Friday, January 9, 2009


Before I get into anything else here, I want to make something perfectly clear here: while the topic of this post inherently will be critical of some aspects of the MGTOW movement, I need to say that given the current state of affairs, I absolutely understand that MGTOW is a perfectly reasonable and logical response to the dangers men expose themselves to by getting involved in relationships with the typical Westernized female. In this regards, I completely concur with Stephen Baskerville's advice: Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily the divorce court leads to a jail cell, mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.

Men Going Their Own Way is in fact simply putting this advice and turning it into a credo. I cannot criticize or fault any man in our current society from taking that path.

However, I must say that I've read plenty of MGTOW bloggers and posters on the various "don't get married" type message boards, and I do think that to some degree, there are a lot of people out there for which MGTOW is not really a conscious decision to avoid getting trapped in the current system...but really an excuse or justification for not being able to have any kind of romantic relationship success with females, period.

This is where I think some of you MGTOW acolytes may want to assess exactly why you are taking the path you are choosing.

As Pook once wrote,
I think it is becoming clear that marriage and children is a natural longing in not just women but men as well. Nature did not intend gender avoidance. I believe generally everyone is repelled by the negative pessimistic tone found on MGTOW. However, people return consistently for a dose of the poison to ease the existential pain (caused by the natural longing of wife and children which is found in every culture and time). Once convinced by the rantings that women are more painful than pleasurable, the male goes off semi-satisfied. But, alas, the natural longing creeps up again causing the male to return.

The biggest reason men I see MGTOW-types cite for avoiding marriage is the very real possibility of the typical American female cashing out once she captures her provider with children so she can have a steady income of alimony and child support.

This is unfortunately a very real possibility - but there is another aspect of this scenario that is usually not mentioned...unless you married a gold digger who's sole intent was to trick you into becoming her wage slave, there are plenty of instances where the man has played a significant role in the demise of his marriage and his subsequent injustices he suffers at the hands of the divorce industry.

We MRA often criticize feminists for avoiding responsibility and blaming everything on men...well, I have to say that in some cases, I see the mirror image in some MGTOW rants and diatribes.

This is why I'm writing this post...because the other side to the MGTOW coin is the PUA....or the Pick Up Artist.

PUA's are well aware of the current misandry and injustice of the system, and have decided that women are simply nothing more than to be used for sexual sport. However, in terms of why I've added a few PUA websites to my blogroll (Roissy in D.C., Roosh V, and The Reality Method,) is because they offer some very keen insights into male/female relational dynamics.

See, as those of you that have been reading my blog for awhile now already know, I was married long before I discovered the MRA blogosphere or became awakened to the realities that our society has become a feminized Matriarchy.

And I had a contentious marriage for a long time, because I thought that following the cultural cues that urge men to "get in touch with their feminine side" and "put her on a pedestal and worship her as a goddess" was the key to making her happy...completely unaware that it was actually a recipe for disaster.

Women raised in our culture don't even know that 95% of them suffer from the cognitive dissonance created by the feminist indoctrination of equality for which they've internalized and consciously adhere to clashing with their biological instincts for hypergamy - to value dominant traits in their prospective mates.

This is EXACTLY why so many MGTOW types are bitter that they're "nice guys" while the ladies they were attracted to and wanted to pursue all went out with the "bad boys" and thugs, and told them "Let's Just Be Friends."

This is how my marriage fell into trouble over the course of several years. I basically became a spineless "beta" that handed my wife my balls and she was very unhappy with me for it. She couldn't respect me and she was falling out of attraction with me. When a women you are married to or involved with no longer finds you attractive - because you do not display adequate traits of dominance - that's when your relationship begins to have 'problems' and she begins to nitpick and employ passive-aggressive conflicts that make your life a living hell...and usually ends up ending the relationship if it goes on for too long.

And the typical man's response when he knows the relationship is going wrong is to escalate the very behaviors that are turning off her attraction for you in the first place! Buy her gifts, take her on vacations, spoil her like a princess, beg her to stay with you...these are all traits that turn off her biological cues of attraction!

Of COURSE, this does not mean a selfish woman is justified in destroying her family by divorcing her husband, and turning into the ex-wife from hell...but I say to you, that a man that makes himself knowledgeable about the biological imperatives that drive women's attraction are far less likely to end up as another ex-husband chained into peonage, because you CAN learn how to keep your long term woman continually attracted to you.

