Roosh V? What Do The Local Puas Make Of This?

[Manfreidi]

So what we have established here? Everyone feeling happy with themselves now?

He claims he used to be a "PUA" and now he is a "Neomasculine" whatever that means. You can find out by reading his essay; for the record i have not.

I stumbled on his site a while back because a friend linked a article to me. I would say about 5% of articles on the site have some meaningful content but you have to cut through crap. The rest are written by people with some very extreme views, and guys who obviously blur the lines in their head between sugar dating in the asian third world and pick up artistry and rage about the state of western women as a result (though i think the protagonist in question is not of this ilk).

Framing it positively, and assuming his sexual adventures and misadventures are not lies, i guess its all a showcase that reveals the power of pickup skills; Even when you hold those world views and behave in accordance with them you can still get the girls if you know how. Terrible i know but sadly true, gents take note.

Anyway i don't believe in what he thinks but i am not in a position to judge him. I certainly dislike the digital lynch mob hunting him more. The supposed essay he wrote on rape, haven't read that either, is what I suspect to be a media spin where they are the only benefactor. However, whilst i am sure it was a mistake for him to post that document on the internet regardless of his intent, I don't believe he is about rape at all or they would have found a way to lock him up already if he was.

Anyway i hope he makes it through this, variety and diversity are important. For the liberal crowd out there try to imagine that he is just as legitimate and sincere as members of the gay, lesbian or transgender crowd; they all have a right to live and without them our world would be less colourful. Don't you think so?

 

[Sinapse]

The burden of proof and "innocent until proven guilty" are thrown out only in cases of rape. A drunk woman is legally unable to give consent, but if she crashes a car and kills someone by accident it's still MURDER (felony murder - instead of just manslaughter as it normally would be). However, if she has sex she's not even legally able to be accountable for her actions? Why can she kill someone and be held accountable but have sex and even if she consents, it's still rape? Then you have someone like Lena Dunham who can falsely accuse a guy of rape, destroying his life and reputation all to just drum up more interest in her book, and somehow she's still seen as an icon and STILL has her own platform on Huffingtonpost and other media? Why has she not been run out of town for lack of credibility by now? How is this possible?

Rape is a horrible thing. It should be punished swiftly and accurately and without mercy. But the modern justice system has a little thing called due process which is there to protect all of us. If we throw it out in certain instances - no matter how horrible the accused crime might be - we aren't really any better than barbarians. Similarly - if people are on here dropping little jokes and hints that Roosh should get "beaten" or whatever - I really don't see how that's any better than what he's doing.

Has Roosh commited a form of rape in the past?

None of us can rightly say - but it's true some here are speculating rather heavily. Interestingly, rape shield laws protect victims from the same line of inquiry (sexual history). Presumably also if Lena Dunham went on to accuse another random guy of being her rapist, he wouldn't be able to point to the fact that she has a history of false rape accusations and deliberate lack of coming forth with such information in a timely manner instead letting the guy rot in the court of public opinion, require tons of legal fees and damage to his reputation, etc. Nobody held her accountable after she did this, she was simply let carry on with her book release, sales, and journalism career. AND if she does it again, nobody can go back and point to the last time - as they could with any other crime, where repeat offenders are punished more extremely.

 

[DJV]

Similarly - if people are on here dropping little jokes and hints that Roosh should get "beaten" or whatever - I really don't see how that's any better than what he's doing.

No actual beating happened during this thread you know.

We are (or less rethoritically I am) talking about a live situation : if the guy suggests it's ok to rape, with a little ambiguity etc., there's nothing much the justice can do. (Or he gets a UNO-like economic sanction for not being able to do his bootcamp).
If you feel he's implying it's ok to commit rape, you think it's bad to swing a slap (or beating) in his direction ? Still seems better than rape for me.

If you prefer waiting for proof, call for due process, wondering what shade of grey it is etc. then you have your answer why your story about crying rape gets a happy ending... a few harmless slaps at the right time might have prevented it.
If I were to create a bootcamp and write a book, I'd call it "soft justice"

 

[User#8628]

And yeah, he seems like an ass. I'm not above crude jokes, but if you are a one-note MRA (or anything else) guy it's gonna be tough to tell what's a "joke" and what's asshat behavior that's covered up by calling it a joke.

