, I hate to have to break the news to you, but Roosh V, the rapey pickup guru I’ve been writing about a lot lately, is very disappointed in you and your so-called activism. In a sort-of followup to a post of his from several years back with the self-explanatory title “Men’s Rights Has Become A Euphemism For Sexual Loser,” Roosh lays into the “manginas” of the Men’s Rights movement, which he says isn’t really worthy of the name.
The biggest problem with MRAs is that they are not activists. They are pamphleteers. … They believe that one-thousand of them typing away and producing ten-thousand blog posts will change society. … [But] their movement hasn’t produced any results, only little online playgrounds where sad boys can sit in the sandbox and helplessly watch girls play with the cocky boys who understand the rules of the game.
Roosh the PUA dude: Women are “lubricated holes that exist mostly for a man’s sexual pleasure.”
Some holes are treacherous.
Our dear friend Roosh, the pickup guru, has written some (self-published) books! One of them is called Day Bang. It’s an instructional manual for dudes who want to know how to convince ladies to have sex with them … in the daytime. It contains this bit of wisdom:
When it comes to how you view the girls you’re approaching, I’d be careful about having too much respect for them. While I’m not saying you should hate women, my initial impression of them is that they’re lubricated holes that exist mostly for a man’s sexual pleasure.
Yeah, nothing even vaguely hateful about reducing women to a body part.
I know all too well that putting them on a pedestal will make it challenging to get to sex within a short amount of time since girls can literally feel when you value their pussy. It’s a fact that nothing dries up an individual pussy more than if it suspects it’s being idolized by a man.
And nothing makes a woman’s vagina dry up and sew itself shut faster than learning that the guy macking on her is relying on a book that describes women as if they are their vaginas, and vice versa.
The Internet finds yet more women to hate
Pissed off cats: Much more entertaining than pissed-off dudes on the Internet
So yesterday, I appeared (albeit very briefly) on TheStream on Al Jazeera English along with Helen Lewis of the New Statesman, social media researcher Alice Marwick, Skepchick blogger Rebecca Watson, and others. The topic: online misogyny and harassment of women. No sooner had the show ended than I ran across two perfect examples of precisely the sort of misogynistic harassment we’d just been talking about, courtesy of Reddit and Roosh.
First, Reddit. On Monday, Forbes columnist Kashmir Hill – female, beep boop! – wrote a piece mocking the notion (apparently widespread in some circles) that in these hyper-connected days people without Facebook accounts are a bit suspect. But part way along towards making her point she committed the terrible error of making the following not-to-be-taken-literally remark:
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:
Educated women: Boner killers?
 |
| Guys never ever creepily obsess over women like this. |
Dating guru RooshV — whose name conveniently rhymes with “douchey” — is convinced that, when it comes to women, smartness is inversely correlated with hotness. As he puts it in a post today, committing at least one logical fallacy in the process:
Femininity is a quality that pleases men. Therefore from the chart we can deduce that educated women decrease a man’s happiness. … Anything beyond a bachelors at a public university is a near guarantee she’ll possess a large basket of masculine traits that will prevent boners.
The “chart” in question is one that RooshV made up himself, and which contrasts the purported sexiness of less-educated women with the purported unsexiness of more educated women. As he explains:
A good test to see if a girl is over-educated is to add the word “sexy” before her job title. If the resulting phrase ignites arousing images in your head, then she’ll most likely have what it takes to satisfy you.
Amongst RooshV’s “boner inducing” job titles for women: Sexy waitress, sexy teacher, sexy librarian, sexy flight attendant. Amongst the “boner softening” job titles: Sexy IT specialist, sexy anesthesiologist, sexy tort attorney, sexy financial analyst.
There are more than a few problems with RooshV’s little list, not the least of which is that plenty of dudes do in fact get boners thinking of “sexy” female IT specialists, lawyers, financial analysts and other smart women. (I’m kind of partial to sexy professors, myself.) And if you don’t want to take my word for it — and MRAs never do — I invite you to investigate the vast amount of porn involving “nerdy girls” or simply girls with glasses (NSFW link).
Also, if you’re going to base your notions of male and female sexuality on which job titles sound like the best sexy Halloween costume, how can you leave out such classics as “sexy nurse” (a job that actually does require specialized education) or “sexy kitty” (which requires whiskers and little cat ears)? And should we conclude from the perpetual popularity of the latter as a Halloween costume that furry women with tails who shit in a box are sexier than the furless standard models?
Also, if you’re a guy who fetishizes less-educated women, and refuses to date women as educated or as well-paid as you are, you pretty much lose the right to criticize women for wanting you to pick up the check for dinner.
-
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