This is why I say the PUA offer some very valuable insights. By reading and studying and than applying the "GAME" techniques the PUA advocate on my own wife, I found that my marriage transformed dramatically. In short, the "GAME" that they advocate men learn so they can score sex is nothing more than understanding what makes women attracted to men on a visceral, instinctual level, and how to interact with them to make them LUST you. You can use "game" to become a player and seek out casual sex...but you can also use it to make your long term relationship thrive. I speak from personal experience.

Because whether you're married, living with a woman, or just dating, once a woman falls out of LUST with you, she falls out of LOVE. Women won't or don't admit it to themselves, but this I tell you is TRUTH.

So if you are a man and you happen to be reading this, and you are in a relationship with a woman, I urge you to do some research on the PUA websites and you may look on your own relationship dynamics and see if perhaps understanding these things can help you succeed.

For me, the biggest help was the following: What is a Shit Test?

Once I understood just what is a shit test, this was the BIGGEST help to my relationship. Hope it can help you like it did for me.

PS - I've dropped a few comments under the name "Dave in Hawaii" over at Roissy's blog. There's been some interesting debates going on when Roissy's post It's Easy to Identify a Slut was linked to by and the useful idiot feminuts invaded his comment section. Some entertaining reading!


Elusive Wapiti said...

Interesting juxtaposition of MGTOWers and PUAs. One whines about the weather, the other acts. One is a victim, the other a survivor.

Like you, while I don't countenance the PUA moral code, I do think they are on to a truth that for some reason the average guy has seem to have forgotten.

I think that SellCivilizationShort was on to something with his trio of posts a while ago about how the MRA movement should borrow from the successes of Marxist insurgents, namely: find a sanctuary, set up a competing society with the moral systems that you desire, then capture key pieces of the culture bit by bit.

That would be MGTOW. Living their own life unhindered and unplugged by the fematrix. Free to marry and have kids and families (or not) unharrassed by femarxist ideology.

Anonymous said...


I'm a longtime MGTOWer. While a lot of MGTOWers have decided not to form relationships with women, MGTOW is not anti-marriage, per se. There are married men in the MGTOW movement. MGTOW is more about not basing your worth on your success with women. It's an important distinction that needs to be made.

Hawaiian Libertarian said...

Good points EW and Anon.

Anonymous said...

My view may be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

MGTOW, look at the words. That literally says men going their own way. True, the anti-marriage sector makes the most noise, so people tend to connect them with the entire movement.

However, to me it literally means using your own brain; finding your own wants and needs, and solutions to the problems with marriage in the Anglosphere.

That will include a lot who avoid women. But, it should also include expats; even men who make a conscious decision to marry, both FW and AW. One hopes those who marry know how to test, but as long as they know the issues and risks, in my opinion, MGTOW has room for men to marry.

There may indeed by men in MGTOW who use it as an excuse for personal failures, but I hope other men do not start painting all MGTOW that way. The last thing we need is more men enemies of men. That has been the norm for 45 years, and the reason things have turned as bad as they are.

A personal note. I have been married to a Mexican woman, we are now 66 years old, and I spend most of my time in Mexico, where I am now. She goes back and forth by bus to see her adorable grandson.

My wife is OCD; hyperactive; and dyslexic. I am the right husband for her, lots of patience and tolerance, and for sure she has not divorced me which today is a big plus.

Still, even though I think she has a good heart, those characteristics can make for a certain amount of stress. Maybe once a year or so, I find a need to make a really good imitation of a 3900 pound Holstein bull on a rampage, raging and shouting up and down the house. She is furious and doesn't talk to me for two or three days. Then, she cooks something special, and gives me really good sex, which is not real easy at 66. And, for some time there is peace in our house.

So, what you say is too true. Women do not like manginas.

Anonymous age 66

MarkyMark said...


Though my initial frustration with women was due to lack of success later in life, I decided that the remedies were too much work. I took a hard look at myself, and yes, I made the same mistakes you made. But, after examining the whole dating scene, I decided that the 'prize', an Ameriskank, wasn't worth the effort. Any work I do on myself will be for me only, not to get some chick. All I know is that, without a woman in it, my life is SO MUCH SIMPLER, QUIETER, AND MORE PEACEFUL. Why would I screw that up? Can't think of a good reason to do so...