Very true.

 

[User#8628]

A bunch of prostitutes (and some white knighting johns pathetically trailing behind them like feces from a goldfish) calling for men to be physically assaulted for exercising their freedom of speech and assembly? Utterly despicable.

What is wrong with prostitutes, huh?
We are actually preventing rape by our job.

This man threw the first stone by joking about rape so of course people are gonna jump on it and joke about violence.

Seriously, if you hate p4p and you think PUA doesn't work, what are you doing on TAG?

Of course PUA doesn't work for you, girls have some kind of sense to difference between men who respect women and men who don't.
I can see why someone with a social and open minded attitude like Sinapse might be doing a lot better with the girls than you.

 

[User#8628]

Rape is not something that should be taken lightly.
False rape accusions are bad not only in the sense that they ruin things for a man but that actual victims are not being taken serious.
Honestly, courts are very sceptical about rape. And there is a lot of emotion from both sides: people who choose the victim's side and people who want to keep believing in the accused rapist.
If you really think people always believe the victim; look at that Bill Cosby case.
Look at all the incest cases where the whole family turns away from an abused child.
A woman claiming to be raped doesn't get full support.

As for Lena, only those radical white feminists like her and she even wrote in her own book she's bribe her younger sister to kiss her and other weird things on the edge of assault.

Anyway, can't you guys imagine how scared those meetings made women all over the world?

Those are not actually adverticed as "pro rape meetings" of course, and calling them that is a blow up by the media. But these are men with extreme opinions. Trying to act hyper masculine. Many of them thinking they are better than women or have some rights or entitlements to women.
Imagine a group of those people comming together in your neighbourhood. Quite scary.
It doesn't even matter what Roosh intentions are in this case, it's about his followers.

 

[Sudsy]

calling for men to be physically assaulted for exercising their freedom of speech and assembly?

As a better man than I once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

That still doesn't mean I'm going to shed a tear when you get a broken nose for saying it.

The right to freedom of speech merely means you won't face government recriminations - it offers no protections from societal repercussions.

 

[Randy Jinx]

Rape is a heinous crime, absolutely no doubt. As I've always heard, rapists seem to have the hardest time in prison and that is something that I have no problem with.

What is quite interesting (perhaps not the ideal word) is how the public definition of rape has changed drastically over the last few decades. Bear with me a little as I explain...

As I grew up through the 70's to 90's, if someone said 'rape', the image that would come to mind is that of some stranger beating the shit out of a woman and then raping her, leaving a bloody mess behind. Much of that is imagination but also fueled by depictions in entertainment and also media coverage of rape during that time.

In the 90s, the idea (again not the best word, I know) of 'date rape', started coming out and the image of earnest nice guys being accused of rape were added to the previous more brutal images.

Now, it seems, at least to me, that the concept (why do words fail me so bad tonight...) of 'consent' is really at the forefront. It is a tough concept for some guys to wrap their heads around, myself as well to some extent. I've always considered myself a fairly romantic, passionate and yet considerate bloke when it comes to my romantic relations with women. The new world of 'consent' that really young women are growing up in must be quite foreign to middle-age or older folk like myself. The idea of stopping at every single step on every single occasion takes a lot of spontaneity out love making. (in this previous sentence, I am referring to a hypothetical situation in which I am with a romantic partner of some time).

Here's a few examples that would now make me fearful:

While walking on a date that is going very well and we are holding hands or wrapping our arms around each other, I should venture my hand down to her buttocks. Do I need to ask first? Is it sexual assault?

While passionately kissing, I would move my hand up to cup a breast. Is it rape? Sexual assault? Because I didn't stop to ask if I could touch her breast?

While providing oral sex to her using fingers and I should tickle and/or insert a finger in her ass. Is that rape?

I'm afraid I have been guilty of the 3 situations above in the past (usually well received, but in some cases not and was told to stop. I did). Am I a criminal? Am I a rapist?

