Susan Walsh

Several questions have been asked about Susan Walsh.  I don’t have the time right now to run through all of the problems with her because such a thing would approach being a doctoral dissertation.  Instead I will do my best to provide a brief summary with some examples.  None of the examples I list are freak occurrences.  They are part of a pattern on Susan Walsh’s part going back at least two years of lies, deceit, and woman firstism.  She claims not to be a feminist, but only because she has tried to redefine feminist purely in terms of being a slut.  This definition fails to capture what feminism is really about, female supremacism, and Susan Walsh is a female supremacist.

One question that was asked was whether Susan Walsh is pro-game or not.  This should answer that.

This is the reason I am vociferously pro-Game and anti-feminism.

The anti-feminist part is effectively a lie as I said, but there is no doubt now about her stance on game.

Susan Walsh appeared in the manosphere around two years ago give or take.  Some the gamers tried to convince her of game.  There were quite a few fights between the gamers and her because at first she didn’t buy into game.  Eventually, she did, likely because she realized that the cult of Roissysphere game can be used to control men for the benefit of women.  Once this happened all of the gamers that were fighting her stopped that and starting kissing her ass except one, Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech, one of the few (possibly the only) sane gamers out there.  PMAFT’s perspective is not about game as much as it is about mens rights and respect for men, so he wasn’t taken in by her sudden conversion to being pro-game.  PMAFT kept on disagreeing with her so she eventually banned him from hooking up morons.  She tried to claim that PMAFT couldn’t hold a “civil conversation”, but those of us who know PMAFT know that is bullshit.  You can read more about this on PMAFT’s blog at this link.

It was sometime after this that I came along to the manosphere.  For a while I got on fine with Susan Walsh.  Then one day all of a sudden, she went nuts about me.  She started calling me “creepy”, not to me since she doesn’t talk to me anymore, but to other people.  Calling a virgin man like myself, “creepy”, is no different than calling a black person a nigger, or using any sort of racist or anti-semitic slur.  I can’t give you links exactly what happened with Susan Walsh because it’s all in her head.  Here is an example of her calling me creepy.

Keoni, I’ve wrestled with this guy before. He’s impossible to reason with, he just lashes out irrationally. He was a fixture on HUS even before he started blogging and finally left in a huff claiming I’d banned him. I hadn’t but I would have been justified in doing so – he hijacked a bunch of threads complaining about everyone without taking any responsibility whatsoever for his own circumstances.

This is what women mean when they use the word creepy.

Not only did Susan Walsh call me creepy but she lied (like she does over and over again).  I never said that she banned me from hooking up stupid.  I left because commenting there was a waste of time, not “in a huff”.  What she calls my “not taking responsibility” is my refusal to believe in game.  Since game doesn’t exist, women aren’t just automatons responding to men.  They are responsible for what they do, and I was holding women responsible.  She also has the nerve to call me irrational when Hawaiian Fat Blob was writing a conspiracy theory about how I was down voting his comments on The Spearhead, and when I had to delete various comments from gamers because they were coming here to drive traffic to their blogs.  One of HFB’s sycophants, Workshy Joe, another gamer who has employment problems, admitted to this.

For the sake of brevity, I going to skip a lot here.  There’s a lot of talk about the 80/20 rule, where 20% of men are having sex with 80% of the women.  Gamers think this is true, and more or less so do I.  Susan Walsh has talked about the 80/20 rule as well, which the gamers took to mean that she agreed with them.  She let them think this.  What Susan Walsh meant by the 80/20 rule was that 80% of sex is happening between 20% of the men and 20% of the women.  Not that long ago, Susan Walsh’s duplicity in this area was uncovered.  Later in the comments, she tries to pull some BS by claiming various surveys about a person’s number of sex partners are anonymous which by definition can’t be.  (The survey thing is better explained here and here.)  What Susan Walsh is trying to do here is invoke the myth of equal suffering as described on The Spearhead, in order for women to not be held accountable for their actions.  She tried the same thing when she was still talking to me.  She said that there women “in the same situation as me”.  I challenged her to produce a 33 year old involuntary virgin woman.  Susan Walsh did not do this and let this insult to my intelligence stand.

As a result of all this one of her sycophants made up a conspiracy theory that I had “invaded” Dalrock’s blog, and all the anti-Susan Walsh comments were really sock puppets of me.  I didn’t even know that there were people rightfully criticizing Susan Walsh until after that conspiracy theory accusation was made against me.  Despite that, even many of the gamers were starting to catch on to Susan Walsh’s lies, passive aggressive behavior, and general modus operandi as explained in the following by Anonymous Reader.

