Saturday, February 5, 2011

Hooking Up With the Dark Lord

Roissy seems to provide endless fodder for blogosphere discussions. I just spent an inordinate amount of time writing a response to this thread over at Hooking Up Smart, after reading the comments in which a slew of female commenters weighed in with their opinions on Roissy and his blog. At first I was just going to comment, but than realized the length of it was as long as a typical post if I'm gonna put that kind of effort into writing something, may as well post it here as well.

- Heh...seems like Susan's blog swallowed my comment. Glad I copied & pasted it here before I hit the submit button over there.


Very interesting thread. The differences in male and female perspectives on Roissy and his insights is amusing and makes for compelling reading.

But two particular comments made me decide to log on and put in my own $.02 on this discussion:

That’s BS. Men get bored of the sweet, feminine, hot girls with minimal drama or say “this is going to fast for me” or they say “I know myself. I don’t want to hurt you. We are not meant for each other.” Then you see them chasing dominant, strong bitches, who emotionally torture them and then screw them over something."

When men dump women, your typical, self-absorbed and narcissistic woman will engage her rationalization hamster to explain to herself why he left without having to face the truth of her own role in ending the relationship. While she may think to herself that she was a "sweet, feminine, hot girl with minimal drama," the man's perspective most certainly disagrees on at least one, some or all of those assessments. That's why he left.

You also fail to understand that the weighting of importance between these traits. For most men, the hot girl part is the most important trait (the biological hard wiring to try and mate with the genetically superior specimens). If you really are a sweet, feminine, minimal-drama woman, and he left you for a bitchy, demanding, high maintenance woman, it's a safe bet that your "hot girl" rating is lower than the bitch's hot girl rating, from his point of view.

He didn't leave you to chase the bitch because she's "more exciting and challenging." It's because she's hotter than you and he's willing to pay the price in dealing with that negative drama to access what he perceives as her higher sex appeal.

He wasn't bored by your sweet, feminine, low-maintenance charm. He was most likely bored with your sex appeal.

But I will concede that you are not entirely wrong. There most certainly are men who, as one of you ladies put it:

"...addicted to the highs and lows of constant relationship drama as the women. If things are too calm, too nice, too stable, they crave more and will create instability if they have to."

Not all men are like that.

But do you know where the kind of men who are like that come from?

They come from the homes of their never-married or divorced mothers that bring an endless amount of drama into their son's lives.
These are the men who grew up in a home where they watched their mothers bring home an assortment of violent and abusive men to give her the drama she needs.
These are the men who were used as weapons when they were boys in custody battles by their vindictive divorcee mothers.

These are the men who never learn to control their emotions and temper. They had no masculine role models to learn from on how to channel their natural male aggression into productive outlets. They learned to let their emotions be the primary influence on their behavior.

These are the men who were alienated from their Fathers. They are the male manifestations of their primary role models in life...their single mothers. See Myth of the Ghetto Alpha Male.

Pointing to such damaged men as proof that the female psyche's need for drama is invalid or that "doesn't apply to me," is missing the forest for the trees.
Women need social drama, which is why all women gossip. Gossip in and of itself is not good or bad. "Good" women gossip too, they just do not gossip with malicious intent.

The discussion of Roissy on this thread regarding his personal life, and speculations on how truthful he is about his success with women and his ability or inability to have a meaningful, "REAL" LTR, and the entire farcical episode with "lady" Raine "outing him" is just another manifestation of this female need for gossip and social drama. It is irrelevant in terms of why Roissy and his blog are still relevant and influential to men all over the world.

You ladies think that understanding the personal details of his life gives you insight into whether any particular advice or observation he writes about is invalid or not. This is why most of you fail to comprehend the "big picture" with regards to why his blog has struck such a chord with so many men.

Men who "get it", on the other hand, read what he writes, and can immediately recognize the underlying truths of his hyperbole because they recognize those truths and how they apply to their own life experiences with women. We men don't have the rationalization hamster obscuring our critical self analysis.
Hindsight is not always 20/20. You can't learn from your mistakes if you don't understand why you made them.

When Roissy writes something with regards to the darker aspects of the female id, men experience that "AHA!" moment of clarity and suddenly understand why things happened to them in their own past experiences with women.

