Repost: How To Get Over The Girl Who’s Not Right For You, By The World’s First PUA Author

Some game content is being expurgated from Return of Kings lately.  One of the items no longer on the site includes the following article.  I’m not sure why, since this is one of the least offensive things I wrote over there.  So this is a reprint.  (If Jesus actually didn’t like Ovid, then He had the chance to strike the dude with lightning, back when He was a little kid.  Other than that, I’ll hold my tongue about my thoughts on the recent deletions, at least for the moment.)  Therefore, if some of the links here don’t work, you’ll understand why.


Ovid wrote the first PUA literature, around 3AD. (It was 1970 before the next book appeared, Eric Weber’s How To Pick Up Girls!) About two years later, Ovid wrote Love’s Remedy, about NEXTing the Roman way. This should work for exes, those soon to be, and all those ONEitis cases that frequently motivate guys to start learning game.

Distilled from flowery Latin verse full of mythological allusions (and my personal commentary added), here are the bare essentials of washing that broad right outta your hair.


Think with the right head.

If you know it’s going to end badly, it’s best to put an end to it in the beginning. Love’s Remedy emphasized not letting the little head do the thinking. It’s a lot harder to break things off if your doomed crush takes root and turns into full-blown heartbreak.

I’ll add that when it’s uncertain if someone will take you seriously, know when to cut your losses. If you’re too optimistic (a frequent hazard for guys), you’ll waste your time and get hurt feelings. Giving up too easily is also bad; defeatist mentality is another Inner Game problem. Let good judgment be your guide in this balance. Further, if chasing someone gets you nowhere, quit chasing her. You might get better results, and if not, at least you’ve cut your losses.

Let things cool down

Get away from it all and catch some other sights.

If you’re already besotted, you might have to wait for a while and distract yourself. Until you’re ready to take off the rose-colored glasses, preoccupy yourself with work or some other constructive pursuit. Staying busy will keep you from grinding your mental gears.

Some of the examples Ovid throws out there include running for office, taking part in warlike exercises (martial arts or working out should do), or fighting the Parthians. (The Middle East is still a mess, two millennia later. A tour of duty in the sandbox—unless you’re opposed—certainly takes your mind off of anyone who won’t have the common courtesy to mail you a Dear John letter.) Ovid also recommends taking up farming; gardening should work if you can’t afford 40 acres and a tractor. He wrote longingly of the rustic lifestyle, much like Seneca, and also recommends hunting and fishing as other distracting pursuits. A long vacation does wonders.

All that’s difficult if you’re suffering heartbreak. Consider it like taking a bitter pill. Ovid recommends not bothering with magic spells; so no New Age stuff there. Just butch up.

She’s not perfect

Same chick!

Now remind yourself of her flaws:

Say to yourself, “She has filched from me this thing and that and, not content with larceny, her extravagance has compelled me to sell my patrimony. What vows she made, and how often has she broken them! How often has she left me lying before her door! To others she gives her love, to me only her disdain. A common broker enjoys with her the nights of love which she refuses me.” Let all these grievances embitter your feelings towards her. Recall them incessantly to your mind, and let them sow the seeds of hatred in it. And when you reproach her, may you wax eloquent; but if only you grieve enough, eloquent you will be without an effort.

Epic! I’ll also add that a slut is someone who sleeps with anyone, while a bitch is someone who sleeps with anyone except you. So if you’re a man of accomplishment, and someone who won’t consider you gives it up for losers with room temperature IQs, she’s a bitch with fleas.

Ovid recounts a personal anecdote, where he thought over how much he didn’t like the appearance of a “certain wench,” even though he had to use his imagination as he didn’t find anything objectively ugly about her. And then:

“What a lot of money she wants.” And that was, indeed, the main count in the indictment.

Ooh burn! He recommends exaggerating any traits of hers which really are bad. If she lacks sparkle in certain areas, have her demonstrate her lack of talent. If possible, have a good look at her some time without fancy clothes and makeup, or with a mudpack on her face. (If not possible, you can always imagine it.)

Find someone else


After unloading some ammo at his critics (we understand), Ovid recommends (in a roundabout way) getting some outside action before your hot date with Miss Wrong. Further, if she has a strange-looking cookie or “fish taco syndrome”, see above about “she’s not perfect”.

In any event, Ovid wasn’t a big believer in monogamy:

I would counsel you also to have two mistresses at a time. If you could have more, it would be still better.

That one’s going to be controversial. Still, on the plus side, that’s quite a way to achieve abundance mentality.

Keep it cool


Another good one:

…[W]hen your despairing heart is consumed with a passion fiercer than the fires of Aetna, act in such a manner that your mistress may deem you colder than ice. Pretend that you are cured, and if your heart still bleeds, never let her suspect it. Let laughter be upon your lips, though tears be in your heart.

We agree. One of the first game mistakes that recovering AFCs must unlearn is supplication. In this instance, holding frame keeps things graceful if you have to break up. I’ll add that it’s extremely helpful if you’re NEXTing someone who’s merely been toying with your affections.

Further, if someone stands you up for a planned hot date, act like it doesn’t bother you, so it doesn’t “push her pride to the point of disdain“. (Yes, flaking is as old as the Roman Empire!) If she wants you back after that, forget it; bang someone else next time.

Calling it quits


In any case, you’d better be firm, or you’re sunk. If you haven’t had enough yet, hang out with her until you’re sick of her. A modern proverb goes that for every “perfect 10“, there’s a guy who’s tired of dealing with her crap.

Also, don’t be alone when you’re despairing; hang out with your friends instead. Until the crisis has passed, avoid the love-stricken like yourself, as well as happy couples. Keep away from the chick you’re trying to get over, her family, and her friends. Don’t ask about her. (These days, this means no lurking on social media.) Don’t even talk about how you’re over her; a gradual NEXTing is better.

When you’re ready, cultivate indifference rather than resentment; she’s now merely an acquaintance. No angry confrontations either. Still, it’s still okay to remind yourself what a flake she is. Ovid recommends getting rid of your love letters. (This advice is obsolete today. Saving those emails and text messages could save your ass.) Also, avoid places that will remind you of her.

Final notes

The following are somewhat modified from the original, though in the same spirit.

Don’t flaunt your wealth; instead, let her think you’re broke. Don’t get aggro with her past or present boyfriends; they know what a pain in the ass she is now anyway. Eat a moderate diet. You’re allowed to get shit-faced drunk. (I recommend only once—okay, fine, one week.) I’ll further add, go find ten other women.

Read More: Why “Nexting” Unsuitable Women Is Good For Your Sex Life

Repost: How To Get Over The Girl Who’s Not Right For You, By The World’s First PUA Author

Can Disney’s princess movies encourage Princess Complex?

What do little girls watch for entertainment?  Animated movies are perennial favorites.  The problem is that some of them are conveying the wrong messages.  They usually feature princesses, or those who end up marrying into royalty.  What’s the deal with that?

It’s obviously about wish fulfillment.  First of all, princesses are at the apex of society.  Not only are they rich and can afford anything they want, they’re part of the ruling dynasty.  Also, princesses can avoid any real work.  Their many servants are paid for by the royal treasury (and ultimately the taxpayers).  If they were peasant women instead, they’d have to help maintain the farm:  milk the cows, churn the butter, and all that.  Even if they were bourgeois housewives, that involves cooking, cleaning, and tending children.  If they want maids or nannies, the expense comes out of the household budget.