Unfortunately a key part of her “hanging in there” consisted of simply ignoring facts that did not agree with her pre-determined conclusion. This is part of a pattern with Walsh; she makes some sweeping generalization, men provide examples that disprove it, she ignores them or even belittles them with some feeble snark, then she goes on to repeat the same false claim again in some other venue. In the case of surveys, there are some major issues with truthfulness of women that Walsh refuses to discuss. Basil posted a small study that clearly demonstrated that women will lie about number of sexual partners except when they believe that they are certain to be caught. This doesn’t surprise me as a man, but apparently it doesn’t fit in well with Walsh’s view of women – so she ignores it. I’m not impressed when someone claims to be ‘open minded’ one minute and then demonstrates obvious close-mindedness the next. Actions speaking louder than words, once again. I bet that even if someone went to Walsh’s own blog and posted links to the study, or even the study itself, she’d continue to ignore it.

And yes, I’m going to bring up her claim that she can spot entitled women just by looking at them from time to time. Because it is a claim that is testable, but she refuses to test it. It is a claim that flies right in the face of some men I know, and she refuses to acknowledge that. Her arrogant ignorance in this matter doesn’t give me any confidence at all in anything else Walsh has to say, frankly.

This matters because Walsh on the one hand is presenting herself as an honest debater, and an honest researcher. But honest debate means putting claims to the test, testing hypotheses and admitting if they cannot pass muster. Honest research means following evidence wherever it leads, not starting with a preconceived idea and only accepting data that supports it.

Based on what I’ve here and elsewhere:

Susan Walsh says she looks at all the data, but her actions are those of someone who is cherry picking surveys to support a predetermined conclusion.

Susan Walsh says she’s willing to learn from men and admit when she’s wrong, but her actions to me are those of someone who has zero interest in men’s real experience and an arrogant refusal to admit any error.

So as far as I’m concerned, she appears to be just another “Team Women!” player, and nothing more.

PMAFT, another gamer, said something similar.

You have realized the same thing I have discovered a long time ago. The only difference between her and Amanda Marcotte is that Susan Walsh is running a better con. It’s telling that Susan Walsh’s only opposition to feminism is the part of feminism she perceives as harming women. She agrees with every other part of feminism. For example, she is against men going expat to find wives/form families (not to mention men going ghost). This shows that Susan Walsh wants to keep men in the marriage 2.0 system. This is one of a thousand examples.

Her attempt to redefine the 80/20 rule is another example of how Susan Walsh is playing for Team Woman and nothing more. She is trying to claim that women are suffering the same lack of sex men are. We know this is not true. Walsh’s subtle redefinition of the 80/20 rule is similar to duplicitous Middle Eastern leaders who say one thing in English for American/Western consumption and another thing in Arabic for local consumption.

Put all of this together, and it becomes clear that Susan Walsh is all about trying to keep men locked in to the feminist system here in the West. Just because she disagrees with (or is willing to sacrifice) some transgender sex-positive lesbians does not mean that Susan Walsh isn’t playing for Team Woman.

Over the last week, Susan Walsh’s true nature was exposed again at Dalrock’s blog when she revealed what she thinks causes divorce.  A man commenting at her blog said the following.

Men are shattered and blind sided by divorce far more than women are. Usually the woman you files for divorce has slowly been making up her mind to do it for some time with much consultation with her girl friends. Maybe because she cheated and thus dissolved her feels of bondedness when married women have good emotional sex with another man, but not when men do.

This was Susan Walsh’s angry response.

Provide stats for this or shut up. Men cheat more than women do. How do you account for that in divorces initiated by women? He breaks the contract, she files. Sounds fair to me. Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

Everyone in the manosphere knows the truth about divorce.  We all know how it is female initiated for the flimsiest of reasons, yet Susan Walsh both insults our intelligence and proves she is no anti-feminist with this comment.  She said that divorce only happens because men cheat which we know is bullshit.  You have to read all of the comments to that link above.  (Don’t complain that it’s too long.  It’s all relevant.)  Eventually you will find out how Susan Walsh digs a deeper hole for herself on this issue, lies about what this gamer said, accuses Dalrock of taking what she said out of context when he didn’t, etc.  Eventually, even Dalrock gets tired of Susan Walsh’s bullshit.