Pick any thread in the Chateau's archives dealing with the topic of women, and you can find numerous testimonials of men who gained insight into their own past relationship successes and failures because of a particular point or view expressed by Roissy. His insights explained things to them that they formerly failed to comprehend.

This is why you have plenty of men who have a much different outlook on morality, still giving Roissy his just due and blogroll linkage despite religious and/or moral objections to the PUA lifestyle Roissy espouses.
Men like Vox Day, the Social Pathologist, Dalrock, Ulysses, Eumaios, Athol,.Mormon Man ..none of whom are Players participating in the great gangbang of our current liberalized, secular, feminist-driven who are self-described dedicated,faithful Fathers and husbands. Nevertheless, each in their own way "get" the point of Roissy and the truths he espouses and how it applies in some way to their own relationships with their wives and their own awareness of their own masculinity and the role it plays in their relationships.

The reason why 99% of the women who read Roissy just don't get it, is because most of you ladies read his observations of the darker aspects of the female id and you immediately kick the hamster into gear to justify how his observations don't apply to yourself.

You can't help it.

As a woman, you are hardwired to believe you are a special, unique snowflake. This is why we men who understand the big picture, are amused whenever a woman weighs in with her own variation of NAWALT.

The only difference between a woman that seeks out relationships with abusive men and those that don't, is how she's channeled her darker aspects of the female sexual id into either positive or negative outlets. If you are a woman who is not in an abusive relationship, you've found a man who feeds your base, visceral desires in a positive manner. This is why you mistakenly believe that NAWALT, especially your own unique, special self.

For instance, Susan seems to be most offended by Roissy's observation that the threat of masculine physical violence is a sexual turn-on for women. You completely missed the disclaimer he wrote along with that post saying that for many women, you do not have to physically assault her, but imply that it is possible, and that presence of controlled, masculine aggression will inspire attraction in her.

Whether women admit this to themselves or not doesn't make it untrue.

This attraction to masculine aggression is the main driver of passionate make up sex. There is no hot and heavy makeup sex if the conflict was resolved by the man profusely apologizing and begging and pleading with her for forgiveness while she's raging in anger. That just turns her anger into bitter contempt and disgust.
It is only when her anger is either matched and overpowered by his own angry response -- or he maintains a stoic, calm and detached indifference to her emotional outburst -- that makes her attraction kicks into high gear...even if she feels justified in her anger.  On the instinctual level, whether she is logically right or wrong in her argument, at some level it is still a shit test.

His demonstration of having a spine in the face of her emotional aggression, satisfies her primal desire to mate with a man who would stand up for her and their offspring in the face of external sources of aggression. Women are attracted to the male capacity for violence and aggression. Just because you may not be attracted to, and in a relationship with, an abusive thug that beats you, doesn't mean there is an aspect of your sexual nature that is not attracted to male aggression. You're just attracted to the kind of man that learned how to channel it into a positive outlet. That doesn't mean your a different kind of women. That just means you were, most likely raised in an healthy, "normal" environment where you learned to be attracted to the qualities that made your mom attracted to your dad.

While it's true that this comment is attempting to make the point that "not all men are like that," while "all women are like that," that just highlights the fact that gender differences are real.

Women need drama and they are attracted to men who have masculine aggression.

Men need hot women, preferably women who channel that need for drama into positive outlets...but if she's hot enough, we'll tolerate the negative drama up to a certain point before we decide it's no longer worth the trade off.


Marc said...

Solid stuff, HL. Are you planning on posting a link to this post over at Hooking Up Smart? I would love to see that, as your post here very effectively takes apart that pathetic "but men love bitches not feminine women" meme that most of the female comments over there readily jumped on.

Marc said...

OK, I just noticed that you already did that over at Hooking Up Smart. That's what I get for writing the comment before checking back there first. It should be interesting to see what "hamster runs" you get over there in response to your argument.

Susan Walsh said...

Sorry your comment went into moderation - it's out now. And it's epic! Truly helpful and enlightening. I thank you for that. You lay out the hard truths in a rational way. It's not easy to accept the truth of what you say, but I know you are right, and women are best served by understanding both their own sexuality, and male sexuality.

