The Cowering Bad Boys of Game

HuffPo Live has a video interview up to discuss Ann Brenoff’s article Do We Ever Outgrow our Lust for Bad Boys? In breaking down the appeal of the bad boy, Brenoff sums it up by saying, “We want to believe that we can change someone. That’s empowering.” Clinical psychologist Michelle Golland agrees: “As women we inherently want to fix people.” She also shares a typical line from her female patients: “He’s got such potential. If only he wasn’t on his parents’ insurance!” Golland also observes that many women with low self-esteem seek these relationships feeling that this is what they deserve, a concept often applied to relationships that are physically abusive. 

It’s not just the need to rescue or change a man for the better, though. Women are not drawn to weak men who need to be fixed. Golland states, “Bad boys are confident, and they have a lot of male sexual energy. Women want to feel that their male partner is strong enough to protect them.” Next she says something that I think is very astute about the SMP today:

When we are very strong women, we do want a very confident, strong male that is going to be in charge of things. 

As women have made gains, their success has come directly at the expense of men, both in education and in the workplace. Yet female hypergamy – the desire to mate with a stronger/higher status man than oneself – is unchanged. Over the last 40+ years, this has created the following dynamic:

Slide1

The strongest, or highest status women, find a shortage of men who satisfy their requirements. On the other side, it’s the lower status  males who go without. This is why women complain that there are not enough masculine men, while men complain that women are no longer feminine. 

Under these market conditions, the men who come across as dominant, i.e. confident, have many admirers, and that includes the bad boys. In fact, cads now make up a disproportionate share of confident men. Recently I explained why some women are drawn to Dark Triad men. Dark traits are extreme examples of what women find attractive.

Women are attracted to confidence.

Narcissists are the most confident men.

 

Women are attracted to calm strength rather than anxiety.

Sociopaths are the least anxious men.

 

Women are attracted to men who are dominant.

Disagreeable, even violent men are the most dominant.

 

Women are attracted to men who embrace risk.

Dangerous men, and men in dangerous settings are the most comfortable with risk.

 It’s not hard to see how many women wind up frittering away their youth and beauty on losers. 

 

The other interesting thing about the interview is that it features a Game blogger called “George.” George is a self-identified member of the manosphere, and his appearance on HuffPo Live has been heralded as an achievement, proof that Red Pill wisdom is going mainstream in 2013. If so, the ‘sphere has very little time to fix a massive credibility problem. Like most ‘sphere bloggers, George is anonymous, and he agreed to be on the show only if he could keep his identity a secret. They might have at least showed him as a talking silhouette in front of a backlit window, like Deep Throat. In this case, George was just an empty, talking, black square alongside the other talking heads. 

Host Josh Zepps: What are you running, a secret male, chauvinistic underground ring here? What are you doing for people that is so top secret?

George: Heh heh heh. Heh heh heh.

Zepps: This is symptomatic of the whole problem! It’s such a pussy way of doing things. We’re going to try to strategize behind the scenes, we’re going to try to plot and figure out the mysteries of women. This is what women don’t like!

George: And that’s what we’re teaching – to be straightforward, to be confident and all those types of things…Women want men who are strong, who are independent, who are confident and make decisions. 

Zepps: And here you are – hiding behind – we can’t even see you!

The mainstream media is never going to adopt the practice of featuring the opinions of anonymous bloggers. Data charts, sure. No identity required if you’re crunching numbers. But interviews? Nope. George claimed that he has to stay anonymous to protect the identity of his readers, which is obviously BS.

A blogger who hides behind an empty screen demonstrates that he does not have the courage of his convictions. He is not willing to be interviewed and state what he believes. He cannot speak truth to power. As Zepps mocks him, George comes across as weak and fearful, not strong or independent.

Other anonymous bloggers have been portrayed as modern day equivalents of Lex Luthor, cooking up misogyny underground. Marginal Revolution blogger Tyler Cowen (real name) has called Roissy evil, even as he has pitied him:

Can he still be saved by a good woman?  Indeed there are so many good women out there and yet not one has saved him to date.  If only he would read Henry James’s “Beast in the Jungle.”

Poor Roissy.  Poor, poor Roissy.

This public perception of weakness and or badness may not be a problem in the dating lives of anonymous bloggers, but it’s an insurmountable problem in the media. When the messenger appears foolish or worse, psychopathic, you can call “Ad hom!” all you want, the message will not be well received, by men or by women.

When I started blogging, I had a decision to make. I knew that writing under my real name would affect not just me, but also my husband and my kids. I also knew that without that honesty and conviction, I could never achieve my goal of reaching a large number of people. I would never be credible. I’ve been challenged outright by some media personalities and featured by others, but I’ve always been able to make a stand and back it up using my real identity. I’ve publicly spoken out in favor of Game. How many men can say the same?

Back to Zepps, he appears incredulous and amused as he shares part of George’s post on “eye fucking.” 

“Hold eye contact for longer than is appropriate. When you break eye contact, break it sideways. This is powerful. Don’t break it down, which signals weakness, or up, while will give a weird vibe.”

 Zepps: I can’t believe people are reading this and going “OK, on the count of three I’m gonna look to the side and that’s gonna make her like me!”

George defends his writing as useful to men who want to improve their dating lives by reading.

Zepps: I take your point, George, but I think it’s the nature of what the improvement is. I think it’s the sense that all you’re actually improving is your ability to manipulate people, rather than anything intrinsic about yourself. 

Good luck, George, wherever you are, you man of mystery!

Game has the potential to help a great many young men. It’s one way of issuing a correction to that unfortunate 2013 dynamic in the chart above. But Game has a major PR problem. As long as its ambassadors hide behind pseudonyms, they will never enter the mainstream of debate in this country. Rightly or wrongly, they are perceived as cowardly misogynists. 

Game needs more men who are willing to stand up for what they believe in and be counted. It needs more men who focus on the hard work of real change rather than coordinating rapid eye movements. If what they have to say would jeopardize their careers in male-dominated industries, or destroy their personal relationships, then maybe their message needs rethinking as well.