Deadbeat Dad said...

MarkyMark pretty much nails it, I think: for most men, a committed relationship (i.e. one involving marriage, cohabitation or children) just isn't worth the risk nowadays; presented with a one-off choice, I'd suggest that Russian Roulette is much the safer -- and certainly less painful -- alternative.

It takes an exceptional woman to resist the temptations dangled before her by the legal system when a relationship hits rough ground, as most do at one time or another (assuming, that is, she didn't set out to screw you in the first place). Domestic violence legislation and family court prejudice mean that it is mere child's play for a woman to destroy a man's life in the pursuit of her own interests.

Who amongst us possesses the judgement of character to take such a leap of faith (and, still less, live to vindicate that decision)? Not that many, in my experience.

I am 46 years old, and am blessed with a wide range of male friends and close acquaintances from across the educational, political and economic spectrums (I do have a couple of close female friends too, but they don't enter into this equation). At a guess, I'd say that around half of them have struck up enduring, mutually trusting relationships; but the other half have been damaged, to varying degrees, by women ruthlessly wielding powers conferred on them by the state.

Speaking from a purely personal perspective: becoming a father was an experience more beautiful and transformational than anything I was previously able to imagine; but, becoming a disenfranchised father plunged me into a nightmare world from which, almost seven years down the line, I am still struggling to emerge (without even beginning to dwell on the repercussions for my daughter's life, that is).

If I had known ten years ago what I know now, I would have chosen to remain chastely celibate to the end of my days.

As Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet: "Where ignorance is bliss, ‘tis folly to be wise.”

Too fucking true.

@ anon: If it works for you, then fine. But do you honestly believe that -- all other things being equal -- your relationship would have endured if your wife were an American citizen? No? Neither do I.

Anonymous said...

Good column. And Marky Mark nails the issue on the head with his thoughts. In most cases, the 'prize' is not worth the entry fee. It's great being a man, being free to pursue friendship with all who happen in my path and especially, to pursue a deeper relationship with God.

Can a woman add to my peace, satisfaction and tranquility? Certainly if her values and mine are similar. But that has not happened much in my life and I'm not willing to surrender my values for hers if hers differ. Certainly many women in our society are not excessively materialistic, an accusation that is made in many blanket statements. Yet given the power women hold over the courts, to me it's just not worth the trouble to balance a relationship on a knife's edge, knowing she holds the power position and can quit with major financial problems for me if her 'feelings' tell her to move on.

Anonymous said...

What a lot of people fail to realise is that going your own way does not necessarily involve celibacy, although that is certainly also an option. A valid and acceptable option.

A MGHOW and a PUA need not be mutually exclusive. That said, you can screw around with women without conforming to the PUA lines and tactics and manuals. You can have fun with women while going your own way, and still not become a PUA.

The key point and focus is to avoid marriage, breeding, and as of recently, cohabitation.

Being romantic and in love has nothing to do with marriage. Or getting laid. A marriage is a business contract and good luck to all who have signed it.

Getting laid is a pleasure, a sport. A good way to destress and burn calories.

Going expat is not a really sound solution now. This is the age of the Internet, social networking sites, cell phones and instant messaging. 'Traditional family/Asian values' are going the way of the dinosaur. The younger generation of non-American women are harlots too. Which is perfectly okay but woe to the sucker who marries them.

Men, just enjoy women for the holes they add up to be. If not, live your own lives fruitfully alone, minus the drama and noise. Men age like wine, time is on your side. Getting stuck to a single woman for the rest of your life, legally or emotionally, is just silly. Don't do it.

Thanks for reading. Have a great 2009 ahead.

Anonymous said...

I disagree that men naturally want children. To be honest when I got married the thought never entered my mind. I had two and once arrived there is an overwhelming emotional response but not before.

You can not divide women into gold diggers and the others. All women are instinctively inclined to regard whatever a man has as her own . Put simply the price of their cunts is in fact infinite and always all ma man has.