You are of course right about the male bloggers who have learned from Roissy while rejecting his lifestyle, and I am a fan of several of those blogs. Your name should be added to the list, I believe.

Oh - and thanks for the link, KG.

Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life said...

I think what Roissy does best is describe the Alpha = attraction side of things. It was extremely useful for me in developing my current framework of thinking.

If all you want is hook ups and short relationships, Roissy is the way to go. It's really just not what many men want though.

Simon Grey said...

"When Roissy writes something with regards to the darker aspects of the female id, men experience that "AHA!" moment of clarity and suddenly understand why things happened to them in their own past experiences with women."

Women need to understand that while each of them has their own aspect of uniqueness, they are, on the whole, more alike than different. It's like comparing internal combustion engines. Sure, each one is somewhat different, but they all essentially function the same way.

Women are all somewhat different, but they too function essentially the same way, and that's what Game reveals: The principles of female behavior. And that's exactly what Roissy's maxims are: principles. Men take the core truth contained therein and apply it to the specific woman (women) they are with.

Ultimately, then, it is futile for women to deny their fundamental character (although, to be fair, it is quite entertaining). Some men already see women for what they are. Women's refusal to do the same, though an understandable coping mechanism, is ultimately counterproductive, since they are unable to truly see what they need to change about themselves behaviorally.

Anonymous said...

Simon Grey: "Women need to understand that while each of them has their own aspect of uniqueness, they are, on the whole, more alike than different. It's like comparing internal combustion engines. Sure, each one is somewhat different, but they all essentially function the same way."

Yes. And when there are real differences, as with the Atkinson cycle engine, they are such as to make the subject unusable, or at least inefficient.

Obsidian said...

Hey HL,
Long time no hear! How you been? I see your Game skills are sharp as a razor blade - saw your comment over at Ms. Walsh's site and thought to stop by to holla at ya. I got a new home, come on over and check me out! I'll add you to the blogroll ASAP.


Anonymous said...

Props to Susan for having such a popular blog.

She probably comes closer to "getting it" than any female blogger out there.

Roissy is right on the money in terms of insight, but people are horrified by the way he presents it.

The red pill tastes bitter, but it really is the best medicine for ignorance.

Anonymous said...

call me Jen

As a women bloggers like
Roissy and Athol have opened my eyes...I really do see what they are saying. It is truly an 'AHA" moment when I "let" myself consider it, then "see" it.

so one of the points youre making is that "hotness" trumps "dramaqueen-ness". I get that...but what about drama queens who arent so hot....why are men seemingly attracted to them?

Some women in my life who love drama drive ME crazy, i cannot imagine how would put up with it.

Anonymous said...


Are you really SURE that those girls are "not so hot"?

Bear in mind that there is a strong element of subjectivity to perceptions of PHYSICAL beauty.

For example, I could make the generalisation that guys like women with a waist to hip ratio of 0.7

That's a pretty good generalisation, but its not perfect. There will always be outliers.

Ask guys about things like fake tan, fake boobs or make up on a woman and you will will get very different opinions.

But that doesn't make the resulting mate choices any less real!

Alte said...

Yes, this post is spot-on. I've sometimes been put in the awkward position of defending Roissy when others have attacked the effectiveness of his methods and the soundness of his theorems. Even if I don't approve of his *ahem* lifestyle choices, he seems to know what he's talking about and I have yet to see him write anything that I can't basically agree with.

Also, I agree with Susan that's he's good-looking. I've noticed a strange habit people have of attacking someone's looks and logic when they do not like their character. That is foolish, but men do it as well.

You're very right about Drama Queens. I'm still a bit of one, and I used to be quite horrid. As for men, nobody kept me around for the drama, but in spite of it.

Furthermore, other women take note of the drama, but they are ignorant of the groveling and ass-kissing that those same queens are reduced to afterward. Drama Queens are often masters at the mea culpa, are generally horny as heck, and are often less proud than their calmer sisters (because they are used to debasing and humbling themselves, in their attempts to make up after the storm has passed).