Man up, men of mystery. Game needs leaders who are willing to do what it takes to be taken seriously. 

One Pingback/Trackback

  • HanSolo

    Brenoff was hilarious, how she fucked all the jerks and then finally the beta orbiter gets her to realize that it’s time to give up on them and give him a chance.

  • HanSolo

    At least Golland acknowledged that women like strong and confident men and put Brenoff in her place by saying it was the one moment of strength that her beta orbiter demonstrated in telling her to start respecting herself.

    Brenoff’s whole thing about wanting to fix men ignores the point that you brought out–women don’t want to fix just any man, they want to fix one that somehow pushes her attraction buttons and that in some way she perceives to have some sort of higher value (even if just because he doesn’t give her much attention or treat her well so that must mean he’s higher value than her). A low-chance of success at taming the attractive badboy that more often than not will end in heartbreak.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      At least Golland acknowledged that women like strong and confident men and put Brenoff in her place by saying it was the one moment of strength that her beta orbiter demonstrated in telling her to start respecting herself.

      Yes, I though Golland was quite good – clearly on the evo psych bandwagon. I did find her cackling during George’s bit both hilarious and annoying, though.

  • Clarence

    Um, let’s see:
    Mystery: We know who he is , he’s given interviews.
    Neil Strauss: We know who he is , he’s given interviews.
    On the MRA side of things:
    Paul Elam: We know who he is, he’s given interviews.
    Angry Harry: We know who he is, he’s given interviews.
    Warren Farrell: Has not only given interviews, but has done college tours.
    Etc, etc.
    I bring the MRA’s in because “red pill” doesn’t just include “game”.
    I don’t see why all PUA’s need tarred and feathered for the actions of a few , or in this case -one.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      Mystery and Neil Strauss are basically off the scene. Mark Manson writes under his real name, credit to him. Vox Day does. Roosh does! He may be reviled by many, but he’s got the balls to stand up and be counted. I’m not addressing MRAs, but there are a bunch of bloggers in hiding, including Dalrock, Rollo, Badger, and many other PUA types.

      Have you ever gotten a death threat, Susan?

      I have been physically threatened, yes, right here in the manosphere. I have been worried about my safety on several occasions.

      In other words, if saying what they believe would cause them problems, they should say something they don’t believe. But at the same time, they should ‘man up’ and put their faces out there?

      Courageous men and women say what they believe, even when inconvenient. I do have skin in the game, and I do it.

      Most of the legal and financial power in this country is held by men. If most men reject “red pill,” then it’s never going to go mainstream. It will remain a fringe movement of anonymous keyboard jockeys. That’s a shame, because Game is a very useful tool in the mode of CBT. With the right kind of diplomacy, many men stand to benefit from it. That will not happen as long as bloggers use pseudonyms.

  • Clarence

    Oh, did I forget ROOSH, who has had more death threats than you can shake a stick at, esp in Europe?

    Have you ever gotten a death threat, Susan?
    Do you have a family that you are currently the main support of?

  • Clarence

    “If what they have to say would jeopardize their careers in male-dominated industries, or destroy their personal relationships, then maybe their message needs rethinking as well.”

    In other words, if saying what they believe would cause them problems, they should say something they don’t believe. But at the same time, they should ‘man up’ and put their faces out there?

    You really need to rethink this mixed message.

    Like it or not, the people who don’t like ‘red pill’ have not only most of the current cultural power, but most legal and financial power as well. It’s very easy for YOU to tell men what they should do. You have no skin in the game.

  • HanSolo

    It raises the question, why did they contact this less-famous game teacher? I don’t follow the latest and greatests anymore but I’d never heard of him. And based on the snarky treatment of the host it looks like they were just wanting to have a foil to criticize and mock, to stir up shit for their mostly female viewers. The host’s caricature about eye contact was ridiculous since it’s true that holding eye contact in a confident way is one very small but important piece of how men should act.

    So, why didn’t the show insist on getting a non-anonymous gamesman to show up? I’m sure they could have found someone.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HanSolo

      It raises the question, why did they contact this less-famous game teacher? I don’t follow the latest and greatests anymore but I’d never heard of him.

      It was clear they’d found his blog – they put a screenshot of it up briefly. Others in the sphere are big fans of his, apparently.

      Zepps said they were perplexed when he didn’t want to appear. I think they really wanted a Game perspective, and when George refused to be on camera, they made that part of the conversation. Why do Game bloggers hide away? He walked right into a trap – how could he appear anything but foolish, the disembodied voice speaking of masculine strength?

  • HanSolo

    Also, that pathetic white knight made me LMAO how he was looking so angry and wanting to get in on the conversation but was too timid to speak up. It was the two women that were mostly talking over the other guests.

  • HanSolo

    It’s kind of a no win for a gamesman going into such a hostile setting since they’re likely going to try and embarrass him. So this particular guy has chosen anonymity, well that’s his right. There are plenty of non-anonymous gamesmen that put out their video products and so their identity is pretty easy to find out sooner or later, even if they use a pseudonym. David DeAngelo’s, Mystery’s, Style’s and many more of the original game teachers’ legal names are known.

    I think it may be more the game/manosphere hybrids that prefer anonymity, with exceptions like Vox, Roosh and Krauser putting out their pictures and identities.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It’s kind of a no win for a gamesman going into such a hostile setting since they’re likely going to try and embarrass him.

      I disagree. If he’d been on camera, he could have spoken quite eloquently about how Game helps guys. He made a couple of good points as it was. But the bizarreness of his “presentation” made him the subject of ridicule. It’s the anonymity that did him in.

  • Jab

    @Hansolo:

    It raises the question, why did they contact this less-famous game teacher? I don’t follow the latest and greatests anymore but I’d never heard of him. And based on the snarky treatment of the host it looks like they were just wanting to have a foil to criticize and mock, to stir up shit for their mostly female viewers.

    You answered your own question there, yes?