List of Disney princess movies

The following is a list of the movies where the official Disney princesses appear:

  • Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937):  Princess raised by an evil stepmother who makes her do chores.  Revived from everlasting sleep by handsome prince.
  • Cinderella (1950):  Orphan oppressed by evil stepmother who makes her do chores.  Her fairy godmother helps her win the heart of the handsome prince.
  • Sleeping Beauty (1959):  Princess raised without knowledge of her royal status.  Revived from everlasting sleep by handsome prince.
  • The Little Mermaid (1989):  Undersea princess overcomes plot of scheming aunt and wins the heart of handsome prince.
  • Beauty and the Beast (1991):  Bourgeois feminist from medieval France removes curse by the power of true love, beast becomes handsome prince cured of psychological problems.
  • Aladdin (1992):  Arab princess shares enchanted adventure with handsome rogue.
  • Pocahontas (1995):  Indian princess meets handsome British officer and takes much artistic license with history.
  • Mulan (1998):  Medieval Chinese feminist enlists in drag and saves her country from Huns.  In the sequel, she marries former commanding officer.
  • The Princess and the Frog (2009):  Waitress undergoes amphibian adventure, marries handsome prince.
  • Tangled (2010):  Princess raised without knowledge of her royal status by oppressive witch, meets handsome rogue.
  • Brave (2012):  Feminist princess defies tradition and refuses betrothal.  Princess uses magic to manipulate mother, with unexpected results.  Princess gets her way, and will get to pick which prince she wants to marry, and when.
  • Moana (2016):  South Seas princess recovers magical artifact.

So we have some common themes here.  Excepting the last two, all end up with a highly desirable guy in the end.  Most of the heroines are princesses, or the daughters of tribal chiefs in societies that don’t have a national monarchy.  Some others ascend to royalty through marriage.  Mulan is the only exception, merely getting an officer of high standing.  The princesses who end up with handsome rogues, instead of princes, still retain their royal status.  Common labor is equated with oppression, especially domestic chores.

In the feminist-influenced films, the heroines get to challenge long-standing customs.  In the end, they overcome resistance and have everything their way.  The anachronistic feminists (butch in a couple of cases) don’t incur lasting consequences to their social standing.  Neither are there any other long-term ill effects on their lives for defying tradition.

It gets worse

Beauty and the Beast is the most insidious of the princess movies.  Sure, “love conquers all” is a nice-sounding message.  Still, what happens if you try to run the script in real life?  If, for example, someone tries to use true love to turn an unemployed alcoholic into a handsome prince, the usual result is not a magical adventure.  Instead, that means escaping to the women’s shelter after one too many black eyes.  It’s the same problem as Wuthering Heights, another notorious item of Stockholm Syndrome fiction.

Brave is another notable offender, though for different and more complex reasons.  It’s the first princess movie to question the institution of marriage; whereas the others merely suffered from instilling unrealistic expectations.  All of the heroine’s suitors looked like dorks, which surely was meant to reinforce the message the screenwriters were intending to make.  That’s the difference between adolescent boys and girls.  The girls quickly will blossom into their peak maidenly beauty.  At the time, boys look pretty dorky for the next few years, before they slowly start to look manly.

Sure, the plot will strike a chord:  “Poor Merida – pressured into getting married early, and she doesn’t even get to pick the guy!”  Indeed, that much is understandable.  Still, strange results are to be expected if one applies modern sensibilities to medieval settings.  (It’s sort of like the “Oh shit!” moment when you realize that your favorite ancient philosopher or theologian didn’t object to slavery.)  In the real world, dynastic marriages for royal families were an essential means to hold alliances together.  This carried on up until monarchy became obsolete, but throwing tradition out the window would’ve been impossible before then.  Dynastic marriage was the one duty expected of princesses, a tradeoff for having the most pampered and carefree existence of anyone in the realm.

The notion of arranged marriages seems very out of step in modern times, unless you’re from India where this is the norm.  (Americans have a divorce rate ten times higher than they do.  Maybe they know something we don’t?)  Still, that’s how things rolled in Europe too back in the day, and it worked pretty well for them.  It wasn’t until the Renaissance that people started getting married for love.  Moreover, it wasn’t until the Sexual Revolution that young women were able to ride the Cock Carousel without social penalty.  Does all that screwing around help to test for long-term compatibility – maximal choices, lots of data points, “try before you buy”?  Once again, our divorce rate speaks volumes.

Anyway, the butch princess gets everything her way in the end, but things could’ve gone a lot worse.  Merida’s refusal to follow customs threatened to disrupt the fragile peace with the neighboring tribes.  At no point did she seem to care that a lot of people might get killed because of that.  Everything was all about her!  (This is one of the things that’s wrong with feminism, of course.)  Here’s how I would’ve handled the plot if I’d been the screenwriter.

“Okay, so you don’t want to do the one thing that’s expected of you as a princess.  That’s totally cool; you can be a peasant instead.  I’ll give you a churn, spinning wheel, loom, washtub, broom, and a stove to help you get started.  If that’s too girly for your tastes, I can get you an anvil, hammer, and furnace.”

What messages do princess movies convey to girls?

Those films seem like pretty wholesome fare.  Actually, they certainly are, if compared to former Mouseketeers turned pop divas getting lewd on stage.  Even so, the princess movies do contain some rather faulty underlying messages.  Little girls are the main target audience.  One needn’t be Sigmund Freud – or his nephew, the advertising pioneer and propagandist Edward Bernays – to understand the imprinting effect of messages like this delivered at an early age.

When adult women read a romance novel, or trash like 50 Shades of Grey, they should be able to realize that the book is escapist wish fulfillment.  Not every potential boyfriend will be a billionaire who looks like an underwear model and has a case of narcissistic personality disorder that the ladies find so appealing.  They should understand that.  However, “should” and five bucks will get you a cheeseburger.  Chick porn like that, along with chick flicks – what they watch after they’re too old for princess movies – can contribute to unrealistic expectations.  It’s much like what visual porn does to guys.

It’s worse when messages that might lead to unrealistic expectations are aimed at little girls.  The target audience is at the age where they still believe in the Easter Bunny, or not far beyond that.  Little kids don’t have much of a bullshit filter.  Obviously the girls are meant to identify with the protagonists as role models, imagining that things will be like that when they too are teenagers.  At a young age, they might internalize messages like this:

  • You’re a princess by birthright.  If your parents aren’t royalty, maybe they’re not your real parents and are oppressing you.
  • Even if you’re definitely a commoner, social climbing via marriage is a great way to fix that problem and attain princess status.
  • All girls deserve a rich guy so they can be spoiled perpetually, whether or not they bring much to the table themselves.  Of course, he must be good looking too.
  • If you choose a handsome rogue instead, that’s empowerment.  No bad consequences will come to you for running with criminals.
  • True love can do anything, including fixing someone else’s personality defects.
  • Labor is definitely beneath you, especially chores like washing dishes.  That’s for servants.
  • It’s always right to defy any social standards you don’t like.  Gender roles especially have no reason to exist.  Do whatever you consider personally rewarding; that will never negatively affect your personal outcome.
  • In short, you deserve nothing in life other than the very best.  Since you’re not a peasant, hardships are always temporary and can be overcome with a cool adventure.
  • You always can count on the assistance of talking animals, supernatural beings like fairy godmothers, noble family members you didn’t realize you had, and handsome princes willing to fight to the death for you.