I also dispute the claim that marriage is the basis of civilized society. Rather I see it as in the past the only solution to men's sexual cravings. But it is a high price to pay. I think better solutions can exits. I am a big supported of prostitution, its only disadvantage being its cost.

Anyway we owe no duty to civilization. To hell with it if it means feminism.

ruddyturnstone said...

Marky Mark nails it. To me, the candle is just not worth the game. When I was younger, perhaps, it might have been worth my while to pretend to be someone I'm not, just to get one night stands with hot women who hang around in bars. But now? No way, not even close. Now, I'm definitely MGTOW, and "my own way" does NOT include stooping to the level of women who only dole out their sexual favors to guys who will play their silly games.

As to applying this PUA stuff to marriage, I don't think it will work. Married women simply don't want to have sex with their husbands. They find it to be a boring, tiring chore that they get no pleasure from. Married women do not give their husband "shit tests," they just flatly refuse to have sex with them. There is no clever comeback to that.

When women are young and single, sex is exciting to them. Why? Well for one reason, because they're young, and their hormones are kicking in. For another, they haven't had a lot of it before. For a third reason, even in today's world, there is still an illicit thrill for a single person, particularly a single, young women, in having sex.

Obviously, all of that goes by the board after a woman marries and starts to age. Sex with their husband becomes a duty, rather than a joy or a thrill. And, their bodies are crying out for reproduction ("baby rabies"), not for sex per se.

And, what gets married women off, to the extent anything does, is the thought/fantasy of having sex with someone other than their husband. It's not the same old, same old. It shows that they're still desirable to men in general, not just their husband, who is stuck with them. And, it is illicit, and therefore thrilling.

Men have a strong sex drive well into their 40's, if not longer. Women don't. A married man is still so horny that sex with his wife is still "good enough," still something he vastly prefers to no sex, even though they've done it a hundred times before, even though she is not the looker she once was, and even though sex with another woman would be much more exciting by comparison. Not so for a wife. And no pick up line, or lines, or other techniques or tactics are going to change that.

Also, from the stand point of a married man, the whole thing is insulting anyway. His wife should have sex with him because that's part of the deal, whether she is into it or not. Just as he deposits his check into their joint account each week, whether he is into it or not, and cuts the grass and maintains the cars, whether he is into it or not, and remembers her birthday, their anniversary, and Valentines Day, whether he is into it, or not, and gives her a hug, a kiss, a shoulder to cry on, and "I love you" when she needs it, and so on, whether he is into it or not.

Marriage is supposed to be a reciprocal arrangement; both partners are supposed to sometimes do things for the other partner that they don't necessarily feel like. And, for men, the main thing that his wife can do for him is have sex with him.

Moreover, just as the checks go into the account without any need for the husband to be convinced on a weekly basis, and the grass gets cut, and the shoulders to cry on get offered and the "I love you's" get said, without any "wooing" without any romancing, without any clever repartee, without any "picking up" being done, so should the wife provide the husband with sex without any of that.

If she doesn't, the marriage stinks anyway. If a man has to "woo" and use PUA tactics on his wife to get laid, he might as well be single!

Jay Fink said...

While I enjoy reading the blogs, I have no desire to learn and practice PUA techniques. I am not a dominant male, I dislike dominant males, and have no desire (or energy) to go through life pretending I'm somebody I'm not. Men shouldn't have to learn "game", Instead women should evolve to the point where it doesn't work on them. But they require it, the result is the downfall of Western civilization. Got popcorn?

Anonymous said...

American women have by and large forfeited any right to marry men who would treat them right. They all too often thrive on conflict, drama and problems they create then blame on their man or men in general. Lust in an of itself is not going to keep a marriage together, and with the way AW want to shag every player, PUA, criminal, thug or other creep that comes there way, I choose to avoid rat race of keeping a woman "in lust with me." I do not enjoy locking horns with a woman at every turn. So I choose to go my own way. Maybe I'm not cut out to be "successful with women" or whatever the Hell that means, but I'm far happier by myself than being married to a woman who makes my life unbearable. I know all too well how kids can be little bastards from Hell because their mothers teach them to be that way. I work in an occupation where I could get killed on the job any number of ways. The last thing I need is to come home to WW-III because of an AW's hostility and malice towards me. I was married once and that was my reward for doing the right thing. AW are filled with malice and spite towards men, they're trained to be that way from an early age. That is why I regard many of them as good for sport fucking and little else.