    Also, you folks really don’t know who that is? I find this difficult to believe…

  • HanSolo

    There seems to be some correlation (not 100%) between those gamesmen who are selling products putting out their pictures and videos and thus losing their anonymity and those bloggers who are not selling anything remaining anonymous. Athol sells his book, Vox has some books, Roosh, etc. Heartiste doesn’t seem to sell anything but does have accept tips.

    3rdmilleniummen doesn’t appear to sell books but does offer in person training.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      those bloggers who are not selling anything remaining anonymous.

      I wonder why that is. Most bloggers don’t sell products and have no problem writing under their own names.

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    This whole post is based on a false premise: “As women have made gains, their success has come directly at the expense of men, both in education and in the workplace.”

    Most of women’s “successes” have been handed to them through educational and workplace mandates. The world is still built and maintained by men. If (or when) the next war or natural disaster hits, it will revert back to men having to make it all better — it always does. Women’s hypergamy is more based upon this unconscious scenario than any “gains” they’ve made in paper-pushing jobs.

    It comes down to: who will protect me and the child when the looters inevitably hit. And therein lies women’s attraction to “bad boys,” since they’re more likely to be better warriors. That transcends the male-female dynamics of any place or time.

    Aside from all that, Ann Brenoff does not look like someone who ever had much choice when it came to mates. Something tells me she was never pulling in the cream of the crop even in her heyday (which was probably the disco era).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Days

      “As women have made gains, their success has come directly at the expense of men, both in education and in the workplace.”

      Most of women’s “successes” have been handed to them through educational and workplace mandates.

      These two statements are not mutually exclusive. Women in the workplace have displaced males, by whatever means. Same with college admissions.

      It comes down to: who will protect me and the child when the looters inevitably hit. And therein lies women’s attraction to “bad boys,” since they’re more likely to be better warriors

      While I don’t share your apocalyptic fantasy, and I don’t think most women do either, your point about strength was made in the post, attributed to Dr. Golland.

      Aside from all that, Ann Brenoff does not look like someone who ever had much choice when it came to mates. Something tells me she was never pulling in the cream of the crop even in her heyday (which was probably the disco era).

      I assume she went for bad boys and eventually a husband of similar SMV to herself. Why would that invalidate her observations?

  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/6139615b1025fddd287fc36f95cdb4c5.png Mireille

    Women are attracted to calm strength rather than anxiety.

    This. At some point I had started to wonder why I rarely found attractive men. It didn’t have anything to do with physical beauty, but I could get the clear vibe that if things went wrong at some point, it looked like I, the female, would be the one fixing it. I perceived a lot of men in my circle as weak, they were indeed very anxious about their lives in general, and truly I realized it would create great stress for them to have to make decisions and lead for two people. Turns out I like (very) dominant men in general. While I’m quite ambivalent regarding that dominance being applied to me in general, I very much appreciate men who know what they’re doing and are able to calm you down when you freak out and tell you “don’t worry, I’ve got this”. I mean this is leadership I can get behind.

    Regarding bad boys, to hell with them! I have too much self-esteem for them and I have been one to act like a textbook bitch in order to burst some hot douche’s bubble. Can’t stand that posturing.

  • JP

    URGENT “GIRLS” INFORMATION!!!

    “Girls” just lost a guy: Christopher Abbott, who plays Marnie’s on-again boyfriend Charlie, will not return for season three, HBO confirmed to TODAY.com. “”

    Now back to our regularly scheduled commentary.

    http://theclicker.today.com/_news/2013/04/04/17601941-sorry-charlie-a-guy-on-girls-is-gone-as-actor-quits?lite

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @JP

      Oh no! Sounds like he and Dunham don’t get along.

  • Fred Flange

    “George” is 3rd Milennium Men, FYI. My take on all t his, as I said to him, was: the way to talk about the manosphere is not to talk about the manosphere. Don’t tell a sob story. Be an amused social observer. Point out how both men and women are hurt by the modern hook-up SMP of roaring alphas, sad betas and the carousel ride. Talkj about how the “boys are stupid throw rocks at them” meme damages men and makes them (a) less attractive and (b) more likely to be MGTOW, permanently single McJobbers getting companionship from hookers and porn, giving up on marriage and family, and striving to make a difference at all, which in the long run is bad for women, bad for families, bad for everyone. Never mention feminism by name, it’s whiny to do so. Too many AFGIB (angry fat guys in basements) do just that. So is screaming about “librulls” – that’s what tea-partiers do, and they’re just as tedious as the shaming and trolling radical feminists do. But do chronicle these sins with patience and a strong frame, blowing through the usual “pig” or “wimp” or “can’t get laid” shaming retorts.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Fred Flange

      That’s excellent advice, and there is no reason all of that can’t be said outright. We need more men saying those things in a way that people can hear them. 3MM actually has a post condemning misogyny. There’s no reason why he must be anonymous. That interview made the word “manosphere” a topic of ridicule. This is not the way to get the truth out.

      Look at James Taranto at the WSJ – he comes close to echoing Roissy in many columns. Yet he retains his seat at one of the best papers in the country.

      I have addressed these topics, and being a woman does not shield me from the scorn of other women. If anything, I get it worse, because I’m a traitor to the sisterhood.

      The real reason some bloggers write anonymously is because they know their hate-filled diatribes would be anathema to almost everyone. They’d lose their jobs, and perhaps even their wives. I personally know one blogger who was terrified his gf would find out. Other bloggers, like Solomon, have been outed. Why is that so worrisome? Because the guy was a total misogynist, whose ideas would be rejected not just by women, but by 90% of men.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    He probably wants to protect his career? Not sure. In a feminist-friendly world he may be worried that his views won’t be seen well by his job (assuming he has one).

    I’m much more of an ideas person and try to judge ideas on their own merit as to whether they will work or not and whether they make sense or not. Other people take a different perspective and want to see congruity between how the person lives and what they say. There is some merit to that, in a world where truth is often difficult to ascertain–limited information environment–and especially if they are in a position of power over you and are demanding difficult things. You’ll believe those you can trust.