What are the effects on boys who watch this stuff?

Boys will get some different messages:

  • Girls will like you, as long as you’re a handsome prince, or a handsome rogue.  (There is some truth in this.)
  • You must do anything for the spoiled princess, including risking your life.
  • Opting out of gender roles – like the one above – isn’t in the script for you.
  • The more that you do for girls, the more they’ll appreciate you in the end.  (And I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.)

It’s no wonder why boys prefer action and adventure movies over princess movies, now isn’t it?  Fortunately, the former usually have better character development.

What’s the matter with this?

Simply put, the world does not work this way.  Here are some facts contrary to what little girls learn from these movies.  These are harsh, but the truth hurts.

  • Most people are ordinary commoners, fairly average.  (Even those who are exceptional need to do more than have an adventure and rest on their laurels.)
  • Average men indeed are good enough for average women.  Shocking, isn’t it?
  • Someone who refuses to settle for anyone other than a millionaire or a celebrity is a lazy gold digger.  Instead of getting a handsome prince, those with impossible standards probably will get pumped and dumped a lot, and later in life end up all alone and very disappointed.
  • Rich guys sometimes have bald spots or pot bellies or might be less than six feet tall.  (Who knew, right?)  Some have short tempers or big egos, especially the trust fund kids.  Those who’ve made their own money usually have to work very long hours.
  • Women who chase criminals are gun molls.  They certainly don’t live happily ever after.
  • True love is great, but it doesn’t do everything, and it certainly can’t cure someone else’s mental problems, addictions, atrocious behavior, etc.
  • Being lazy is not a virtue.  Unless you can afford a maid, you’d better learn how to clean up your own place, or you’ll be the next star on Hoarders.
  • Social standards usually exist for a reason.  Traditions become traditions because they work.  Ignore this at your peril.
  • Fairy godmothers don’t exist.  (Bruce Jenner doesn’t count.)

What is Princess Complex?

If the fantasy / wish fulfillment concept of how the world works isn’t mitigated by realism by the time they’re adults, a condition known as Princess Complex will develop.  Urban Dictionary defines this term as:

An attitude fed to women by the media and other females that bestows upon them illusions of superiority and selfishness. Also brought on to many attractive females over time by means of many males who have ventured into the friend zone by catering to the respective female’s every beck and call.

Another defines this as:

As children girls are told stories about knights who save princesses and exist to serve them. They internalize these stories and imagine themselves as princesses. As they grow older they expect every single man they are involved with to play the part of the prince, and many men enable this delusion. This is a culturally enforced narcissistic delusion, that causes women to expect praise and special favors. This will only end when men raise up and hand women a dose of reality. Stop paying for her dates, and stop telling her she’s special.

A related complex is Feminist Entitlement:

Feminist Entitlement is the conviction that women are owed something by the virtue of their gender.  It is the belief structure that tells women they deserve to have their whims catered to both culturally and interpersonally.  One of the most harmful aspects of Feminist Entitlement is the belief that feminists have a right to use and view women both as tools and victims.

Wrapping things up, you need to keep track of what your kids are watching.  Too many of the wrong messages might encourage your little ones to be spoiled brats who think the universe rotates around their egos.  Again, these movies aren’t as poisonous as some of the stuff on the idiot box lately.  Still, if they do watch these films – or others like them – it’s a good idea to have a discussion with them to explain that not everyone gets to be a princess.

Can Disney’s princess movies encourage Princess Complex?

Men’s Health encourages men to explore bisexuality

Men’s Health has released what might be one of their most unintentionally funny articles ever, “So You’re Feeling a Little Bicurious. We’re Here to Help!”  It begins:

After years of wondering if I could ever be intimate with another man, I decided to hook up with a dude my freshman year of college.

Looks like he demonstrated that he was capable of doing so.  Proof of concept, right?  Well, there’s a lot more to the article than that, of course.

The problem was that he was so drunk that he threw up during the hookup.  What a way to kill the mood!  One would think that would’ve scared both of them straight, but apparently not!  The only good news is that he’s a guy; if he’d been a chick, the other dude would’ve had to worry about getting a false rape accusation.  If you drive drunk, you’re responsible for your actions; if you hook up drunk, it’s completely different as long as you’re female.

The article offers helpful tips for guys who want to do what he did – presumably without relying as much on Dutch courage.  One thing that’s oddly missing is a clear warning that you shouldn’t drink ’till you spew during a hot date.  This is the closest the article comes to that:

After the experience, I could not tell you if I was gay or bi. Overall, the experience was “meh,” like any really sloppy, drunken hookup regardless of gender.

Pro tip:  If you’re a dude and you’re turned on by both dudes and chicks, you’re bisexual.  If you’re only turned on by dudes, you’re gay.  If you know the difference between teal and aqua, you have an unusual fascination for gladiator movies, or can suck the chrome off of a trailer hitch, then you’re probably fruity to one degree or another.  This stuff isn’t rocket science.

Anyway, here’s the highlights of rest of the advice.

1. Start with porn.

Actually, starting with porn is excellent advice if you no longer want to be a boring old straight guy.  If you’re jerkin’ the gherkin until it turns blue, you might be doing strange things to your arousal template.  There are numerous anecdotal accounts about straight porn addicts starting to look at gay stuff after the regular beat-off material loses its sparkle.  Heck there are far weirder things too – tentacle porn makes giving another guy a BJ seem pretty tame.  This is a small part of the tolerance phenomenon, which Nofap describes here:

In a pornography addiction, tolerance seems to build when a user needs to look at more porn, more novel porn, more intense porn, or a combination of these in order to satisfy themselves. This is where pornography addiction gets dangerous.

If an addict builds up a tolerance to porn, he may need it more abundantly. Just spending 10 minutes cruising porn sites may not be enough, and he will begin spending more and more time with porn until it begins cutting into his career or family life.

Or he may need porn that is progressively more novel, searching for videos with actresses and sexual acts he’s never before seen. Many porn addicts on NoFap report shock when they realize that a certain kink or fetish they once found stomach-turning is now the only thing that can get them off. The addictive quest for novelty in porn has lead some porn addicts to search for extreme, taboo and even illegal material.

So go ahead and choke that chicken for hours on end, day after day, and eventually you’ll be up for banging anything!  That is, if you can still get it up after all that overuse, but that’s another porn problem entirely.

2. Move to apps and chat rooms.

Men’s Health recommends:

It allows you the opportunity to engage with other men sexually without doing anything IRL. (Grindr and Scruff are two good apps to use.)

Men’s Health really knows what’s good for men, so what the hell – I signed up for Grindr.  Woo hoo!  It’s going to be BJ City here!  I can’t wait to pack some fudge too!  I’m sure my girlfriends will be a little surprised when I switch to “the love that dare not speak its name”, but that’s their problem to deal with!  My GRINDR app just sent me another invite for an Oscars party, how about that!  Damn, why didn’t I get results like this when I was trying to find chicks on OKCupid?

Anyway, the article doesn’t say too much about safe sex and – again – these guys really know what they’re talking about and what’s good for men.  Since they didn’t mention anything about that, I guess we don’t have to worry about condoms these days, right?