Anonymous said...

I know about Pook. Many times, he's a good read, but then he always has had ax to grind against MRAs and MGTOWers. I tune him out when he is one of his anti- MRA/MGTOW rants. In some ways, he's old school and he doesn't get it.

We can summarize Pook's point this way: "Men naturally desire female companionship, therefore they must have it." At face value, it looks plausible, but in reality, it's a flawed assertion. No, men don't necessarily need what they naturally desire. People naturally desire foods with high-fat content and sugar. But if someone is concerned about their health, they might try to cut back or eliminate some foods. It might be difficult, but they'll do it. Some thing with men. There's a drive that can be stronger than sex .... self-preservation.

Man has a choice. Allow his base desires to be the ruling force in life, or his principles. I don't know of many men in the first camp who turned happy in the long run. These men usually end up being one of the following: unhappily married, an unwed father, infected with STDs, unhappily divorced, poor, in prison, or dead. At this talk about "the natural longing" is nugatory in this respect.

It is averred:

However, I must say that I've read plenty of MGTOW bloggers and posters on the various "don't get married" type message boards, and I do think that to some degree, there are a lot of people out there for which MGTOW is not really a conscious decision to avoid getting trapped in the current system...but really an excuse or justification for not being able to have any kind of romantic relationship success with females, period.

Let's me ask a heretical question: What is the problem with this? Sure they may be missing out on something, but what they may be missing out is a whole barge load of drama and unhappiness.

By analogy, these men may also be missing out on a nice chunk of change by not getting into pork belly futures. You can learn a lot of tips and techniques on how to minimize your losses, but how much risk capital do you want to sink into the market? Your entire life savings? I don't even think the pros would do that.

The PUA community takes a Darwinian approach to sexual relationships. It may work for one night stands, but I don't will work for marriage. Marriage is built on trust, transparency, loyalty, compromise, longsuffering, and integrity. Do you see these words pop up a lot in the PUA literature? I didn't think so.

You raise two choices for men: 1) be a nice guy or 2) be bad boy. You falsely assume that MGTOWers are #1. No, they are not necessarily "nice guys" in the sense of being pushovers. The real problem is that many of them are GOOD guys. In other words, they have integrity and ethics, but the women they run into don't appreciate this.

So why do these guys have to change who they are? Look at what the PUA does--he allows women to dictate they way he acts. Does he enjoy acting like a callous jerk? If not, then why does he do it? To please the ladies? Who is control of who here?

If a man was in control of his relationship with women, he could say, "Look, I'm not a bad boy and I am not going to stoop to that level of behavior. If you don't like that, you know where the door is, sweetheart. We're adults here. This isn't high school. I expect you treat me decently the way I try to treat you decently." Of course, many men cede control to women, so they end up being a pushover "nice guy" or a bad-boy thug to get what they want from women.

The problem is not men refusing to act like bad boys. The problem is that we reward bad boys. In a previous age, these dudes would be shunned, shamed, or forced by shotgun to settle down. The women who chased them would be denigrated as whores and thrown out on the street. The FATHER, if he was decent, would get custody of any children born to such an unhappy union.

Strict sexual and social mores existed for a reason. It goes back to the Sexual Constitution that Daniel Amneus talked about. Do not propose marriage to MGTOWers unless they can have the guarantee of strict sexual and social mores to protect the institution.

I close with a fundamental question: If a man is decent chap who plays by the rules yet a woman finds that boring, why are we asking HIM to change and be something he's not?

mandy said...

I think reading the more insightful MRA/MGTOW sites have helped improve my marriage, too. Probably in a different way than yours of course.

I've considered that it might be good to teach some insight about human interactions from the PUAs in middle school sex ed. I'm probably one of the few parents that would agree this could be useful for both young men and women understanding themselves better.

It is undeniable though, that the future of the Western world is coming more and more from fatherless households. It seems this trend once in motions, becomes self fulfilling - until our economy is destroyed to the point where there are no more productive people to subsidize it. We'll either be replaced by a stronger, family oriented patriarchy or fall into anarchy from which a new order or some kind will be built(see Somalia.) I think it is at a generation too late for MRAs to have any corrective effect on the cancer of feminism. Not enough men are on board to "save civilization" if that is the point(not sure it is, but many have written about it so for some it must be.)