Even if she ultimately acknowledges the reality of frivolous divorce, there still is her bizarre denial that she ever wrote what she did, not to mention her characterization of her statement Provide stats for this or shut up. as I expressed a curiosity as to what percentage of female-initiated divorces are frivolous. She also is claiming that she was responding to an entirely different comment from Doug1 than the one she quoted in her response. She doesn’t characterize this as an oversight or error on her part, she simply denies her reply was actually a reply to the comment everyone can see she quoted.

Lastly, I’m not impressed by her stance that she hasn’t had a chance to look into the topic of frivolous divorce. Given her long history blogging with a primary goal of getting women married, at the very least it shows a profound lack of intellectual curiosity. How can this not have ever interested her before? Furthermore, she clearly has seen the issue raised repeatedly on my site and others across the manosphere and instead of considering what she read dismissed it out of hand. Her latest statement (the one the OP is in response to) betrays a deep hostility to men’s complaints about women taking advantage of the system. Taken all together her driving passion seems to be to put as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts.

Read that last sentence several times to make sure it sinks in.  The end result of this is that the gamers are all realizing the truth about Susan Walsh that PMAFT first realized back in early 2010, something he realized even before I did.

Dalrock,

Taken all together her driving passion seems to be to put as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts.

Wow. Pretty harsh. But probably true…

And this is just a couple of days after dragnet and others had explained how she is ‘not that bad’. I agreed with the position at the time, but now I think I will re-assess.

Susan Walsh has both a daughter *and* a son, btw.

You will notice that sentence at the end about how Susan Walsh has both a daughter and a son.  The fact that she has a son rarely comes up whereas the fact that she has a daughter comes up all of the time.  When someone says, “Susan Walsh is just trying to help her daughter,” the question I have to ask is what about her son?  That’s in addition to “helping her daughter” seems to mean “putting as many women as possible in the position of being able to victimize men through the unfair marriage laws and courts” which is by definition at the expense of her son.  This is even more clear when you learn about Susan Walsh’s life story which was being a slut followed by snagging a beta to bail her out.  What she is trying to do is make sure her daughter has that option because men are figuring out what is going on and will not be the beta to bail out an aging slut.

I could write about more examples from the last two years, but Susan Walsh’s pattern of lies, deceit, and woman firstism is clear.  To end this, I am going to add a comment from Roosh’s forum about Susan Walsh.

ehh, I don’t care for her. Her tone of writing is insultingly saccharine, though I suppose that’s inevitable when writing for women. The woman earned an MBA from Wharton, but you’d never guess it from her writing.

She takes what male game/MRA writers say, misunderstands half of it, and then relays it to her female readers. Many of those readers, by the way, seem to be there for her patented 12 Step Slut Rehab Program™.

When I read her site, I feel like I’m reading “How to Manipulate Men for Dummies.” It feels like the goal is not a successful satisfying relationship with a man she loves, but rather how to “get what you want” out of dating, how to have the relationship on “her terms.” The man is merely an accessory, to good feelings and status among her peers. It feels like the impetus for the site is sluts get pumped and dumped, and they want to know how to keep Mr. Alpha around.

Slut Rehab is definitely what hooking up stupid should be called.

Update: Dalrock made the following comment, and I think it should be included.

I’m glad this is clear for you, because I read what she wrote several times and still have no idea where she stands on the topic of the post. It reminds me an awful lot of a speech by a politician. She made a claim, I refuted it. She then proceeded to deny making the claim, question my integrity, accuse me of taking her comment out of context, and obfuscate the issue. I have given her the benefit of the doubt whenever I could, and worked very hard to not make this a personal issue. In return she scolds, accuses, and makes it personal. Now, as someone predicted, she returns as if none of this happened and apologizes for offending anyone who feels strongly about the issue of divorce. I expected much more from Susan.

Even the part which appears to be acknowledging an error is actually restating what she said in the beginning, and reiterating her defense that she was taken out of context:

In truth, it was not my intention to say that women do not file for divorce frivolously. I am well aware that they do. However, my desire to have the exchange put in context is legitimate.

Note that this is not a retraction of the position that I challenged. She didn’t say that women never file for divorce frivolously. She said:

Yes, there are frivolous divorces, but I’d like to know what percentage of female-initiated divorces they are. I think this theme is exaggerated and overblown in the manosphere echo chamber.