    However, the flipside is that truth should be independent of who says it or why and the bottom line is does it work or not? Disbelieving that smoking is bad for me just because a smoker tells me it’s bad would be utterly foolish. Disbelieving a blind person for saying the sky is blue just because she had never seen it would be foolish. Disbelieving that making eye contact is important just because 3rdmilleniummen won’t appear on the webcam would be foolish.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Han Solo

      However, the flipside is that truth should be independent of who says it or why and the bottom line is does it work or not? Disbelieving that smoking is bad for me just because a smoker tells me it’s bad would be utterly foolish. Disbelieving a blind person for saying the sky is blue just because she had never seen it would be foolish. Disbelieving that making eye contact is important just because 3rdmilleniummen won’t appear on the webcam would be foolish.

      A couple of things here. I hear what you are saying about separating the message from the messenger, but most people are not prepared to do that literally, in the form of a disembodied black square. We’re more likely to listen attentively to a person who looks us in the eye, than to a person who shows up in a foolish disguise. It’s silly to think that the manner in which present our ideas has no bearing on their acceptance. Why do you think that more people fear public speaking than death?

      We also assess the credibility and trustworthiness of individuals who are asking us to buy into a new concept. Would you listen to a beggar who told you to run right out and buy GE stock? People work hard to establish an authoritative presence, and consequently, other people heed what they say. If we couldn’t judge the credibility of the speaker, the world would be pure chaos!

      Second, no one said that eye contact is not important. Zepps said, and I totally agree with him, that the advice is a short-term fix or tactic that does not address the intrinsic condition of the man. What percentage of these men do you believe will sit down in front of a beautiful woman and remember to smoothly disconnect eye contact to the side? How often do you think “holding eye contact for longer than is appropriate” is going to work for a guy with no inner game? That’s why Zepps accuses him of manipulating people – George is providing a roadmap to “seeming” like a confident guy, not becoming a confident guy.

  • Lokland

    “I assume she went for bad boys and eventually a husband of similar SMV to herself. Why would that invalidate her observations?”

    I haven’t actually watched/read it yet but typically when a woman switches tracks like that bad boy–> husband it instantly invalidates most of her opinions wrt relationships in my head.

    The same for the guy who goes from virgin to player overnight because he discovered game.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I haven’t actually watched/read it yet but typically when a woman switches tracks like that bad boy–> husband it instantly invalidates most of her opinions wrt relationships in my head.

      The same for the guy who goes from virgin to player overnight because he discovered game.

      She doesn’t talk about relationships so much – just what drew her to bad boys for over a decade. It’s the equivalent of the guy being interviewed about being a virgin for so long.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I suspect some of the anonymous manosphere bloggers prefer anonymity because they work in a PC world where there non-PC views might lead to trouble at work. The ones who make a living at selling it likely need to come out from the shadows to add a bit of credibility to what they’re doing.

    Just a thought.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I suspect some of the anonymous manosphere bloggers prefer anonymity because they work in a PC world where there non-PC views might lead to trouble at work.

      I’m sure you’re right. In which case they should not expect to be taken seriously by the media. There are many people who have risked censorship or disapproval in their lives by talking to the media. If these ideas won’t fly in male-dominated workplaces, then predictions of red pill wisdom hitting the mainstream anytime soon are exaggerated. I mean, what that says is that most men won’t accept this information. In which case, what is its validity? Ideas that fail to catch on beyond shadowy anonymous sites probably don’t have sticking power.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “just what drew her to bad boys for over a decade. It’s the equivalent of the guy being interviewed about being a virgin for so long.”

    Exactly.
    Honest question, would you even bother listening to the 40yo male virgins opinion on how to get laid?

    The only noticeable difference is that irregardless of what they do most women get a family and kids at the end instead of an lifetime of loneliness.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Honest question, would you even bother listening to the 40yo male virgins opinion on how to get laid?

      You’re missing the point. She doesn’t tell women how to get a husband, she tells women what’s exciting about bad boys. It’s like listening to the virgin describe involuntary celibacy. She knows what she’s talking about.

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    I’m glad Charlie will be gone. As long as they don’t have him die or something then it will fulfil my prediction that it wouldn’t work out long term with Marnie. IRL I don’t think a freshly-wealthy, hot and confident Charlie would go back to a fickle, bitchy, annoying Marnie. So, I hope they do break up so that it provides some reality. Although, they may write it as her breaking up with him once she felt she had him again.

    It’s similar to how in SATC, Big never married Carrie and just kept her as a FWB. The movie ruined it by them eventually getting married.

  • OffTheCuff

    Wait, so eye contact is now silly and bad, even though we just talked about a few hours ago on the other thread in a positive light? I’m confused. What am I allowed to believe?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC

      Of course eye contact is not silly and bad. What is silly (though not bad, just ineffectual) is telling guys to “Always be eye fucking. Make inappropriate eye contact. Look sideways, never up or down.” I’m picturing Fred Armisten in that SNL skit – would that have done the job, do you think? He would have looked shady and creepy, exactly what these guys are trying to avoid!

      In any case, it’s not that eye contact is a problem – it’s obviously an essential social skill. It’s a question of how you use it, and why.

  • http://loveashley.net Ashley

    A lot of my girl friends tend to have a problem with men in their lives either being attractive to them physically or someone they can have a good relationship with. Bad boys are called bad boys for a reason…they usually don’t make good long term partners. At least, not the kind of bad boy I am referring to. I have to wonder when men talk about alphas and “bad boys” within the manosphere and how they glorify this image…how extreme are they talking about? Lord knows I’ve been with a couple of “take charge” men and it just wouldn’t ever work out. I’m not really a chick to be dicked around or told what to do. I like a confident man, but if he’s to the point where he’s selfish and bossy, forget him.

  • JP

    “Would you listen to a beggar who told you to run right out and buy GE stock? People work hard to establish an authoritative presence, and consequently, other people heed what they say. If we couldn’t judge the credibility of the speaker, the world would be pure chaos!”

    This is actually why I don’t watch any financial news.

    Their authoritative presence is actually not related to any underlying reality.

    And if you couldn’t judge the credibility of the speaker, you would get mania, panics, and crashes.