Have you ever read Strauss and Howe's theory on cyclical generation patterns?
You might find it interesting how it relates to the appearance and disappearance of movements (such as feminism, militarism etc) over time in society. They claim we are all part of a four generation cycle that keeps repeating itself. Each of the four generational archetypes has a particular set of characteristics that shape the culture at the time. Basically, according to this model, history represents a pendulum and they say we are about to swing back toward more traditional gender roles but not without a major, all consuming crisis to drive us there.

Anonymous said...

>>Going expat is not a really sound solution now

Under MGTOW principles, if you feel that way, stay in Hell. But, as a general statement, a lot of men from the Anglosphere are finding a better life elsewhere. No, make that "finding a life" because in the Anglosphere is not living.

Expatting suits a lot of men. But, it is not for everyone, which is why MGTOW means to find your own way.

It is easy to tell you have never lived in rural Mexico, hee, hee.

Anonymous age 66

Anonymous said...

Those who do not believe HL on using PUA on your own wife, there may be one basic characteristic of women you are unaware of.


There was an article on one of the news pages last year. Even women making $100,000 a year sometimes couldn't sleep for worrying "what is?" What if they lost their job and couldn't find another, etc?

So, married women never get past the worry that their husband might not be able to take care of them, or help them survive nuclear war or natural disasters. So, this is why they continue to shit test their husbands, out of fear he might not be up to the task if his aid is needed.

This is also why women have demanded total and absolute protection against all possibilities, even their own adultery, and why they demand the pussy pass for serious crimes. They want to be protected even against their own misbehavior. Etc.

HL is right.

Anonymous age 66

coachdrew said...

Great article, HL. Thanks for continuing to engage in the ideological issues.

I wonder if anyone posting on this blog has read a book by David Deida? If not, I'd highly recommend it.

Anonymous said...

The women are the puppet masters controlling their puppets (MEN).

Let's adapt by becoming neurotic about everything, feminizing our thinking and then we can improve relations!

The worst part about the PUA material is that it's becoming globalized.

Remember those non-Feminist women that MRA/MGTOW types want to expat and marry?

It's now being practiced on non-feminist women in foreign countries.

Those women are going to get burned by players; they're going to become like the horrendous women in the USA.

We're going to end up with nothing but a globalized society of cheating players, scammers; people with zero integrity and nothing but a desire to selfishly fuck every one over.

Everybody's going to lose in the long run.

Nothing good is coming from this stuff.

Unless, of course, you consider massive promiscuity to be good.


+5 years of studying/practicing pua/don juan/venusian, whatever the hell else you want to call it.

Anonymous said...

I am 23, from Europe (Italy) and started PUA when I was 16. It made me very succesful with females. It helped me pick up girls so hot that not even my friends believed me when I told them. Despite this, I started feeling emptier throughout the years. I was just following a set of techniques based on a cynical view on society, and was actually contributing to the creation/spreading of such society through my own behavior.
I am honestly bored of casual sex and short term relationships today. And if women really are unable to live up to higher ideals, I honestly think I have better things to do in my life than waste time on keeping my flesh stimulated and collecting STDs.

I think the "female" that is described here, and in general by most PUA/seduction philosophies, is none but a result of socialization and expectations.
What do I mean? That as long as we expect the entire female species to behave like that, all (horny) men will treat them like that, and in return women will treat us how they were treated. Males vs females. (Mark, March 13th, describes this pretty well.)

Will there be any integrity left in women? Will we be able to create a society where, regardless of the institutions, both males and females respect each other instead of deceiving and using tricks?

Who knows! PUA has been around for a while now. And if you read some womens' magazines, you'll realize that THEIR techniques exist since decades. Perhaps one day both males and females will trust and rely on their own selves rather than following advice that makes both try to outdo each other.

Perhaps that day will never arrive. Until then, I have all the time to explore the world, travel, learn to fly planes, work on my business, learn a new martial art, learn new languages, play videogames, write stories, learn to program with computers, learn about the life history of many new people, male AND female... When you open your eyes, you just realize how vast the world out there is. I slightly regret having wasted so much time just working on myself to "get laid".