Now please understand that I am in no way complaining about this situation. I am merely trying to say that to me, the lines have moved and it may be hard to keep up. Part of me understands the male push back that seems to be embodied in the 'return of kings' movement. It is a movement based on fear in my opinion. Fear that what men used to do, would/could often now be considered rape.

All that said, I'm so glad to be in a healthy relationship and to be out of the game.

 

[RandomTokyoGuy]

As for waiting for proof and stuff. Some might remember the terrorists act in Paris late last year.
Some guy from Canada (think he was a writer for a PC games magazine) had a picture of his photo shopped and posted on Twitter and in no time he was in the news as one of the terrorists. I think some of the biggest news papers in Spain headlined him.
Needless to say the guy was not s very happy fellow and it was not possible to backtrack to who started this.

I'm not saying this guy here is near as innocent, but the Internet can blow things way out of proportion. And people tend to turn of their brains. If enough other people have agreed with it it has to be legit, right?

Afaik there are no legal actions possible against what he posted, even thought it's something I and many others would strongly disagree with. It's certainly the right thing to oppose such views, but threatening with illegal actions (which is illegal in itself in opposite to what he did) is not.

In anyway, it is only all this attention he gets that give him a wider audience potential including people to whom his weird ideas resonate.

 

[Randy Jinx]

What is wrong with prostitutes, huh?
We are actually preventing rape by our job.

So very true. Each load you participate in unloading is one less chance of a nut stalking and raping a girl or killing a bunch of people because he can't get laid

 

[Manfreidi]

So very true. Each load you participate in unloading is one less chance of a nut stalking and raping a girl or killing a bunch of people because he can't get laid

When i read her quote originally, i did not want to state it cause she seems like a nice enough girl, but i felt that it was an admission from an experienced girls view that the p4p crowd are definitely the guys to worry about and that the PUA crowd just get a lot of flak. Thank you for your statement.

Anyway, again, i really implore people to not get caught up in this bullshit. The only group who wins here is mass market media who latched on and then created a big story about nothing. If something happens to this guy be it murder or suicide i am going to hold them responsible.

 

[User#8628]

When i read her quote originally, i did not want to state it cause she seems like a nice enough girl, but i felt that it was an admission from an experienced girls view that the p4p crowd are definitely the guys to worry about and that the PUA crowd just get a lot of flak. Thank you for your statement.

Anyway, again, i really implore people to not get caught up in this bullshit. The only group who wins here is mass market media who latched on and then created a big story about nothing. If something happens to this guy be it murder or suicide i am going to hold them responsible.

I don't think either p4p guys or PUA guys (and one does not exclude the other!) are a dangerous crowd at all.
Both probably have a very few dangerous idiots.
But it can be definitely healing and stress relieving to get together with a skilled and caring provider.

As for Roosh, he went on this attention trip by himself. So he's getting a reaction now. He certainly doesn't deserve murder or anything, but if he suicides it's still his own responsibility.
If i were him and i didn't like the attention i would blow off my website and business and lay low for a while.
The police have already been to this guy's recidence (at his mom's house, charming, a true king), his situation is no joke.

 

[User#8628]

Not sure about copy right but i felt like this would ad to the discussion.

And rape is about vaginal/anal penetration, not the same as assault.

Its usually noticable if people are into sex or not without hearing a loud yes, just don't feel them up or fuck them when they are passed out or cant talk or something.

I understand the confussion and insecurities but why do some people have to make this a war between men and women?
Can't you imagine that women are scared because men usually have more physical (possibly also social power) and can be pushy sometimes.

And it goes both ways, and good feminists will aknowledge that. Men also can be uncomfortable with women feeling them up. Men can also be raped.

Best thing you can do is ask or stop if you have any doubt that someone is really into sex with you.

 

[User#8628]

When i read her quote originally, i did not want to state it cause she seems like a nice enough girl, but i felt that it was an admission from an experienced girls view that the p4p crowd are definitely the guys to worry about and that the PUA crowd just get a lot of flak. Thank you for your statement.