As far as I can tell she hasn’t retracted this and is simply continuing to deny and deflect, all the while continuing to accuse me of taking her out of context.

45 responses to “Susan Walsh

  1. Hooking up Smart (oxymoron: since a hookup is transitory, that means that it is anything BUT smart) … exists to give sluts a leg up in identifying the really alpha men.
    Nothing to do with helping women at all, unless by helping it is mean helping sluts ride the cock carousel longer and be duplicitious.
    Her statements that I have read, remind me of Alte and other “so-called” conservative women bloggers that basically say all relationship failures are due to the man, women get “tricked” into relationships, and a nice guy would ignore the costs of future healthcare brought on by a deceitful, cockhopping wife, and the innocent kids who get the diseases passed on to them.
    Oh yeah.
    One woman Susan Walsh conveniently forgets: The mans’ mother.
    Which mother wants her son to marry a diseased slut? Which mother wants her son to marry a mentally insane woman? Which mother wants her son to have children that are diseased, because of the wife’s cockhopping?
    Every dollar towards treatment and rehabilitation for later health issues, is a dollar lost or a dollar unsaved. So, NOT ONLY does the nice guy “end up with the girl(slut) in the end”, he pays for all her mistakes as well.
    Which sounds like a very good reason to bring the dowry system to the US: Sluts pay a nice guy to marry them, because nobody knows what diseases and future health complications will arise after that union is legally binding.
    In all these interactions, the idea is as if the family of the man, does not matter. Only the woman and her family.
    So obviously, this is a case of “feminism” benefiting one set of women over another.
    So much for the “Sisterhood”.
    P.S. Yeah, there are so many “virgin women” out there past the teen years, they are as common as invisible pink unicorns.

    • Whoops, I also left out the invisible future cost of being married to a (former?) cockhopper:
      Greater chance of divorce.
      “The Man who Was Thursday”, I think, worked off of a report, chances of a divorce go up to 50% past a womans’ first partner before marriage.
      To Marry a slut is plan for a divorce(that you will be paying for), in other words.

        • You are missing the forest, focusing only on finding the tallest/widest tree, ignoring the fact that all of the tress have Dutch Elm Disease and died 3 years ago.

          The lesson is that you do not get married at ALL to a western woman.

        • The lesson is that you do not get married at ALL to a western woman.

          So why would a non-Western woman marry a Western man, unless she has the same values as Western women?

          You also neglect to mention that Western culture is diverse. There are insular religious communities in America whose women are as “traditional” as those in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

      • I, Enemy Combatant wrote:
        So why would a non-Western woman marry a Western man,
        unless she has the same values as Western women?

        (1) Because Western men have very good reputations as protectors and providers. The same qualities that Western women hold in contempt make them attractive in third-world countries where a high-quality provider can mean the difference between life and death.

        (2) There may be a shortage of men. In many countries in Eastern Europe, there aren’t as many men as women.

        You also neglect to mention that Western culture is diverse.
        There are insular religious communities in America whose women are as “traditional” as those in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

        The presence of a few religious communities such as the Amish hardly makes Western culture ‘diverse’.

        You also need to join those communities to marry a woman in there. Recruitment of outsiders is near nonexistent. Contrast that with non-Western women, who are frequently advertised in matchmaking services.

        • Because Western men have very good reputations as protectors and providers. The same qualities that Western women hold in contempt make them attractive in third-world countries where a high-quality provider can mean the difference between life and death.

          What evidence is that such a perception exists? In some Western communities , men have a tendency to go for the next woman after they knock up the one they were doing.

          Western culture includes a lot of diverse cultures ranging from Greek to Irish. Equating Greek and Irish is very much like equating Chinese and Korean.

        • I, Enemy Combatant says:
          What evidence is that such a perception exists?

          The foreign bride industry, for one. From my own travels I also noticed that women in EastAsia were much more friendly and willing to flirt with me then in my native US. The url below may also help give some understanding.

          http://diaryofamunchkin.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-farang-girls-hate-thailand.html

          In some Western communities , men have a tendency to go for the next woman after they knock up the one they were doing.

          So what? By definition, those men probably don’t look for foreign brides.

          Western culture includes a lot of diverse cultures ranging from Greek to Irish.