Sometimes women claim to be "nice", but they are merely cold. I think some men are instinctively reacting to that. I think men value submissive honesty over cool calculation. At least, that has been my personal experience.

an Ohio boy said...

My two cents about drama queen attraction.

I think a real problem is that both women and men are often socially conditioned not to observe each other well, and often to observe our own selves.

Drama queen behavior is a manifestation of insecurity and non-reflectiveness.

There are thousands upon thousands of men out there who find drama queen antics to be unattractive.

Often girls don't notice this because lurid in your face phenomena is more blatant, while what should be obvious can just sit unnoticed in the background.

What should be obvious is this - if some guys hook up with annoyingly dramatic women for a semi long term basis then trust me, it's not because of her exquisite and refined snarkiness and moods.

It's probably because she's physically attractive enough that the memory of her lucid and sane moments outweighs the memory of her dramatic insanity. And this can grow very old, very quickly. Most guys over the age of 25 really are not that easily blinded by poon. Or if they are it's temporary blindness.

A lot of young men today come from broken homes, or half broken homes. So do a lot of women. The dysfunctional dynamic involved causes each, guy and gal, to seek to recreate dysfunction.

This can include being attracted to partners mirroring the type of insanity one saw at home. This "feels" right. Most guys with options only fall in this trap if the woman in question, however, brings something insanely blinding to the table. And after one or two bad catches, they wise up very quickly.

Out of hundreds of guy friends and buddies I know a small hand full who are actually attracted to "drama queen divas" - the rest either tolerate it, as knowingly unpleasant behavior. In women they only have short term plans, or in women they may have long term plans with but are either so absurdly physically beautiful that it causes them to temporarily pay less attention to lunacy, or women who actually have developed personalities in other areas so diva outbursts are quickly outweighed by much more attractive feminine behavior.

Each woman I have sought to share my life with has been one with personality traits I admired and found worthy of respect, and when it didn't work out it was usually due to logistical factors, or untimely death of a partner, or reasonable mutually agreed non dramatic realizations that it wasn't workable due to conflicting religious, ethical, or child rearing philosophies etc.

There was one absolute drama queen who entered my life at a younger, and far more stupid, phase. Thankfully she only wanted to use me for sex, and thus spared me with actually having to put up with her bullshit, which after 3 weeks was getting very old, very quickly.

She actually beat me to the punch; I was going to pull away anyway because I had just met someone more mature, and saner. Having a backup, and being spared

I do not want diva behavior in my life, because I see it as disrespectful. It's also not real strength, it's faux strength that covers up inner insecurities and weaknesses.

The women I have invited to share my time with, in the past, were typically women who shared this philosophy. Setting expectations is important, and so is working together and growing together.

If petulant drama seems perpetually on the table, then my MO is to just respectfully, painlessly, take a "hey let's be friends, I think that will work better" closure.

I know quite a few guys like this, seriously. The attraction of drama queen behavior has been highly overstated. In the short term since drama queens seem, superficially, to be easy this might account for some of the illusion. This can be an illusion, because really any woman who you really find a good connection with can be very, very, ready to explore things physically if the right buttons are pushed.

And it will be more rewarding too..

greenlander said...

Good post, Dave.

I agree that Susan "gets it" more than most of the female bloggers out there. However, that's a REALLY low standard. I'd say that Susan gets about half of "it". She still says a lot of stuff that is off-base. The shrill fallacious counter-arguments she sometimes makes just make me want to laugh out loud.

I find it entertaining to read Susan's blog because the hamster farm runs like crazy there. It shows that even if you spell the out for them, they still won't believe it. Their ability to rationalize away the truth is amazing. It's a great sandbox to understand why women behave the way that they do.

I don't think there is any way to change that other than the change the social and legal milieu in we all live. The fact that you can spell it out for them and they still don't "get" it just proves that the hamster is immutable.

Deansdale said...

"There most certainly are men who, as one of you ladies put it:
"...addicted to the highs and lows of constant relationship drama as the women.""
I don't think so. Men need variety. A man will never leave because he doesn't get "enough drama".
Or maybe one in a million, who is truly *damaged*, as you have said.

Anonymous said...

@Greenlander: Yes, I get the same vibe from Susan's posts.