    Which you do.

    In fact, the entire recent housing bubble was created because people are absolutely horrible at judging whether the speaker actually knows what they are talking about.

    The *only way* in which I am able to judge the accuracy of any financial pundit of any kind is through text and graphic analysis of actual data.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “She doesn’t tell women how to get a husband, she tells women what’s exciting about bad boys.”

    I understand that. Her opinion is still useless.
    She’s telling woman how they feel which they already know.
    She’s telling guys either why she liked them or why she didn’t like them. Unless she is offering personality transplants its useless information.

    “It’s like listening to the virgin describe involuntary celibacy. She knows what she’s talking about.”

    Which is exactly my point. No one will listen to the involuntary celibate anyway. Women will disregard him as a loser and forget he exists after the first 3 seconds.

    She will have the same effect on men.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      She will have the same effect on men.

      But she is writing for women. And her piece was perceived as interesting enough to warrant a follow up half hour interview with five guests. I found it quite interesting, myself.

  • Lokland

    So my point is that most men are going to disregard her opinion the same way women will disregard the opinion of the involuntarily celibate male.

  • HanSolo

    I would ask the bum why. If they had no reasons to back it up then I would likely disregard.

    I don’t know enough about George or 3MM to say that he is only offering short-term fixes and to only seem to be confident. Do you?

    Getting men to look women in the eye, along with all the many other pieces, starts to get them in the habit of acting confidently which then, if not given up on, will gradually instil a bit of real confidence. They’ll see they can do it and not die. They will see it help build attraction with a girl or two.

    It’s just like the girls game post of sending IOIs to men. The girls doing it don’t naturally do it so by giving them a good idea and starting to do it then they see that it works and it can gradually become part of their nature, or give them the confidence to bring out that side of their nature that was hiding.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I don’t know enough about George or 3MM to say that he is only offering short-term fixes and to only seem to be confident. Do you?

      I’m not passing judgment on George’s knowledge of Game. I haven’t read his blog. The piece that was highlighted in the interview showed him off to great disadvantage, IMO. And as he was not present in any way, he could hardly communicate his ideas effectively.

      Getting men to look women in the eye, along with all the many other pieces, starts to get them in the habit of acting confidently which then, if not given up on, will gradually instil a bit of real confidence. They’ll see they can do it and not die. They will see it help build attraction with a girl or two.

      Absolutely. But as I said above, “always be eye fucking” and “look longer than is appropriate” are hardly useful exercises to gradually instill self-confidence in men. That post sounded downright creepy when directly quoted by the host. The confident version is douchebag, the less confident version is serial killer.

      There are tons of books on communication, body language, etc. that make the important point about eye contact without venturing into the overtly sexual or inappropriate.

  • Lokland

    ” In which case, what is its validity? Ideas that fail to catch on beyond shadowy anonymous sites probably don’t have sticking power.”

    This is a fallacy, an appeal to popularity or something like that.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      ” In which case, what is its validity? Ideas that fail to catch on beyond shadowy anonymous sites probably don’t have sticking power.”

      This is a fallacy, an appeal to popularity or something like that.

      You’re right, validity is the wrong word. I was trying to describe sticking power – viability is better.

  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/6139615b1025fddd287fc36f95cdb4c5.png Mireille

    @ LokLand,

    I don’t see your point. People listen to other people for a specific reason. Sure a virgin can’ t really inform me on how good sex is but they can definitely tell me how it feels to be a virgin and that was the point of Brenoff. She’s not saying bad boys are great partners or bad, just breaking down why they appear attractive. Some women don’t know that and even a lot of guys here don’t understand that attraction. She has something informative to communicate so her report is valid on that level. I don’t believe she’s giving dating advice to anybody.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    One of the inherent dangers of becoming the go-to guy on Game or anything that rubs the feminine defined reality the wrong way is that you paint a pretty big target on yourself. Literally and figuratively.

    You are only as anonymous online as your opinions make you nondescript. Piss off the wrong aspergers troll or Jezebel fanatic and they will hunt you down digitally. I’m becoming more aware of this as my own blog becomes more popular.

    While most people online might assumes a pseudonym for vanity sake, all but the most visible manosphere writer do so in order to protect their livelihoods. This is an aspect of blogging that even rad feminists will never have to consider.

    Guy’s writing in the manosphere put their lives and reputations at risk to do so. We assume personal, career and life impacting risks for assuming a countervailing perspective to the feminine imperative that even parttime feminists writing for Jezebel would never have to worry about.

    To paraphrase Roosh, if you write feminist boilerplate as a hobby on Jezebel you’re commended for making the world a better place; write about intergender dynamics from a male perspective and you become unemployable. Just ask the two programmers who lost their jobs over ‘dongle-gate’ courtesy of Adria Richards. They were fired for ‘crude humor’, now imagine if they’d written manosphere blogs.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rollo

      Guy’s writing in the manosphere put their lives and reputations at risk to do so. We assume personal, career and life impacting risks for assuming a countervailing perspective to the feminine imperative that even parttime feminists writing for Jezebel would never have to worry about.

      I don’t believe this for a minute. That’s just an excuse so you can have it both ways. There are plenty of respected journalists who oppose feminism regularly. I’ve worked with many men who were overtly conservative in their politics in the workplace, and made no bones about it. In fact, working in business, which is highly male dominated, odds are your anti-feminist views would be no big deal. I write anti-feminist posts all the time and my reputation reflects that. That’s appropriate, because it’s who I am. I’m not a fraud.

      The real problem is that you recommend unethical and manipulative tactics to help men even the score, as you perceive it. You’re aware that your views will be rejected in a civilized world, but that you can curry favor with deeply disappointed and disenfranchised men by setting women up as the enemy.
      You’re not helping young guys get relationships, you’re trying to gird guys for battle. Your battle.

  • HanSolo

    If these ideas won’t fly in male-dominated workplaces, then predictions of red pill wisdom hitting the mainstream anytime soon are exaggerated. I mean, what that says is that most men won’t accept this information. In which case, what is its validity? Ideas that fail to catch on beyond shadowy anonymous sites probably don’t have sticking power.