Anyway, again, i really implore people to not get caught up in this bullshit. The only group who wins here is mass market media who latched on and then created a big story about nothing. If something happens to this guy be it murder or suicide i am going to hold them responsible.

To clear this up: the p4p crowd are very nice people.
My clientele are very careful with me and care about my pleasure and feelings, making sure i never have something to worry about either financially or physically.

And i don't think a p4p guy would necessary be more thirsty than the bad type of PUA who stands on one spot on the street and talks to every girl that walks by.

Both crowds have gentlemen, middle crowd and a few creeps at the bottom.

 

[Manfreidi]

Thanks for clarifying,

 

[Randy Jinx]

The ones to worry about are the ones who don't have GFs, can't pick up and refuse to P4P. The amount of buildup of stress and other tensions like religious guilt, female idol purity, etc.. and you get a recipe for disaster.

 

[bruv]

The ones to really worry about are the kids who sit there reading this shit without real experiences of their own to counterbalance. I seen it before. having preconceptions like this fuck em up with girls, and just reinforce their 2nd hand ideas. maybe they decide to vent about it on the Internet. And the circle of life continues

 

[Wwanderer]

A bunch of prostitutes (and some white knighting johns pathetically trailing behind them like feces from a goldfish) calling for men to be physically assaulted for exercising their freedom of speech and assembly? Utterly despicable.

Soooo...it is a simple exercise in free speech for Roosh to advocate rape and sexual assault, but it is despicable when "prostitutes and johns" exercise their freedom of speech to advocate physical assault in retaliation?! Very revealing! Would you find it equally despicable for people not involved in prostitution to make the same statements? If so, why did you mention prostitution at all?

In any case, your concept of free speech is the "extreme" American version. In much of the world public "hate speech", speech that creates a threat to certain groups of people, is in fact illegal. See

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

And speaking of speech that is not allowed, calling other participants names is not allowed on TAG. Imo, you are doing exactly that, in a pretty mild/lame way admittedly, in your post quoted above with emphasis added to the relevant bit.

But maybe you were joking; your post definitely did amused me.

-Ww

 

[Ascent]

Soooo...it is a simple exercise in free speech for Roosh to advocate rape and sexual assault, but it is despicable when "prostitutes and johns" exercise their freedom of speech to advocate physical assault in retaliation?! Very revealing! Would you find it equally despicable for people not involved in prostitution to make the same statements? If so, why did you mention prostitution at all?

Threats of violence to supress speech are despicable, yes. Any speech. Can you quote me saying prostitutes and johns should be beaten and killed? Or even subject to any legal sanction?

Incitement to violence is a crime. Prostitution is a crime. Making controversial statements on a blog or otherwise is not a crime. The irony should be obvious.

In any case, your concept of free speech is the "extreme" American version. In much of the world public "hate speech", speech that creates a threat to certain groups of people, is in fact illegal. See

So why are you threatening people online?

And speaking of speech that is not allowed, calling other participants names is not allowed on TAG. Imo, you are doing exactly that, in a pretty mild/lame way admittedly, in your post quoted above with emphasis added to the relevant bit.

"Please mods, ban this evil man for criticising my bloodthirsty white-knighting" - when a rather feeble rebuttal fails, you resort to this?

But maybe you were joking; your post definitely did amused me.

You amuse me too.

 

[meiji]

Okay, back on topic now.

 

[Sinapse]

Can't you imagine that women are scared because men usually have more physical (possibly also social power) and can be pushy sometimes.

This is very real. I try to keep things like this in mind walking at night, if there's a girl coming the other way and its a dark street, try to give her some space on the sidewalk or even just walk a bit in the road or on the other side of the road (if it's not really too out of my way to do so). If I'm going to initiate a conversation with a woman at night I try to do so leaving extra space, even almost to a comical degree - like 15 feet away - before easing into the conversation and getting a bit closer if she is receptive. I push things much less in interactions where there aren't other people nearby or where she can't easily just escape or might feel uncomfortable. When going into my apartment building sometimes I'll happen to just be behind a woman and it's happened where rather than open / enter to autolock code, she has noticed me behind her when about to enter the code and just turned around and left (presumably to just let me go in using the code first, then come back in a minute or two).