3. Have a bisexual MMF threesome.

If after watching some bi/gay porn and talking to some dudes on apps/chat rooms, you’re thinking to yourself, alright, I think I could potentially be into this, it might be time to consider having a threesome with a woman and another man.

Great idea!  I’ll head right over to the nearby biker bar and try the following pickup line:  “I’ll bet you’re bi too.  How about we tag-team your girlfriend?”  For those who’ve watched enough porn by now to think that’s an awesome idea, Men’s Health has a helpful article linked below called “I Can’t Stop Having Devil’s Threesomes”.

4. Work on reducing internalized shame.

Exploring bi-curiosity isn’t just getting out there and doing it with another guy. “It’s important for men to understand that we live in sex-phobic and homophobic culture that helps shape what we see as possible for ourselves and our desires,” says Jor-El.

Is Jor-El from the planet Krypton or something?  Being gay wasn’t such a huge big deal by the 1970s.  It was still somewhat controversial, but far less so by the 1990s.  As for now, being gay means you’re special and unique, so start watching more gay porn and sign up for gay hookup apps!

As for those who say that American culture is sex-negative, have they seen any movies lately, or turned on the radio or TV?  The only places you can’t “let it all hang out” are at work or at church.

5. Educate yourself.

Instead of discussing how we come to form our sexual identity, some sex-ed classes never get beyond condoms on cucumbers—or teach abstinence-only curriculum.

Problem? What problem?

6. Recognize you might not have a big “aha” moment.

I thought I was going to have this big “aha” moment. I’d kiss his lips and immediately realize, “Woah… I’m gay. I’ve never felt like this when I’ve been with women.” Or it would become crystal clear I definitely wasn’t into men. Neither happened. In fact, I came to the conclusion after the experience that I was straight, and it took me another five years of hooking up with men to embrace the fact that I am bisexual.

He banged dudes for five years before he figured out he was bi?  I’d say that if you go back for seconds, that’s a pretty good proof of concept that you’re at least a switch hitter.

7. Talk to a therapist.

“With a LGBTQ+ affirming therapist, you can talk through aspects of your sexuality that seem daunting or frightening to deal with on your own,” Joe-El says.

“Doc, I think I might be gay.”
“Are you turned on by men?”
“Yes, you’re queer.  That’ll be $90 please.”

8. You can try it, not like it, and you’re still straight.

You fear that rumors surrounding your sexuality will haunt you for the rest of your life, but here’s the truth about experimenting: If you come to the conclusion after hooking up with a guy that you’re straight, then you are just as straight as a dude who’s never experimented. One sexual act does not define your entire identity. Period.

You know what?  On second thought, I’ve decided that I’m going to ignore what Men’s Health is telling me to do.  Experimenting with homosexuality sounds like it inherently sucks and is a pain in the ass.  I think I’ll just delete my GRINDR account and go back to watching gladiator movies.

Men’s Health encourages men to explore bisexuality

The ugly truth about “sugar dating” is proof that Fourth Wave feminism has gone full retard

Feminism has undergone quite a paradigm shift.  The First Wave was the least noxious.  Part of their efforts included various social reforms, such as fighting prostitution.  Were they right to consider it exploitation?  I don’t pay for sex, but I’ve known quite a few who sell it, and I’ll just say that the reality is not too much like Risky Business and a lot more like Requiem for a Dream.  These days, according to Fourth Wave feminism, prostitution is “empowerment”.  Things were moving in that direction among some currents of the Third Wave, but now it’s gone full retard.

I’ve written before about the commodification of the sexual marketplace.  It’s been around for quite a while – often called “the oldest profession” – but Internet technology has given it some new twists.  “Sugar dating” is one of these sexual marketplace hacks.  As the above-referenced article states:

Courtesans have been around for ages. Now there are websites to facilitate this, allowing the “sugar babies” to maximize opportunities far and wide like women already do with online dating. (If only DARPA had known the interesting ways their civil defense communications network would be used!) The sugar daddies should find a real girlfriend instead of these greedy gold diggers.

Before all this, attractive young women already got lots of freebies, and on average, a pretty easy ride in society.  I can’t even blame them for that; utilizing advantages is merely part of human nature.  However, now they’re learning to monetize their goodies like never before, thanks to high technology along with the Current Year’s lack of moral standards.  Today’s feminists even encourage this, calling it “empowerment”.  Unfortunately, things end pretty badly for those who choose to go this route.

All that said, a few days ago, I clued one of my friends into the “sugar baby” phenomenon.  I merely told him he should check out the recent Stefan Molyneux video on the subject:

It looks like that turned out to be a major Red Pill for him.  I’ll add that up until recently, he was a lifelong atheist, but this seems to be one of the features of Clown World that jolted him to the point of reconsidering.  The following is from a couple of emails he sent to his friends, reposted with permission.  He’s not an avid Manosphere reader, and again, I didn’t say too much about the subject.  All of the following is from his own research and conclusions.

10% of coeds are sugar babies

Feminism is supposed to empower women.  Combine that with relative morality of atheism and you end up with millions of young girls in college selling their bodies to middle age men for money.   Actually, the lowest bid ebay style auction kind of money.

This email will be very upsetting.

First up.   Some internet dating history and who has the power.

  1. The ratio for a women in her 20’s on a dating site is about 100 to 1.  That is 100 men try to pursue the 1 medium to very hot women.  Of those men, a few of them are actually marriage material.  The girl gets to figure out which one.   Women have all the power in online dating in their 20s.   The men have no power online.
  2. The ratio for a women in her 40s to find a marriage material man is more like 1 to 10 or 10%.  The men have all the power when the woman is older and less desirable.   This is just reality for a man of high value.   The high value man has many women to choose from and he knows it.

Now, the Sugar Baby “dating” websites turn the tables completely around.  The men bid on the women with their money and the woman goes on a date with the highest bid.

  1. The 20 year old girl gets higher bid prices than the 40 year old who probably gets no bids.   But, the men can bid on multiple women and only actually pay the woman that accepts the lowest prices.   Who has the power on the Sugar daddy website?  The men who are bidding have all the power.  They are usually over age 40 and tend to be profession IT or CEO types.
  2. The 40 year old woman has no chance against the 20 year old woman on the Sugar Baby websites.  The men get to choose whoever they want.

Here is the saddest part.    About 10% of all college girls are selling their bodies for money to men old enough to be their fathers.  Most, don’t have sex, but all of them are being used by much older men.

This rabbit hole goes deeper than you can possibly believe.  And it leads straight to Satan’s will.   Destroy the family by destroying the most valuable thing a young woman has.

Look at the disgust on the audience faces in this one.

Hundreds of thousands of Sugar Babies in Australia.

Here is a Sugar Baby explaining to other girls how to be a Sugar Baby.  If you don’t watch the entire videos, just read the comments.

What Man in his right mind would ever marry a Sugar Baby?   I’m not talking about the “Johns”.    I’m talking about the used up damaged woman that the “Johns” create.  I have a feeling that the fatherless generation has something to do with the rise of Sugar Babies.

Religion was created to teach women to value their chastity as an prize to be gained when a man commits.   For thousands of years, it was a bargain where women gave up her body in exchange for the commitment of the man.   Now, women give up their body  for money and the man has absolutely no reason to ever commit.   The woman’s bargaining tool is gone.