          Western culture = First world levels of wealth, mostly Caucasian populations, live in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

          Equating Greek and Irish

          Greece and Ireland aren’t the exactly cultural centers of the Western world. I’m not sure why you think mentioning two countries with a population of about 15 million between them refutes my generalizations. Most of what I’m saying refers to much more populous countries (such as the US) which have very undiverse cultures.

          is very much like equating Chinese and Korean.

          EastAsian cultures have common denominators, although of course they’re quite diverse. The presence of Confucianism, closely knit patriarchial famllies, and concept of ‘face’ are features they generally share.

  2. I have never, ever understood the infatuation of so many of the manosphere with Susan Walsh. It’s good that Dalrock finally saw through her nonsense. As a blogger he’s unusually data-driven, which may be why.

  3. Nailed it!

    Team woman is attempting to adapt to the so called game.

    But they are helpless to adapt.
    Simple self preservation should have adapted them long ago, but they are so self centered and self serving they fail to use logic to improve the future for themselves,making them easy prey for predators.

    They also miss the fact their own behaviors are what made these gamers.
    (never her fault)

  4. It is true that there are no 33-year-old involuntary virgin women.

    But it is also true that there are many 13 year old girls who lost their virginity involuntarily . That is something to consider.

    • Before I consider it, I’d like you to give me an idea of how many 13-year-old girls lose their virginity involuntarily. Is it a common occurence, as your troll implies, or a rare one? Some hard figures and references, please.

      • It is,sadly, a too common occurrence. A list of statistics is available at RAINN .

        A total of 44% of victims are under 18, which is not surprising, as girls that age are at least perceived to be vulnerable.

        • I, Enemy Combatant wrote:
          It is,sadly, a too common occurrence.

          Since the issue is such a political football and clouded with such high numbers of false accusations, I question that premise.

          A list of statistics is available at RAINN .

          Great. A rebuttal source is available below. Just to start off, the number of reported rapes for 2007 nationwide was listed as 90,427, with 23,307 arrests being made. This is a far cry from the 213,000 annual figure listed by RAINN.

          http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/

          A total of 44% of victims are under 18, which is not surprising, as girls that age are at least perceived to be vulnerable.

          From what I understand, the likelihood of rape of a woman being raped drops like a rock after about 30. So much for rape being a crime of power and not sex.

        • So much for rape being a crime of power and not sex.

          Of course it is about power. Why else would rapists preferentially target young females, aside from their perceived vulnerability?

          Just look at what happened with Jaycee Lee Dugard. The whole kidnapping, locking her in a shed, isolating her from other people- it was about power.

        • It’s about attractiveness, not power.
          There are plenty of 70 year old women/men who are quite weak.
          Going by your idea that rape is about power,
          why aren’t those people the most raped?
          After all, most of them would not be winning Mr/Mrs. Olympia strength contests.
          I, Enemy Combatant,
          you seem to be living up to 1 of the 2 real reasons behind feminism:
          1. To give women free sexual license so that they can slut around, while restricting (legal) male sexuality by
          2. Making it impossible for older males to be with younger women so that the cockhoppers of Step 1. have a cohort of sex-starved men to manipulate.

  5. “Of course it is about power. Why else would rapists preferentially target young females, aside from their perceived vulnerability?

    How about the fact that young girls are much more fertile than near- or post-menopausal older women?

    • How about the fact that young girls are much more fertile than near- or post-menopausal older women?

      Assuming rapists target young girls because they are fertile, does that not further prove that the motivation of rape is power? After all, what can be a greater expression of power for a rapist than to force a girl to carry his child within her own body?

      • You do realise that in order to create an offspring, you need both a sperm and an egg, right? Just because a woman is raped doesn’t mean that the resulting child is suddenly magically not hers.

        • You do realise that in order to create an offspring, you need both a sperm and an egg, right? Just because a woman is raped doesn’t mean that the resulting child is suddenly magically not hers.

          True, but it is also the rapist’s child. He used her body against her will to reproduce.

  6. I, Enemy Combatant wrote:
    Of course it is about power. Why else would rapists preferentially target young females, aside from their perceived vulnerability?

    Maybe because they’re usually hotter than middle-aged women?

    Just look at what happened with Jaycee Lee Dugard.

    Ok, sure. Since she’s a poster girl for missing white woman syndrome, she’s guaranteed to tug at heartstrings and the media will have a field day.

    locking her in a shed, isolating her from other people

    When you kidnap someone, letting her roam around town obviously presents logistical problems.