    Even many male-dominated workplaces are now PC. I worked in consulting and it was about 75% men 25% women in my office yet it was a very PC environment. So, I can agree that red pill wisdom may not hit the mainstream soon but I think there’s a growing underswell that is starting to have a bit of an effect and at some point will likely have more of an effect. It is interesting to read the comments on many articles–such as at the Atlantic–and how a lot of red pill ideas are getting out there. Yes, that’s a small thing but it shows that some people are thinking it.

    I disagree that the ideas are only limited to shadowy anonymous sites. It is rather like an insurgency. It starts out in the shadows but then as more and more strength is gained then the insurgency makes a few forays into “enemy territory” and they’ll probably lose a few battles but will win some too. If the ideas have staying power then gradually more of the population will be won over and the insurgency may end up winning the “war.” Or maybe not, the rebels might be crushed by the Fempire Strikes Back.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If the ideas have staying power then gradually more of the population will be won over and the insurgency may end up winning the “war.” Or maybe not, the rebels might be crushed by the Fempire Strikes Back.

      If the ideas are valid, they will find an audience, people who believe in them and are willing to say so. Insurgents do not hide, they are rebels. It is the force of the rebel’s personality, the courage of his convictions, that wins the minds of people. No rebellion ever succeeded without a motivating leader who could communicate. The manosphere lacks that today, and until a spokesman emerges, if ever, there is no possibility of this going mainstream.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    I want to provide a critique of this because I think your mis-representing game (in the same way most of its proprietors do).

    “What percentage of these men do you believe will sit down in front of a beautiful woman and remember to smoothly disconnect eye contact to the side?”

    Just taking a guess but guys who need game don’t suddenly start dating beautiful women after a few days/weeks. Most never will (dependent upon their own SMV) and those that do will have a long period of time working up to getting beautiful women consistently.

    “How often do you think “holding eye contact for longer than is appropriate” is going to work for a guy with no inner game? That’s why Zepps accuses him of manipulating people – George is providing a roadmap to “seeming” like a confident guy, not becoming a confident guy.”

    Experience not game is the cure to insecurity. Actually scratch that, experience + talent are the cure to insecurity.

    Ex. Game will not help the poor man become confident about being poor. It might allow him to work up other traits to offset poverty (extreme example I know) but if he ever feels secure in his income that man has gone from confident to delusional.

    However, to gain that experience one has to be able to work through all the steps.

    Anecdata, prior to game I had been rejected by every girl (a whopping 3 at age 17) I had ever asked on a date (exlcuding my one and only nutcase ex).

    Game provided an excellent fake confidence framework that allowed me to take action. I don’t necessarily think game was the clincher in making woman say yes but it did get me to increase the pool of women I was sampling, drastically.

    This led to setting up a better (though not excellent) positive feedback loop.

    —–

    So if eye contact was the sticking point for a guy, game gets him to do it with fake confidence which leads to positive results (which likely would have occurred anyway) leading to increased confidence.

  • Jonny

    “Yet female hypergamy – the desire to mate with a stronger/higher status man than oneself – is unchanged.”

    You had me convinced in the other post that women are willing to date lower status men. Could life be so complicated that both are true?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jonny

      You had me convinced in the other post that women are willing to date lower status men. Could life be so complicated that both are true?

      Women instinctively prefer to date men a notch up. But in an era of high achieving women, there aren’t enough of them. So we see lots of happy assortative mating. People with similar backgrounds marrying. In the future, some women will have to marry men with less education or forego marriage. Apparently, there are quite a few of these marriages already, so that may be an area where women will adjust their expectations for practical reasons.

  • Clarence

    Susan:
    While you have clarified your seemingly contradictory stance and we are mostly in agreement we are not in agreement about some things.
    1. Legal and economic power in the country held by men -. Clearly women set most of the rules in this society concerning male/female interaction and insofar as the legal system discriminates as a matter of sex those laws would also seem to favor giving maximum flexibility to women and maximum responsibility to men. I’d also claim that most social power is held by women. Economic is a bit dicier, but that probably goes to women as a whole as well even when you include things such as the ‘pay gap’. I guess it really doesn’t matter but the real points to take away from this are -
    a. Women are not uniltarally disadvantaged compared to men
    b. Things would be easier if you could prove that having more men in power and really rich men lead to the average man receiving some sort of perk or privilege but you’d be surprised how hard it will be for you to demonstrate this.
    2. Ok, your kid is grown up. Your career is over to my knowledge. Your hubby is highly unlikely to divorce you no matter how unpopular this blog was to ever become. You don’t have kids to feed and a wife to worry about embarrassing. To compare yourself with many other manospherian bloggers who do is rather silly. Losing a job – which is waaaaay too easy to do these days – would hurt them far more than you. And you’ll notice I didn’t ask if you were threatened – I asked if you got DEATH threats, which are pretty much the worst form of threats one can receive. Esp when they involve criminal groups such as Roosh experienced in Europe.

    Anyway, I’ll agree that those who CAN (without having a family to hold them hostage) step up, should step up and put themselves out there. Certainly (except in very rare circumstances ) one shouldn’t agree to do an interview and not show one’s face – well, not a TV interview anyway.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      Women are not uniltarally disadvantaged compared to men

      I agree. In fact, I’ve stated that in this climate men are disadvantaged compared to women. We need men to stand up and point this out in a myriad of ways – but without the kind of anti-female ranting present on many of these blogs. That’s the real reason these men are anonymous. It’s not that they would risk their livelihoods by supporting divorce reform or observing that men are not thriving in our society. It’s that they know their constant mocking and belittling of the female sex is more than an opposition to feminism. They’re as bad as Amanda Marcotte. She couldn’t hold her job because of her views – the Edwards campaign fired her. Not because she was a feminist, but because she is a racist.

      Frankly, I can’t see any reason why George must maintain anonymity. From what little I know, he is offering well-intentioned advice to guys. He doesn’t tolerate misogyny on his blog. If his face had been up there he could have more successfully made his points, several of which were valid. It was a lost opportunity.