She'll start off with logic and then throw in a comforting non-sequitur at the end to keep the female readership happy.

Keoni Galt said...

Susan - Oh - and thanks for the link, KG.

I have no problem linking to a blog that is interesting as yours. You're like the halfway house for masculinist and feminist ideology, and you've created a unique meeting place for the two different perspectives to debate.

I've gone through a period in my blogging where I thought I didn't have much else to write about...but reading your thread certainly got the muse going!

Athol - I think what Roissy does best is describe the Alpha = attraction side of things. It was extremely useful for me in developing my current framework of thinking.

I think that's only part of what he does so well, the other is to point out the darker aspects of the female id, as well as giving a big picture view to men regarding pedestalization...both cultural and personal.

Obs - thanks, I'll check out your new digs and add your new URL to my blogroll.

Workshy - I think you did a good job of answering Jen's question. The other point I would make is that there is some variation of men's taste in women - "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." While Jen may look at a drama queen and say "how could he like her, she's a drama queen and not that good looking!" the guy himself may rate her beauty higher than a female.

Alte - Furthermore, other women take note of the drama, but they are ignorant of the groveling and ass-kissing that those same queens are reduced to afterward. that not just another aspect of the "Dramatic Cycle" of the emotional roller coaster ride of the drama queen? lol - the best thing for a drama queen is the love and direction of a capable man to be her "rock."

Greenlander - Susan gets it more than most. Like I pointed out, most women struggle with insights from Game, because it's very, very hard for women to contemplate the darker aspects of the female id. When she does, her instinctual reaction is to immediately think of ways in which those darker aspects do not apply to herself, rather than look for ways in which her own behavior reflects those observations. This is a fundamental difference between most men and most women.

I can read something Roissy writes about beta schlub husbands, and think back on my own experiences and realize that I was exactly that pathetic, spinless beta he's describing.

But when he wrote about the reasons why many women are attracted to abusive women, most of the females who are not or never have been in a relationship with a physically abusive male, immediately think "Roissy is WRONG! I'm not attracted to a man that beats me, so he's just wrong!"

That's the good ole rationalization hamster taking the wheel for a spin.

Marc said...

HL, you already linked to the Rawness' "Myth of Ghetto Alpha Male" as part of your response regarding men and drama queens.

FYI, The Rawness also had a very recent post that directly answers the same question "why do guys seem to like being with girls who treat them badly"? There are some common themes to both your arguments, and some different issues that he brings up too (sunk cost trap, etc.).

Link here

Keoni Galt said...

Thanks for the link, Marc. The Rawness is definitely one of my fav blogs. I really liked his post about "the Reardon."

SavvyD said...

If someone does not want to date you, there is often no point to bemoaning it. Just move on whether you are male or female. Life is too short. Let it go.

*** ******** said...

watch Chris Rock and "happy women"..

"I've never met a happy woman in my life."

"You could fuck her with a diamond dick, make her come.... times..." and she's say, this diamond is cloudy.

that hamster doesn't stop even when she has everything she thinks she many times have you heard women say, He's great...he's just too nice.

seriously. i've lost count.

Anonymous said...

@the guy who quoted Chris Rock:

For a supplicating Beta Male, his woman will be disatisfied with his fundamental nature and will most likely grasp at external straws to rationalize her lack of interest and irritation with him.

The take-home lesson is to learn Game. Its not just for pick-up, its for life.

Keoni Galt said...

Don't worry about **** *****, Workshy...he took the red pill long ago.

Anonymous said...

@Keoni: yeah, he did mention the Hamster. Guess I'm preaching to the choir again!

paigeu said...

I can see the truth in it all but it is very embarrassing. I grew up with the idea that women were the moral sex and were responsible for taming men.

Anonymous said...

"Women need social drama, which is why all women gossip."

It's also why they leave comments on manosphere blogs.

Unlike men, women are not looking for "AHA" moments that improve their understanding - the engagement they crave is foremost in their minds.

Behind the seeming sincerity of the female commenter is a fisherman baiting a relationship hook for a response - I don't know how many times I've seen well articulated and reasoned responses given freely, only to note by the way it was received how little of it ever takes root.