What is left is pure hedonism where the easy life choices are preferred instead of the good life choices that actually make a better life.

Feminism is Cancer.   We are going back to the indigenous days before religion separated humans from the hedonistic animals.


One thing.   I’m not saying indigenous were animals.   I’m was saying that religion created humans, not that humans created religion.

Religion created humans thru stories of how to live a better life.  Those stories had to come from God because they are so good.  Every successful religion in the world has marriage in it with 1 man to 1 woman.    Islam has to be a rich man to have many wives.

Before religion, it was 1 man to 5 women.   The DNA shows that.  That is the “natural” way humans to live just as the primates do today.

I don’t think that was a better life, because 80% of all the men were INCEL.

My point is that Feminism is returning humans to a life that we hadn’t seen for 10,000 years.  I don’t agree.

The ugly truth about “sugar dating” is proof that Fourth Wave feminism has gone full retard

Is Wikipedia biased? “Exhibit A” is their Manosphere article

In the early days, Wikipedia wasn’t much to look at. Over time, this crowdsourced encyclopedia became a vast compilation of knowledge – some articles pretty good, others with mixed results.  Sadly, there are those who consider it to be some kind of ultimate repository of absolute truth.  It certainly isn’t.  There are some major problems with it, and I’d have to write a book to describe it all in detail.

For now, one of the major problems is leftist bias. It’s not supposed to be that way, because of the rules about “Neutral Point Of View”, “Reliable Sources”, “Undue Influence”, “Weasel Words, etc., arbitration policies for disputes, and all the rest of it.  So where bias exists, it should be pretty easy to fix it.  Still, when push comes to shove, it can turn into a “press of pike” battle.  Whichever side has the greatest numbers, and the most amount of idle time on their hands, is at a strategic advantage.  If you’re less of a fanatic about it, have fewer other people there who agree with you, or if you have a life and don’t have unlimited time to waste, you’re at a disadvantage.  Also, did you know that there are teams paid to edit it and spin things their way?

Wikipedia has its own hierarchy and internal bureaucracy. As any evil deplorable right wing extremist like me can tell you, an institution is only as good as the people staffing it.  Therefore, those in charge of keeping things fair and balanced sometimes have considerable biases of their own.  That’s why trying to push a dispute up the food chain with their adjudication procedures might not get you too far.  Maybe that’s the whole idea.  Did you know that Wikipedia gets funding from George Soros?  They have plenty of cash already, and whenever they beg for donations, it’s a sick joke.

Exhibit A here is their Manosphere article. This can be edited at any time, so note that I’m using the version in effect as of September 22, 2019.  If you like, on the history page, you can look at earlier versions.

Their editors were ignorant from the beginning

The very first sentence is:

The manosphere is a loose collection of predominantly web based misogynist movements associated with the alt-right.

Okay, so according to this allegation, presumably you have to be a misogynist even to want to read any of those websites. “Misogynist” means someone who hates women.  (I could describe the root words for that, and even write it in ancient Greek, but why be a sperg about it?  Now hold that thought for a moment.)  If all that’s overblown and the typical Manosphere reader doesn’t actually hate women, then surely he’s at least a Neanderthal who yells at the TV during football games, then snaps his fingers and shouts “Woman!  Beer!” whenever his can of PBR is empty.  Got all that?

If the readers are this bad, then surely the writers must be far worse, right? As a matter of fact, I was one of the writers for a website this article discusses.  The truth is that I have considerable affection for women.  As a straight guy, I can’t help but admire the charm and femininity that comes to them naturally, most especially under normal social conditions.  I even remember my exes fondly.

Already that Wikipedia article is off to an ignorant start!  I call bullshit on that insulting definition.  As for the “associated with the alt-right” claim, that too is rather dodgy.  There is an area of overlap, but much of the Manosphere isn’t politically affiliated.  Really, it’s much more diverse than how that article presents it.

Note well, my writings did frequently criticize radical feminists and their crazypants rhetoric. Likewise, I poked fun at spoiled brats and THOTs.  However, I did my best to make it clear that these were outliers and examples of how not to be charming and feminine, who are the way they are mainly because we’re not living in normal social conditions.  I challenge anyone to find anywhere in my 154 articles where I wrote objectively hateful things about all women as a class.  How many radical feminists out there honestly can say that they never wrote anything hateful about men as a class?

The second sentence is:

Movements within the manosphere include antifeminism, fathers’ rights, Incels (involuntary celibates), MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), volcels (voluntarily celibates), pick-up artists, the Men’s rights movement, bloggers and commentators, among others.

Let’s rewrite that second sentence, flipping the script and approximating as best as possible:

Movements within the online misandrist community include radical feminists, the divorce industry, bitter single women, lesbian separatists, cat ladies, bar girls, the women’s liberation movement, bloggers and commentators, among others.

Well, golly jeepers, that sounds pretty fair and balanced, now doesn’t it?

Can’t they find any decent citations?

Supporting that second sentence, there’s a big list of citations – remember, these are Reliable Sources – supporting the original assertion:

  • “The alt-right is creating its own dialect. Here’s the dictionary”. Quartz.
  • Zimmer, Ben (8 May 2018). “How ‘Incel’ Got Hijacked”. Politico.
  • “Balls to all that”. The Economist. 16 June 2016.
  • Dewey, Caitlin. “Incels, 4chan and the Beta Uprising: making sense of one of the Internet’s most-reviled subcultures”. Washington Post.
  • Southern Poverty Law Center (Spring 2012). “Misogyny: The Sites”.
  • Pry, Alyssa; Alexa Valiente (16 October 2013). “Women Battle Online Anti-Women Hate From the ‘Manosphere'”. ABC News.
  • “How the alt-right’s sexism lures men into white supremacy”. Vox.
  • Dewey, Caitlin (27 May 2014). “Inside the ‘manosphere’ that inspired Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger”. The Washington Post.
  • Nagle, Angela (2017). “Entering the manosphere”. Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right.

Now what happened to those enlightened Wikipedia policies to keep articles from being biased? I suppose someone might think of all those lefty MSM articles as “Reliable Sources”, but that’s a pretty big stretch.

However, under no circumstances could you call the Southern Poverty Law Center a “Reliable Source”.  That’s a highly partisan leftist foundation.  (Does the Wikipedia page about Communism quote the John Birch Society as an authority, without equivocation?)  The $PLC occupies itself with compiling shit lists and soliciting donations.  I’ll let Pamela Geller – who is a first rate lady and a fine American – tell the story about that one, and there’s lots more where it came from.   For that matter, have a look at the divorce papers of Morris Dees, the $PLC’s long-time head honcho, documented down to the gory details.  If any item in that bill of particulars is true, the Manosphere considers behavior like that to be reprehensible; who’s the one with bad attitudes about women here?

Am I cherry-picking with the selection above? Absolutely not.  I looked over the entire list of sources at the bottom of the page.  You don’t see the “pros” and “cons” balanced out.  I didn’t notice a single one of the “Reliable Sources” that was pro-Manosphere.  There probably isn’t even much neutral content listed about the subject.  Instead, there’s a bunch of MSM hit pieces, feminist and gender studies academic papers, and other leftist rubbish.