    Dugard’s case is an extreme aberration – classical kidnapping is extremely rare in the US and extraordinarily difficult to get away with.

    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/predator_panic_a_closer_look/

    If you’re going to engage in emotionally manipulative trolling, you’ll have to do better than that.

  7. Since game doesn’t exist, women aren’t just automatons responding to men. They are responsible for what they do, and I was holding women responsible.

    Omega, this is perfect. Bravo. And if we think about it, this ties together why PUAs believe in conspiracy theories & Ron Paul, embrace faddish diet plans, obsess about status, and believe crackpot sociobiological ideas.

    It is my conjecture that the entire “game” phenomenon is a product of decades of self-esteem education combined with protective parenting where nothing a child does is ever wrong. We’ve all seen wild children in supermarkets tearing up the place while Mommy ineffectively tries to reason with them in a sweet voice. Eventually, these children grow up. Nah, that’s not quite right — they don’t grow up, they grow older.

    Never being held responsible for their actions, such individuals automatically believe in their high status and go to great lengths to preserve this illusion. They believe diet and nutrition is something magical, as if we don’t control our food intake and amount of exercise. Politics is the same thing — it is out of our control, for secret elite conspiracies behind the scenes determine the fate of nations, not the policies our representatives implement. And with sociobiology — we’re not responsible for our behavior — genes and biomechanical laws determine everything.

    If we’re all puppets, then we’re all puppets. Game therefore comes with a self-refuting paradox: if everything is determined, then no one can actively learn game, for game couldn’t be a result of directed effort. This has things backwards. Nature determines initial attraction. People decide whether they like someone or not based on the first minutes, if not seconds, of interaction. Game can only help weed out bonehead mistakes that spoil the attraction later, like pedestalizing, running your mouth, etc. etc. Gamers act like they’re in control of the initial attraction, which, if they believed their own theories, simply just couldn’t be case. But the PUA clowns need to believe in some sort of merit behind their imagined status, as if they have a super-secret insight no one else has access to. Because, like the kid running around in the supermarket aisle, they’ve always been special, and always will be.

    • Nature determines initial attraction. People decide whether they like someone or not based on the first minutes, if not seconds, of interaction. Game can only help weed out bonehead mistakes that spoil the attraction later, like pedestalizing, running your mouth, etc. etc.

      While this is true, Game supposedly manipulates nature as to incite attraction.

      (I am not arguing that Game actually works in inciting attraction; I am simply noting what it claims.)

      • While this is true, Game supposedly manipulates nature as to incite attraction.

        But thats the point, when you use the word *nature*, you mean things not under your control, not able to be manipulated by you. So nature determines attraction means *things you cannot manipulate determines attraction*.

        • But thats the point, when you use the word *nature*, you mean things not under your control, not able to be manipulated by you. So nature determines attraction means *things you cannot manipulate determines attraction*.

          Nature can not be manipulated?

          People have been manipulating nature for nearly ten thousand years.

        • First of all, no, nature cannot be manipulated. Nature has laws that we can discover and obey, not manipulate (i.e we cannot get nature to do what we want, rather, it is up to us to obey natures laws.).

          But it is really just a semantic argument (in another sense we do *manipulate* nature). JHB simply used *nature* to suggest that sexual attraction depends on things that are outside our conscious control. Thats all.

          It just seemed to me that you were not getting the point that was being argued – that sexual attraction is not dependent on what a man does. Nature was probably not the best word to use to make that clear, anyways – heck, gamers would claim that natural is precisely what game is.

        • It just seemed to me that you were not getting the point that was being argued – that sexual attraction is not dependent on what a man does.

          It is true that there is some randomness when it comes to being attracted to a particular person.

          But even in this chaos, there are definitely patterns. I notice the near total lack of morbidly obese men with poor hygiene hooking up with supermodels, for example. (Or for a sex-reversed analogy, the near total lack of morbidly obese women with poor hygiene hooking up with young, handsome billionaires.)

        • My suspicion that you were not getting it was right ;)

          To make clear – behavior does not cause sexual attraction (being alpha, being confident, being dominating, being indifferent – none of that causes attraction).

          1) No one said it was random, least of all me.
          2) Being non-obese is not a way that you behave towards women.

          We are just countering the gamer claim that behaviors like acting alpha or acting dominating can cause sexual attraction. Attraction was decided before you *did* anything.