      And you’ll notice I didn’t ask if you were threatened – I asked if you got DEATH threats, which are pretty much the worst form of threats one can receive. Esp when they involve criminal groups such as Roosh experienced in Europe.

      I don’t know the specifics of Roosh’s experience, but I do know that he has said some extremely vulgar, obscene and cruel things about women in other countries, and many more about American women. It’s hardly surprising that he would have worn out his welcome, and more. In no way am I suggesting that bloggers go on the Today show and refer to the stinking cunts of American women.

      For example, the chart in this post – why couldn’t a blogger make that point about hypergamy in a post – a concept at the center of the red pill. If he did it without being vile and hyperbolic, he might get both men and women listening and nodding. Instead, Rollo describes the “feral female.” No wonder he has to remain anonymous! He’s offensive and unpleasant at all times!

      Ok, your kid is grown up. Your career is over to my knowledge. Your hubby is highly unlikely to divorce you no matter how unpopular this blog was to ever become. You don’t have kids to feed and a wife to worry about embarrassing. To compare yourself with many other manospherian bloggers who do is rather silly.

      Those men are already taking the risk of discovery. It’s happened to several in the sphere already. Even blogging anonymously they risk everything that you mentioned. Why not own it?

      Society tolerates un-PC writing. There is nothing inherent in Game that would get a man fired. It’s the unethical or bigoted views of some that are the real issue. Though again, AFAIK, this does not apply to George.

  • David

    I completely disagree. I don’t think it’s ‘cowardly’ or ‘weak’ to prefer anonymity; I think it’s prudent. Anyone who speaks against the pro-feminist mainstream risks being ostracized. The risk is great; not only could you lose social standing, but your employment, too. To see an example of that in action, watch the current bashing of Dr. Carson by the left-wing media, accusing him of being a ‘mask’ to reflect white attitudes, or statements that he’s ‘not a true black person’ or a ‘cornball brother’. All of these terms have been used against him, merely because he’s a) black and b) disagreed with Obama on ObamaCare.

    While I may disagree with some of the statements by ‘George’ (I’ll confess, I didn’t read the supporting interview), I would submit my views on game. I think most would be willing to admit that while everyone wishes they would be considered for their character, reality is different. The decision whether to interact with a particular woman is often largely based on her appearance. I know that for me, I will only ever date women that I consider attractive. So, no matter how nice you may be, if I’m not attracted to you, I’ll never find out.

    Game is the male counterpoint. Men are judged significantly more on social proof, whether it be confidence, risk taking, strength, or entertainment value. Roissy claims makeup can improve a woman one or one and a half points; game can have a much more significant impact on a man’s perceived social standing. Appearance still matters (I don’t think George Clooney ever spends a night unwillingly alone), but studying game will improve a man’s perceived value. Women have been teaching each other tips to improve appearance for centuries; men have been teaching each other game to improve social proof for about a decade.

    Are some in the man-o-sphere full of hate and to be ignored? Of course. However, to focus on them and ignore feminists equally full of hate is willful blindness. Spewing hate against men is lauded, while doing the same against women will earn the moniker ‘deranged’ or ‘a menace to society’, but at the very minimum, misogynist. So, no, I don’t think ‘George’ was foolish to prefer anonymity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @David

      Anyone who speaks against the pro-feminist mainstream risks being ostracized. The risk is great; not only could you lose social standing, but your employment, too

      That is just false. I live in Massachusetts, and that’s not even true here.

      However, to focus on them and ignore feminists equally full of hate is willful blindness. Spewing hate against men is lauded, while doing the same against women will earn the moniker ‘deranged’ or ‘a menace to society’, but at the very minimum, misogynist.

      This has nothing to do with hateful feminists. That’s just the battle mentality. The truth is that radfems are not lauded for their views, except by other radfems. They have little popular support even from women. Gearing the sphere message to those women is bad strategy, as they are not listening. Meanwhile, mainstream women read this stuff and rear back in horror. That’s all perfectly OK if the sphere wants to do its thing and be left alone to grumble. I’m responding to the stated objective of getting MSM coverage. Badly done so far.

  • Dropit

    Rollo nails it. Men a)will be seen less sympathetically, and b) carry (or will carry) greater responsibility in the future, so how they come off *matters* more

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      so how they come off *matters* more

      Which is why they should stop coming off as shady characters and total dicks.

  • Jonny

    “Game needs leaders who are willing to do what it takes to be taken seriously.”

    Game is taken seriously without the revelation. Men have proof that it works for themselves. Even without game, men instinctively know some men are getting it and it isn’t them, and women are parting their legs for the bad boys.

    Game is best left in the shadows. No one needs to admit to it. It is a strategy of deception. It is a shadow tactic.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It is a strategy of deception. It is a shadow tactic.

      In that case, George in the shadows is perfect. But then the sphere needs to stop complaining about not getting media attention.

  • Lokland

    @Mir, Susan

    “She’s not saying bad boys are great partners or bad, just breaking down why they appear attractive.”

    Let me clarify.

    If she is writing for woman it serves no purpose.
    Women like bad boys, always have and always will. Describing to them why they like bad boys is like me describing to guys why they like a .7 WHR.

    If she is writing for men it serves no purpose.
    Unless she is offering personality transplants nice guys will still be nice and bad guys will still be bad. The most she can do is tell someone why they suck or why they are awesome.

    So, why is it so interesting? I don’t understand whats fascinating about the topic.

    —–

    Also, as a note, my personal disdain for the chasing bad boys then switch to nice husband strategy would probably make me tune her out if she was explaining how I could save my own life.

  • JP

    “Women instinctively prefer to date men a notch up. But in an era of high achieving women, there aren’t enough of them.”

    I think that they are more highly credentialed.

    They are also more highly larding up on education debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

    In Law World, the men tend to definitely be more highly achieving because they are more able to tolerate the toxic environment of the law firm.

    Of course, in addition, a woman attorney over 40 is not particularly likely to get hired if men are in charge of the hiring.