The confluence of all that certainly doesn’t make for any “Neutral Point Of View”; it’s just a bunch of bias.  Sure, there’s a place for hostile sources; those go into a “criticism” subsection, or maybe a standalone “criticism of X” article.  However, the entire Manosphere article is nothing but criticism from these hostile sources.  In the article’s “history” page, I did see some attempts to fix that problem, but the edits were reverted, quickly cast into the memory hole.


The “Terminology” section begins:

Manosphere is a neologism, a portmanteau of man and sphere. A related term is androsphere (from Ancient Greek: ἀνήρ, anḗr, genitive ἀνδρός, andros, “man”).

The “Reliable Source” for that is none other than an article by Jason Wilson in the lefty publication The Guardian, “The ‘man-o-sphere’ is outraged about Mad Max? Hand me my popcorn!” Thank you for sharing, Jason, otherwise we might never have been able to figure out the origins of the term “Manosphere”.

Anyway, those two sentences have convenient hyperlinks for neologism, portmanteau, ancient Greek, and the genitive case. Presumably that’s to help someone who doesn’t understand the terminology in this long-winded and unnecessary explanation.  Moreover, it features snippets of the original language that I already could figure out despite being almost an utter n00b at Greek.

Since I have better things to do, I haven’t looked up the “Reliable Source” – again, the Guardian article with the snotty title – to see if it actually does delve that far into the etymological archeolinguistics of it. However, I’m guessing that Mr. Wilson also has better things to do than conjugate Greek genitive declensions.  One of these activities apparently is to watch a lame feminist sequel of a has-been Hollywood film series featuring a bald has-been actress.  Let me give you a tip, Jason – the series already jumped the shark with Beyond Thunderdome, and I’m old enough of a coot to have seen it on the big screen.

All this brings us to another thing that sets my teeth on edge about Wikipedia, almost as much as its leftist bias. It seems that everyone on the planet with obsessive-compulsive disorder edits this thing.  These are the people who indeed don’t have better things to do than expound on Greek genitive declensions where it’s utterly irrelevant.  That’s perfectly topical in an article about Greek grammar, but why did someone take the time to nerd out about it here?  I suspect that those who do this have OCD, or they’re anal retentive.  Oh, wait a minute, should “anal retentive” have a hyphen?

They overdo shit like this all the time, trying to sound erudite.  I also remember some big Wikipedia argument over the movie Wall-E. It was about whether the dash in “Wall-E” actually should be an interpunct (which is a highfalutin way of saying a dot).  Things like this are why browsing Wikipedia feels like I’ve entered the sperg zone.  Also, it’s why sometimes I read an article to try to learn about a subject, and I come away not one bit the wiser, or even knowing what the hell they were talking about.

Anyone who suffers from OCD this badly should get that problem fixed.  I’ve heard that CBT helps.  Be sure to search Wiki for “cognitive behavior therapy”, because “CBT” takes you to a disambiguation page also including the Chicago Board of Trade, computer based training, cock and ball torture (I’m not making this up – they have an NSFW article about all that), and a couple dozen other things.

Donna Zuckerberg’s big spanking session


The “Content” section ends with the following:

The author Donna Zuckerberg writes that the growth of the movement and the more political tone adopted by some of its leaders as of 2016 has led to more adversarial internal relationships, such as between pick-up artists and men’s-rights advocates.

Ooh, another “Reliable Source”, awesome! She’s cited in a few other places too.  Who is she, anyway?  Well, she’s the sister of Mark Suckerberg, creator of Fakebook.  Apparently she lives in Silicon Valley (hopefully she watches her step carefully on the sidewalk).  Her own Wiki page begins:

Donna Zuckerberg is an American classicist, editor-in-chief of the journal Eidolon and author of the book Not All Dead White Men (2018) on the appropriation of classics by misogynist groups on the Internet.

Ah, okay, so she’s a feminist! What a big surprise, right?  All this is enough street cred to qualify her as a Wikipedia-approved authority about men’s concerns online, is it?  Criticism of feminism is one of the greatest common factors of the Manosphere.  However, a feminist who very openly opposes the Manosphere gets cited repeatedly, and without any counterbalancing opinion.  This is in an online encyclopedia that makes much hoopla about touting its own objectivity.  Sweet!  It’s time to take her out to the woodshed, so to speak.

The above indicates that her major work was a book about why she believes it’s wrong for the Manosphere to draw inspiration from our ancient cultural heritage. Apparently, in her opinion, we’re not supposed to form our own conclusions about classic literature – what our forefathers, and the ancestors of our kindred peoples, wrote to guide us and convey their wisdom.  I have one thing to say to that…

Anyway, she edits the paper Eidolon. (And what is the genitive case for “eidolon” anyway?)  Their mission statement begins:

Eidolon makes the classics political and personal, feminist and fun.

“The personal is political” is a well-known feminist catchphrase, made up by none other than one of the Redstockings. Sweet!  Even so, the above mission statement makes sure the reader gets the message.  So she doesn’t like the Manosphere commenting on ancient literature, but she sure as heck gets to put her own feminist spin on it.  Back in college, plenty of times I saw what the classics of our forefathers looked like after getting run through the critical theory meat grinder, and the results aren’t pretty.

Anyway, about the name Eidolon, that sort of reminds me of Barbara Spectre and her “Paidea” foundation. What an odd coincidence, two rootless cosmopolitan types involved in tricky outfits with august-sounding ancient Greek names.  What’s the deal with this trend?  They need to stop doing that.  If only they learned from the positive examples of Pamela Geller and Laura Loomer, then they wouldn’t create all this opposition for themselves which they curiously blame on everyone else.  It would be great if we could all just get along despite sectarian differences, but that’s a two-way street.

Quintus Curtius delivered a verbal spanking with his response, “When Education Does Not Mean Knowledge: The Case Of Donna Zuckerberg“. The article – long but certainly worth a read in its entirety – begins:

There are times when a sleeping lion must rouse himself from repose to swat a yapping dog. Such ankle-biters need to learn that it is one thing to throw around malicious accusations, and quite another thing to be faced with a response.  In matters such as these, I am not concerned with power or influence–unlike you, Ms. Zuckerberg–but only with my good name, and the meaning and purpose of my work.

Ooh, burn!

Roosh – one of the figures defamed ignorantly in the Wikipedia article – gave Donna another well-deserved verbal paddling with “The Public Humiliation Of Mark Zuckerberg’s Sister“.

We’ve gotten a lot of hate over the past year from politicians, C list celebrities, and female typists, but not from the direct relative of one of the most influential billionaires in the world. That seal has been broken by Mark Zuckerberg’s sister, who turns out is obsessed with the manosphere.

That one is long too, but it’s a laugh a minute, definitely worth a read.


Why would someone consider bias like this to be objectionable in the “ultimate repository of absolute truth”?  Now imagine, for a moment, what the Wikipedia page on Islam would look like if it was only written by atheists, fundamentalist Christians, Hindus, and other hostile editors. Nowhere in it is a single quotation from the Quran or the Hadith.  Any time a Muslim tried to add something, the change would get reverted by an anti-Muslim editor.  Would that result in a “Neutral Point Of View”?  This is exactly the treatment the Manosphere article got.

The rest of the page is full of straw man arguments and inaccuracy too, but you should get the picture by now that the thing is a load of crap. The last part includes opinions that try to suggest that the Manosphere made people go off the rails and commit acts of violence.  It’s little different from the silly “video games make people go postal” argument.  Way classy, guys!  Actually, one of the few examples they were able to trot out in support of the argument was – wait for ita male feminist.