        • @EnemyCombatant

          Gamers actually believe that an obese man can get a supermodel just as easily as a hot guy, if he simply walked, talked and acted differently. I’m not kidding!!

          George did a good job of clarifying, but let me clarify further. We non-gamers say that a man’s “PHYSICAL attraction” is set at the moment you enter the room. It’s based on permanent and semi-permanent traits such as height, weight, facial features, physical type, general style type. I.E things that are either permanent or need months to be changed.

          Now don’t get me wrong… A man’s behaviour DOES affect other types of attraction, yes

          -> A man can make a woman romantically more interested (romantic attraction) by the way he treats her and how he acts. TRUE

          -> A man can make a woman more personally attracted (personal attraction, as a person), by the way he acts. TRUE

          However, sexual attraction is fixed on room entry

          However physically attractive a guy is to a woman the moment she notices him entering the room, is the highest it’s going to be [for that night]. Gamers actually believe that by saying certain lines, they can make a woman that wasn’t physically attracted, to now become physically attracted to the guy by the end of the night, just because of what he said or how he said it (I’m not kidding!! They believe this shit).

          Again, they’re specifically talking about PHYSICAL attraction. Most of us believe that love (romantic attraction) can be affect by behaviour. That’s not in dispute. Gamers actually believe they can TRICK a woman into being physically attracted to a guy (i.e. they believe they can get obese guys together with supermodels, despite no evidence of it ever happening).

        • You guys generally have it right.

          Supermodels do often marry fat guys, old guys, short guys, bald guys, etc., but that is usually after babies rabies kicks in. The woman simply shifts into resource extraction mode and gets the best beta provider.

          If women are looking for fun, physical attraction matters. But with women, such attraction is less about a man’s biological stats, and more about the whole physical-behavioral pattern — how a man walks, carries himself, attire, does he have slow smooth movements or quick jerky movements, pitch of the voice, cadence, general attitude, etc. A buff dude can still turn off women if he is a complete spaz, while a smooth dude’s potential will be capped by physical limitations. If you’re not realizing your potential, game can help, but game can’t change your potential. If you’re a 5 who is acting like a 3, game can help you act like a 5, but it can’t change you into a 9.

          Women in the eyes of men have much more leeway for acting like an idiot, and much, much less margin for error in the stats department.

      • @ JHB, mostly true, except I would say the social skills involved are far more simple and basic than you seem to be suggesting (basically, dont act like a spaz should do it ;) ) and I also think game and acting *alpha* and *dominating* will make you look like a ridiculous fool and is an impediment in developing the normal social skills that are all you need to bed women who like your look.

        • and I also think game and acting *alpha* and *dominating* will make you look like a ridiculous fool and is an impediment in developing the normal social skills that are all you need to bed women who like your look.

          Unless you are a lot more touchy than almost any man, then “normal social skills” isn’t all that is necessary.

          Not supporting Mystery, the more I hear, the less I like. Just saying that there is an additional set of things that will make sex a lot more likely. Numbers Game to find women that “like your look” is not “normal social skills”. Knowing that women HAVE a look is hardly whispered… including by Mystery.

          There are additional things that help. Whether “Game” communicates these things in a useful way(or at all) is another matter entirely.

        • I’m not sure what you are saying here Barnum….are you saying guys need to know that it’s a numbers game based on girls having “looks” they are searching for? If so, I acknowledged that. I just added that once you find such a girl all you have to do is have normal social skills, the kind you use in every day situations.

          So you do the numbers game and find chics that dig your look – then you use normal social skills to create a harmonious social interaction not different from other social interactions so that the woman feels comfortable acting on her attraction to you. That’s pretty much it.

          If you’re saying that you need to do more to make women sleep with you, beyond finding the girl who likes your look and have normal social skills…if THAT is what you are saying, I am afraid I have to disagree with you completely, after doing a ton of experimentation with game and just being social.

          Sometimes we guys like to add a layer of mystery to essentially simple processes.

    • Game therefore comes with a self-refuting paradox

      One of the things that helped me get out of the game cult was to notice that that it is absolutely riddled with self-refuting paradoxes that nobody is supposed to notice or discuss and you are supposed to just accept on faith. Like 1)Never try to impress a girl, but 2) You do must constant DHVs. Stuff like that. Or, 1) You have to be dominant, but 2) You have to constantly check if the girl likes your behavior and adjust if she does not.