Psychology student, 23, Italy

Ana Baptist said...

Perhaps it is time to explore different unions, such as the "Walking Marriage" practiced by the Mosuo, an ethnic minority in China. Men live with their families of origin and visit their wives for sexual contact(Think "friends with benefits").

There are no financial obligations on the husband towards the wife or towards the children he sires with her; he cares for his sister's children instead. There's no alimony or child support involved if a couple break up.

Also, there is the added benefit that sons and daughters are equally valued (clans will adopt children if there is a gender imbalance). There is no preference for boys as is common in most Asian cultures.

A Roissy Disciple said...

An Open Letter To Jim ‘Roissy’ Weidmann

Dark Lord and King Of Game

Hey, Roissy,

For a long time, I thought The X Factor and American Idol’s Simon Cowell was the ultimate definition of alpha male. With his mega bucks, world fame, unlimited power and sure-fire ability to fuck any woman he wanted. So I was shocked to read he was finally getting married – to a woman of 36.

How could this be? According to the unquestioned wisdom of your good self and your equally intelligent, insightful followers, only beta males would even dream of dating or marrying a woman over 21. But then I started to realise more horrifying truths. Countless other alpha males around the world had love lives which bore no resemblence to your expertly prescribed template.

Robbie Williams was engaged to a thirtysomething. Rod Stewart was married to a thirtysomething. President Nicholas Sarkozy of France had married a forty one year old. Sir Conrad Black the newspaper billionaire had married a fortysomething. Bill Gates had married a thirtysomething. Prince Charles of the English royal family had married a FIFTYsomething. The list went on and on, but you take my point (other names on the list – James Cameron, David Beckham, Jose Mourinho, Andrew Lloyd Webber, Johnny Depp, Charles Saatchi, Steven Spielberg, Mick Jagger…)

For a second, I almost doubted your greatness and insight. But then it dawned on me and I saw the light. And I realised that the definition of a true alpha male is not being an internationally famous billionaire with the power of life and death over hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings. Or being a worldwide sex symbol adored by red blooded women everywhere, and having beautiful babes throwing themselves at your feet every day of your life. It’s not about being a rock star, or a leader of men, or a visionary talent, or living in a Hollywood Hills mansion, or driving a fleet of Ferraris.

The definition of a true alpha male is writing a fucked up, woman hating, intensely disturbing blog for bitter virginal losers and scary misfits who want to be serial killers but haven’t got the balls. Full of junior high level evo-psych bullshit, implausible stories obsessed with power, control and sexual domination, and thinly veiled projection issues transferring your own glaringly obvious insecurities onto the ladies.

And then I realised that your readers are also alpha males. Because spending all your spare time on some fucked up blog spewing wishful-thinking sado-masochistic venom – with one hand jacking off furiously down your grubby XXXXL sized K-Mart pants – is the mark of a true man.

All hail Roissy the Great – alpha male, sexual visionary and legend of the modern age. And not a sad little twisted middle-aged closet-case white-collar pussy who has the world view and sexual insight of a bitter tenth-grade virgin, and whose sole abilities lie in two areas – a – picking up insecure drunken skanks in shitty meat market bars, which a trained chimp could do if it knew how to pinch asses and buy drinks, and b – kicking off circle jerks for a bunch of mentally disturbed George Sodini wannabes who couldn’t get a fuck in a brothel and are even more pitiful than their revered Jedi master.

I bow to the feet of the Dark Lord. Truly, you have shown me the Matrix.

A Roissy Disciple

Tom said...

It is interesting Wikipedia censors MGTOW but does not censor PUA. The Wikipedia description provides plenty of criticism of PUA but MGTOW is outright censored. I think this is a clear statement as to which movement feminist fear most.

Michael said...

Become Happier By Avoiding Sex, Marriage, Fatherhood, And Parental Alienation Syndrome (Summary).

My story on my website has the same title. Information from online articles (published by reputable organizations), one DVD documentary, and two books was combined to tell a “complete” story of the unjust problems fathers deal with in the United States. The story begins during marriage when the children are young and the story ends in old age. I also include my personal story. At least two of my websites show the story that I wrote:,