All told, the article was so one-sided that it fails to be informative. The only major takeaway is that the Manosphere is a bunch of scary boogeymen.  Instead of being encyclopedic, it’s a partisan hit piece.  By contrast, Wikipedia has articles for just about every flavor of feminism that exists.  They’re written up in detail, sensitively, sympathetically, and full of their own talking points.  The originators of these feminist factions wouldn’t consider any of it to misrepresent their views, or otherwise be objectionable.  Overall, one gets the impression that hardly anyone would raise a serious dispute about feminism.

Why not just change it?

I can hear it already. If I don’t like the article, why don’t I quit being a loudmouth and make changes to improve it?  I’d be happy to do so, except that it would be an exercise in pissing in the wind.  Now look again at the history page.  Here’s one of the recent “edit wars”:

  • 23:11, 10 August 2019? Nick-D (talk | contribs)? m . . (23,124 bytes) (0)? . . (Protected “Manosphere”: Persistent disruptive editing ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 23:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC))))
  • 23:06, 10 August 2019? AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)? . . (23,124 bytes) (+1,168)? . . (Rescuing orphaned refs (“Dewey 2014” from rev 910230878; “Wiseman” from rev 910230878; “Dewey 2016” from rev 910230878; “Nagle” from rev 910230878)) (Tag: PHP7)
  • 22:45, 10 August 2019? EvergreenFir (talk | contribs)? . . (21,956 bytes) (+24)? . . (Reverted to revision 910124281 by Davey1980 (talk): Restore content; mass editing again… (TW)) (Tag: Undo)
  • 22:43, 10 August 2019? 2605:8d80:403:1b1:4885:749f:6a66:5ae7 (talk)? . . (21,932 bytes) (-4,416)? . . (Edited the misandrist content out.) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, PHP7)
  • 16:06, 10 August 2019? (talk)? . . (26,348 bytes) (-31)? . . (Considering whole group misogynistic based on few extremists is unfair. These people exist in every group that does not control who’s joining, but it doesn’t mean everyone out there is like that. This is why I removed it. Placing it here is an assumption that group is sexist at the fundamental level and everyone in it is also sexist.) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
  • 14:38, 10 August 2019? 2600:387:3:801::26 (talk)? . . (26,379 bytes) (-60)? . . (??Content: I edited out horrible misinformation) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
  • 13:10, 10 August 2019? (talk)? . . (26,439 bytes) (-37)? . . (Corrected biased misinformation) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, PHP7)
  • 12:02, 10 August 2019? Lappspira (talk | contribs)? . . (26,476 bytes) (+4,520)? . . (Undid revision 910191677 by (talk)) (Tags: Undo, PHP7)
  • 09:34, 10 August 2019? (talk)? . . (21,956 bytes) (-4,520)? . . (Undid revision 910124430 by Jack90s15 (talk) Removed spam) (Tags: Undo, PHP7)
  • 20:40, 9 August 2019? Jack90s15 (talk | contribs)? . . (26,476 bytes) (+4,520)? . . (Undid revision 910124281 by Davey1980 (talk)) (Tags: Undo, PHP7)
  • 20:39, 9 August 2019? Davey1980 (talk | contribs)? . . (21,956 bytes) (-4,520)? . . (Fixed typos and added correct content) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, PHP7)
  • 22:59, 7 August 2019? Grayfell (talk | contribs)? . . (26,476 bytes) (+17)? . . (Undid revision 909839488 by (talk) How is this a grammar issue?) (Tags: Undo, PHP7)
  • 22:57, 7 August 2019? (talk)? . . (26,459 bytes) (-17)? . . (??Content: Fixed grammar) (Tags: Mobile edit, canned edit summary, Mobile app edit, Android app edit)

That might look like just a bunch of computer logs, of course. It all means that some people tried to improve the article and help make it balanced, some others undid their efforts, and finally someone locked it.  This sort of thing is hardly unusual at Wikipedia.

Note well, there’s a way someone can get a notification whenever a page is updated. If one or more individuals want to play Internet hall monitor, they quickly can detect any change to an article and revert it if it doesn’t fit the preferred political narrative.  That’s how these leftist “mother hens” with too much time on their hands enforce ideological conformity.  Sure, someone could push it up the food chain, but whoever does so is then at the mercy of institutional politics.  Did I mention that George Soros helps to pay for this thing?

Is Wikipedia biased? “Exhibit A” is their Manosphere article

The fastest and easiest way for women to improve their odds in the dating arena

To a large degree, success in the dating arena simply comes from not doing anything wrong.  It’s a little more complicated than that, since there are countless mistakes to avoid, but practice makes perfect.  I’d like to point out a very common mistake by women in today’s society that certainly will hurt their chances.  The following two examples are from chubby women who unfortunately have to struggle more, but really this is a universal observation.

Online dating isn’t working, daygame isn’t working

The first example came from a dating forum for BBWs.  The original poster was asking for tips on how to meet guys.  She’d tried a number of dating sites and apps already.  (I’d like to add that online dating is a sausage fest.  If a woman is finding it hard to hook up online, indeed something must be going wrong.)  Also, guys were never approaching her in public.  The few online contacts she gets seem only to want hookups.  Other than that, conversations fizzled out, and it was a frustrating experience.

The first reply was a brief note of encouragement, stating that this forum was the right place.  He indicated he hoped she’d find success.  Then he stated that the forum should be positive overall, where she could expand her horizons, and encounter new experiences.  He wished her luck and used the endearing term “baby”.

To that welcoming and positive message, she wrote an absolutely scathing reply because he used the word “baby”.  It’s quite clear that he wasn’t doing so disrespectfully, but her feminist programming made her think he was.  Later, her reply got deleted, either by her or by the moderator.

What are we to make of this?  It seems that being overweight is the least of her worries!  If that’s how she acts online, that’s probably how she behaves in public too.  Who in his right mind would want to deal with an attitude like that?

As for the few guys she does find, it’s understandable that she’s disappointed that all they want is sex.  Still, if that’s the only value that she’s bringing to the table, then what else can be expected?  If she wants an enduring relationship, that requires an endearing personality which someone will want to be around on a daily basis.  There’s more, but I’ll save that for another article.

How not to win a guy’s heart

why you are obligated to find me fucking attractive

Here’s another example from a social media post.  The text might be a little hard to read, so I’ll put it here, along with my commentary (of course).  This one is pretty bad – it’s full of feminist bellyaching, which is highly unattractive – but I’ll do my best to be constructive.  It begins with the title:

“Why you are obligated to find me fucking attractive”

David Deangelo said it best with his tagline (and book title) “Attraction isn’t a choice”.  If I listed the reasons why a hoped-for girlfriend should be turned on by me, and presented them to her with the most brilliant and flawless logic, that would be a Blue Pill game mistake on my part.  If instead I ordered her to be attracted to me, well, let’s just say that would fail much worse.  That’s just not how attraction works.

“Because girls who looked like me as a little girl are dieting.  DIETING.  There are 10 year olds eating fucking salads and lean protein.”

Not to put too fine a point on it, if they keep it up, they won’t end up looking like Honey Boo Boo.

“Because I am an amazing fucking person, not in spite of my weight and gender but BECAUSE OF IT.”