From a female's perspective I'll obviously never know how it would be to have to constantly have this slightly in the back of your head or worry about the reality of it, but I try to at least adjust my own actions to accommodate what I believe to be happening and show that I'm at least aware of it. A lot of guys, either in person through things like fast hand movements towards the girl, standing in certain ways where it seems like they're hiding things (hands in pockets rather than out) etc etc, or over text if they are too aggressively pushing to meet a girl it can (either consciously or unconsciously) trigger feelings of unease in the girl. This is one extreme of something I think of like an axis, the other end of which is friendly to an almost boring degree. I sometimes describe this as a "rapist - impotence" axis, where in your communication at every phase you neither seem (or actually be) too aggressive nor too incapable of actually doing something sexual at all. There IS a balance but this is not readily understandable unless you are very well socialized by parents, friends, lucky social background and had lots of experiences in the "right" or popular circle of kids as opposed to under-socialized such as sitting in front of a computer / TV screen with an absent parent and little actual interaction with friends or aren't just genetically gifted in that area. I see it as a kind of evaluation by proxy based on your entire set of actions whereby you're either determined (by a woman) to be rapist/aggressive/inable to control yourself and on a literal level like a premature ejaculator, OR impotent, too friendly, boring, predictable, anxious, and unable to get it up. If you're in the former you're creepy and a predator, if you're in the latter camp you're in the dreaded "Friend zone". If you are in the middle "goldilocks" range you are seen as a potential mate. There's lots of ways to tweak your communication and mental processes to account for this, which is one reason why game IS important to help guys actually think about stuff like this that they might never even imagine they were communicating across in something as simple as a pushy text. Again, I don't think women would really think of it in a literal sense like "he might be a rapist" but it's probably just felt something more like a vague feeling of "hes creepy". Once again, the answer to the problem of "rape exists" is not to go to the other extreme and clarify every step of the way and make things boringly impotent. There IS a middle ground where you can show you "get" it and it helps if all your communication is on the same page

Bringing it back to Roosh.. My main problem is that even if he's joking he doesn't really seem to even be accounting for the fact that women walk around in somewhat more danger than the average dude on a daily basis. There's no empathy really visible to me there which is cause for concern

 

[Ascent]

Bringing it back to Roosh.. My main problem is that even if he's joking he doesn't really seem to even be accounting for the fact that women walk around in somewhat more danger than the average dude on a daily basis.

Most victims of violent crime are men. Men have shorter life expectancies, suffer more accidents, etc. Women are disproportionately less likely to be convicted of many crimes, etc... I'm sure you've heard those arguments. How are they in more danger? Rationalisations are sure to follow about how women are simultaneously in need of special protection and equal treatment, and Roosh is just reacting to the social conventions which force those and enable the kind of sorry display you see in this thread. So he raises a reasonable point even if he does come out with a lot of reactionary drivel at times.

 

[Randy Jinx]

Most victims of violent crime are men. Men have shorter life expectancies, suffer more accidents, etc. Women are disproportionately less likely to be convicted of many crimes, etc... I'm sure you've heard those arguments. How are they in more danger? Rationalisations are sure to follow about how women are simultaneously in need of special protection and equal treatment, and Roosh is just reacting to the social conventions which force those and enable the kind of sorry display you see in this thread. So he raises a reasonable point even if he does come out with a lot of reactionary drivel at times.

OK, point by point:

Most violent crimes are committed by men.

Life expectancy is irrelevant

More accidents is probably true. The only way to give that fact any kind of weight would be to examine the causes of the accidents. My bet would be stupidity, recklessness and unnecessary risk would all be near the top of the list. And in any case, it's irrelevant to this debate.

"Women less likely to be convicted": probably true. When judged by a jury of peers, extenuating circumstances and empathy probably play a role. Men generate little sympathy, probably due to stupidity, recklessness and unnecessary risk-taking

They aren't necessarily in more danger. As Alice and Sinapse said above, they feel like they are in more danger due to differences in physiology. I would also add that media depictions both in news and entertainment add to this fear that some women have in some situations.