      You begin to grasp that even if it were true you could create sexual attraction through confident, dominant behavior, game is a set of techniques that are the opposite of confidence or dominance. It is one massive misunderstanding of the dynamics of true confidence

      Gamers dwell in this twilit world of shadows and double-think and double-speak where all sorts of bizarre verbal paradoxes are designed to put your mind in this logical funk where clear thought is impossible. The more you accept one self-refuting paradox, the more your mind is primed to accept more, thus poisoning your ability to think critically at its root.

      This tendency towards mystification and obfuscation reaches its climax with The Fifth Horseman, who always shows up intoning mysteriously like some kind of High Priest *90% of men will never understand game!* (right, because this invention of uneducated children is more complicated than nuclear physics) – designed to make you think there is some mysterious way that it all makes sense and all the apparent paradoxes are not real, and that you should not trust your own critical faculties. It is a confidence trick.

    • JHB, those are some excellent points. Since the paleo-gamers have never been held responsible for anything, they have never worked for anything. Thus they believe no one else has worked for anything either. They’re so incapable of doing any work that they even come up with excuses for not pulling a lever in a voting booth for Ron Paul like Ron Paul will be assassinated if he is elected.

      It’s pathetic.

  8. “He used her body against her will to reproduce.”

    It’s a biological reality that a woman’s body is used to reproduce. Every sexual living organism on Earth uses the female’s body to reproduce. To claim that a man uses a woman’s body to reproduce is to claim that men and women are somehow separate entities and are not part of the same species. That’s just ludicrous.

    • It’s a biological reality that a woman’s body is used to reproduce. Every sexual living organism on Earth uses the female’s body to reproduce. To claim that a man uses a woman’s body to reproduce is to claim that men and women are somehow separate entities and are not part of the same species. T

      I never claimed men and women are different species.

      I claimed that when a rapist gets his victim pregnant, he uses her body to reproduce against her will .

      • You didn’t get the point. A man does not use a woman’s body to reproduce, period. The human species uses the woman’s body to reproduce. Every sexual species on Earth does.

        If a woman willingly have sex with the man, it is still considered as a man using a woman’s body to reproduce? According to your definition, yes. That’s just non-sensical.

        • A rapist could probably care less about getting a woman pregnant; he just wants to get his rocks off. Since pregnancies from rape are very uncommon, I think we can conclude that it’s just some peculiar personal obsession that Enemy Combatant has.

        • It’s like all these women never heard of the birth control pill or the morning after pill.
          Oh yeah, all single mothers were raped.
          By a rapist, who held AND fed them against their will, their families didn’t care enough to report their disappearance, and 9 months later the babies were born.
          That’s what is reasonable to assume from what I, Enemy Combatant has said.
          Which sounds pretty incredible.

        • A rapist could probably care less about getting a woman pregnant; he just wants to get his rocks off. Since pregnancies from rape are very uncommon, I think we can conclude that it’s just some peculiar personal obsession that Enemy Combatant has.

          The fact remains that rape is about power.

        • @I,EC —

          Just because rape (I mean rape-rape, also known as forcible rape) involves an exercise of power, in that, the particular act of rape involves domination, does not mean that rape is about power. Women who theorize about this stuff typically project their own sexuality upon the other sex. For men aren’t sexually hypergamous; they usually don’t look at sex in a status-seeking categories.

          The feminist theory makes rapists sound like kleptomaniacs who steal just to steal, rather than, let us say, people who steal to get the stuff, or steal to inflict harm upon the stolen, or steal because it is there for the taking. Some men believe they are entitled to whatever they want to have. Some men hate women and enjoy seeing them suffer. Some men are completely opportunistic. Feminists don’t like to hear this because it implies women, by the way the dress, may sexually arouse unscrupulous people in their environment who simply don’t give a damn about what they should and should not do.

  9. “A rapist could probably care less about getting a woman pregnant; he just wants to get his rocks off. Since pregnancies from rape are very uncommon, I think we can conclude that it’s just some peculiar personal obsession that Enemy Combatant has.

    For the record, I did say that young girls are much more fertile than older women.

    One the one hand, I was trying to ruffle some old, menopausal-approaching, childless career woman-feminists’ feathers (hehe), while on the other hand, fertility often do translate to sexual attractiveness. The rapist may not have any specific plans to reproduce, but his libido towards a post-pubescent woman is inversely proportional to her age.

  10. Pingback: The Man-0-Sphere Is Paranoid | The Black Pill

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s