I hate to sound like Bill Clinton here, but I feel her pain.  I’ve had my struggles too, so I understand where she’s coming from.  Still, rather than shaking my fist at the world, I took another approach and got better.

“Because you, as a cis gendered man are oppressive by existence alone (similar to original sin) and this must be atoned for by dating and admiring people who don’t fit into your idealized conception of beauty.”

Someone took a sociology class, I see.  Still, I don’t believe in the religion of cultural Marxism.  That’s why I don’t do collective guilt.

“Because fuck you.”

Well, that’s rather charming and ladylike.  If she’d said “Because I want to fuck you”, then it would be a little better, but still a bit dodgy.  Best of all might be “Let us partake of delight joined as one” or something like that.

“Because attraction is more than just physical.”

OK, I’ll agree with that one.  Still, as I pointed out in Righteous Seduction, guys should try to look their best because the first thing anyone notices is appearance.  Good verbal game only starts working after you start talking.  I’ll add further, if the second thing I notice about someone is a nasty attitude, then she’s done.  That’s certainly an example of bad verbal game!  Like I said in the beginning, don’t make mistakes.

“Because finding an opinionated genderless or genderqueer superfat genius intimidating is fucking triggering.”

Most guys aren’t into butch looks, or women who believe they’re one of these new made-up genders.  The reason why is simple.  Feminine appearance is an attraction cue for straight guys, just as women prefer muscular men over hipster soy boys.  That means that things like weird hair colors, haircuts that look like they were done by gardening tools, bad tattoos (most of them are bad), and body piercings are a turn-off.

I’m pretty easy to please about personal appearance, more than most others.  Point of fact, I do give fat chicks a chance.  I give butch women a chance too, because I like seducing lesbians.  However, I have no tolerance for hostile behavior.  Neither does anyone else, with the possible exception of masochists and guys with no self-respect.  Even if the hottest woman in the room is acting snotty, I certainly won’t be helping her to cure her sexual frustration.

This is the big secret

Ladies, if you want to lose weight, I wish you the best of luck.  I’ll do even better than that and tell you how.  This does take a while, but stick with it, and you’ll succeed.

Until then, there’s a change you can make right now:  act friendly.  Smile, laugh, show a little joy – it’s not hard at all!  Being a little flirty is perfectly fine too.  I don’t mean you have to get all Miley Cyrus with it, just the charm you ladies are so good at when you put your minds to it.  If you like a guy, you can walk up and introduce yourself.  We’re not going to bite off your head for that!  This is how to attract a guy you like.  Trust me – it works much better than being crabby.

The fastest and easiest way for women to improve their odds in the dating arena

Where to get Game by Roosh V / Daryush Valizadeh

A little while ago, Roosh V. released a new dating guide for men called Game.  It’s become difficult to find this, for reasons explained further on.

You can get the ebook, as well as previous ones if you like, at his site.

You may also purchase a print edition.

The full product description is here.

Actually, I bought the entire ebook package.  Great stuff – I encourage you to buy a copy too!

Since I wrote my own game guide, why would I buy books about a subject I’m already quite familiar with, as well as give a competitor free advertising?  It’s because I dislike corporate censorship.  For this reason, I’m happy to do business with those who’ve been subjected to it, as well as give them a signal boost.

Was Game banned for politically motivated reasons?

Amazon banned Game mere days after its release.  What passages did they find objectionable?  As he explained, they never gave a reason, and Amazon has products that are objectively much more “extreme”.  Hell, did they even read it before the pulled the plug?  Also, several other books got banned nearly simultaneously; they’d been on the site for years, so what suddenly prompted this?  As he noted in his video, it’s like something out of Kafka’s The Trial, where throughout the entire book you never actually find out what charges the defendant is facing.

The weird thing is that (unlike some of his blog postings) most of his books don’t have substantial ideological content.  Particularly, the Bang series is just stories about dating women in foreign countries.  Censoring books that slaughter leftist sacred cows has become an all-too-familiar thing lately, but what’s so controversial about nightlife guides?  Since they have yet to point to any specific passages and say “You’re not allowed to write this”, then this can only be more of the extralegal harassment that Roosh has been receiving for quite some time.

All this began when ignorant Social Justice Warriors began deliberately misrepresenting what he wrote and started an online dogpiling campaign.  Then journalists started repeating it as if it were true.  They did so without bothering to check the facts, which they could’ve done very easily simply by taking a couple of minutes to read what he actually wrote.  As for this latest development, if you believe the timing is a coincidence, then I have a nice oceanfront resort in Nevada that I’m offering for sale.

Roosh suspects there was some “watchdog” group behind it.  These are tricky pro-censorship outfits that get lots of donations by scaring senior citizens into thinking they’ll stop a second holocaust by cutting them a check.  Whoever did it knew he was releasing a new book, and actually it quickly became a bestseller.  Therefore, whoever is behind it decided to apply pressure to get the new book off of the market and deprive him of his livelihood.

After that, it was up on Barnes & Noble for a bit, and became an even larger bestseller there.  Then they banned it too.  If they gave a real reason for why, I have yet to hear it.  If nobody can point to a single passage in Game as objectionable, then it’s probably nothing to do with the book at all, but instead about other ideas he has expressed elsewhere.

Why is corporate censorship wrong?

Back in the Soviet Union, if the Powers That Be didn’t like what a dissident had to say, they’d throw him into the gulag.  Some countries today have laws about “hate speech” (which means whatever they want it to mean) or talking about unauthorized historical narratives.  Therefore, they also can lock people up for unorthodox opinions just as the Soviets did.  However, other countries such as the USA don’t do things like that.  For those with views similar to the Politburo, how can they make someone an “un-person” these days?  The next best thing is to use their buddies in the corporate world to punish dissidents.  They’ll deplatform people, get them fired from their jobs, and otherwise make it impossible to share their opinions or even earn a living.

Those who think this is awesome will say that private companies can do whatever they want.  (If the same thing were being done to them, you can bet your bottom dollar that they’d be furious about it.)  It’s a similar problem when libertarians think that something bad is only wrong if it’s the government doing it to them.  There’s one little problem with all that.  When a company gets a high enough market share – I believe the threshold is about 40% – then it must start abiding by provisions relating to monopolies.

Thus far, the legal frontiers have been about restraining anti-competitive practices.  However, when a company gets that large, it no longer should be able to practice censorship on a whim.  In fact, the Marsh v. Alabama Supreme Court case, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), provides some precedent on this.  In any event, wrongly depriving people of their livelihood is grounds for a lawsuit.  One of these days, some Silicon Valley corporation is going to get themselves burnt over things like that.

Even during the height of the Cold War, did the Communist Party USA ever have problems renting its headquarters in lower Manhattan?  Was the phone company or electric company able to deny service because they didn’t like their politics?  Were they forbidden access to the US Mail to distribute the Daily People’s World?  Nope.  I doubt they had problems so much as booking a hotel room for a conference, even during the 1950s.  Think about that one for a minute.

Why would a book company want to ban a bestseller?  It makes money for them, after all.  This is what happens when SJWs are allowed to run rampant as faceless corporate bureaucrats.  I’ve praised Amazon before – they truly are an innovative company, and they have a first-rate front end interface – so I’m saddened by this.  Hopefully they’ll stop doing things like that.

Where to get Game by Roosh V / Daryush Valizadeh