"Women are in need of special protection and equal treatment simultaneously": Laws exist which are supposed to ensure equal treatment for men and women. In reality, there is still a lot of catching up to do. Changing a society, a culture, is a multi-generational process. Change starts with empathy (Sinapse nailed the crux of the issue by using that word. Nice). When the society and culture reaches the point of real equality for men and women across the board, the idea of special protection for any group (sex/ race/ religion/ etc..) will no longer be needed. Any special protections that exist now are merely reactions to the resistance of some towards ensuring true equality for all.

"and Roosh is just reacting to the social conventions which force those and enable the kind of sorry display you see in this thread": See above and welcome to the 21st century

"Roosh raises a reasonable point": I'm sure you think he does. Women have a fear of violence and rape in some situations. You and Roosh seem to have a fear of actually having to feel anything that would lead to a healthy relationship with women as equals.

 

[Wwanderer]

Most victims of violent crime are men. Men have shorter life expectancies, suffer more accidents, etc. Women are disproportionately less likely to be convicted of many crimes, etc... I'm sure you've heard those arguments. How are they in more danger?

This often-repeated argument (men being the majority of violent crime victims, suffering more accidents etc) contains an obvious and well-known fallacy. Namely, the raw numbers of male and female victims reflect relative danger/risk ONLY if the same number of men and women are at risk in the first place are the SAME and if their behavior is the SAME on average.

A simple example: More men than women are killed and injured in traffic accidents (in the US) and a larger fraction of men than women are killed if they are involved in a traffic accident. The well documented (by insurance companies) reason is not that men are more fragile than women, more easily injured or killed, or anything of that sort. Rather it is mainly because men drive in a more risky way (faster, more aggressively etc...and get far more fines for violating traffic regulations) than women on average. A secondary (smaller effect) reason is that there are somewhat more men on the roads than women. You can google up lots of data and information on this with little trouble if you doubt it. Here's one link for a starter - http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving_risk.shtml

Put very simply, a woman who drives like an average man and who is on the road as much as a typical man is in the same amount of danger as an average man.

Wrt to violent street crime, closer to the issue in this thread, try this: The next time you are driving or walking through a bad (high crime) neighborhood somewhere during late night (high crime rate) hours notice how many more men than women are on the street. For that reason more men than women will be the victims of violent street crime, i.e., simply because far more of them are exposed to the risk. A woman in the same environment would very likely be in much greater danger than a man, but there are few of them who take such risks (largely because they know how large the danger would be).

-Ww

 

[Randy Jinx]

This often-repeated argument (men being the majority of violent crime victims, suffering more accidents etc) contains an obvious and well-known fallacy. Namely, the raw numbers of male and female victims reflect relative danger/risk ONLY if the same number of men and women are at risk in the first place are the SAME and if their behavior is the SAME on average.

A simple example: More men than women are killed and injured in traffic accidents (in the US) and a larger fraction of men than women are killed if they are involved in a traffic accident. The well documented (by insurance companies) reason is not that men are more fragile than women, more easily injured or killed, or anything of that sort. Rather it is mainly because men drive in a more risky way (faster, more aggressively etc...and get far more fines for violating traffic regulations) than women on average. A secondary (smaller effect) reason is that there are somewhat more men on the roads than women. You can google up lots of data and information on this with little trouble if you doubt it. Here's one link for a starter - http://www.sirc.org/publik/driving_risk.shtml

Put very simply, a woman who drives like an average man and who is on the road as much as a typical man is in the same amount of danger as an average man.

Wrt to violent street crime, closer to the issue in this thread, try this: The next time you are driving or walking through a bad (high crime) neighborhood somewhere during late night (high crime rate) hours notice how many more men than women are on the street. For that reason more men than women will be the victims of violent street crime, i.e., simply because far more of them are exposed to the risk. A woman in the same environment would very likely be in much greater danger than a man, but there are few of them who take such risks (largely because they know how large the danger would be).

-Ww

Well put, Dubs!