  • JP

    Also, this lack of woman achivement in Law World isn’t going away anytime soon.

    “A National Association of Women Lawyers survey (PDF) of the country’s largest law firms recently found that 70 percent of the businesses’ staff lawyers were female. However, women only made up 15 percent of the firms’ equity partners.

    Last year, the Careerist reports, women made up 55 percent of the staff lawyers at firms surveyed.

    Also, according to the report, women partners are credited with smaller books of business than their male colleagues, even if their development efforts are significant. And while 50 percent of firms’ associates were women, they only received 40 percent of the bonuses.”

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/women_at_big_firms_make_up_70_percent_of_staff_attorneys_15_percent/

  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/6139615b1025fddd287fc36f95cdb4c5.png Mireille

    I’m quite ambivalent about the “fear” factor of anonymously writing on the internet. Even the women and feminists those manosphere bloggers bemoan were called all sorts of mean stuff when they came up with they theories. “Lesbian”, “frigid”, “bitches” and so on, doing all that bra burning and such until their “propaganda” became mainstream. So at the end of the day, you have to pay your dues and “die” for what you believe in. My personal opinion is that most PUA/Manosphere blogs I have read come off super condescending and straight up misogynist with no detour. Granted I only browsed Roosh and the Private Man in that category and I’m pretty sure feminists will not be the ones getting alarmed when they read that “you have to make a girl cry so that she gets emotionally invested in you”, rather psychiatrists.

    I think Game is important for men to a certain degree. I don’t believe its relevance is being disputed here; however, there is a clear difference between developing qualities that make you a great partner and mimicking confidence and attractiveness. Two different playing fields. I think what worries people is that some men bypass the whole inner development for cosmetic touches. Game based on fluff in a man is like an super padded bra on a woman; sooner or later, the truth comes out. What’s funny is that everybody, men and women, is too busy racing to secure emotional or sexual advantages before the truth is revealed, “where are those boobs are was promised?”, “Where is that strength and confidence I felt?”

  • Brendan

    Susan –

    I completely disagree on this one. I agree with David.

    The corporate workplace is NOT male-dominated. Men are in more corner offices than women, but the rest is mostly women in most disciplines in middle management and below. At least that’s how it is in my F200. And the environment is intrinsically and irrevocably feminist. There’s no way in hell I would risk that, and all of the financial stuff that goes together with that, by breaking anonymity.

    The manosphere is more like samizdat. It’s an underground source of information in a society that is intrinsically and deeply hostile to what it has to say. That’s fine. The influence is still growing by means of the internet, Dalrock’s blog is being cited on NYT columnist’s blogs (yes, I know you say that doesn’t count because it’s just charts and tables, but I don’t agree with that either, and Ross Douthat is no slouch) and so on. The influence is growing, but it is an underground and in this culture is more powerful if it remains one, simply because the ambient culture is inherently feminist. It doesn’t matter if it’s “male dominated” or not — most men in corporate environments that I’ve known are quite feminist. It’s an ideology and a culture, and it’s hegemonic at the moment. The underground movement model works well in this context.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Brendan

      It’s an underground source of information in a society that is intrinsically and deeply hostile to what it has to say.

      Because there is enormous hostility in the delivery, if not always in the message. You can’t be a Dalrock regular and profess ignorance of the treatment of female commenters there, as well as the tolerance of that behavior by the host. You can’t read Rollo and think “this guy is reasonable.”

      The influence is growing, but it is an underground and in this culture is more powerful if it remains one,

      I was under the impression via Vox’s recent post and Dalrock’s kvelling over the NYXs that media attention was welcomed. If so, the messengers need to improve their programs.

      The real point, though, is not about feminism. Game has nothing to do with feminism. There is no reason why George can’t say what he’s about, is there? Game is inherently amoral – it’s the immoral application of Game that riles so many people up, and with good reason. There’s a lot of “the end justifies the means” and “some caddish behavior is necessary to even the score,” etc. That’s what bloggers know very well the mainstream will reject.

  • Erasmus

    @ Rollo
    You appear to have a severe persecution complex. Condolences.

  • HanSolo

    Insurgents do not hide

    Of course they hide. Taking on the enemy in a conventional way will get them “killed.”

    At some point, however, some of them either are willing to risk “death” for their cause and emerge from the shadows. Martin Luther King did that and made a lot of progress but he was killed.

    One only has to look at history to see that most insurgents do hide for a considerable time until it’s their moment to strike. They often go back into hiding after and pick their way and their time to wage asymmetrical warfare. Only when they want to be martyrs or have they gathered sufficient strength do they emerge out of the shadow for more than a moment.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HanSolo

      And you think saying that women like confident men and therefore men would do well do learn how to be dominant is as risky as fighting for civil rights?

  • tilikum

    Sue, why would any man at all help a competitor for mating rights? He wouldn’t and shouldn’t.

    All sphere bloggers are working against their personal interest by helping out other men already. Just because women build social bonds and negotiate with the individual male as a group (by connecting, socializing and gathering advice from the women they meet, all ages and experience levels) doesn’t mean men do.

    You are smarter than this! Think about a man negotiating with a woman. He thinks he is negotiating alone with her because HE IS. Men don’t share emotional skills because there is competitive interest. Women share and negotiate as a pack, and have access to a network of essentially ALL women.

    Now consider how blown out Alpha a guy has to be to even report out to other men and you see why the advice is on the sharp end of the curve.

    My advice to curb manosphere bias to the Triad is right there in your challenge. Women have to STOP the behaviors that men have adapted to.

    *Shrug*

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @tilikum

      Now consider how blown out Alpha a guy has to be to even report out to other men and you see why the advice is on the sharp end of the curve.

      But a lot of them are not alpha, they just play one on the internet. It’s a huge ego trip. I don’t have a problem with that, I’m quite the egoist myself.

      The plea in the post is not to curb the bias to the Triad, which is profound. Those people are easily ignored. The real shame is that the kind of advice young men can really benefit from is not being given, or if it is, not in a way that will allow it to be disseminated well.

  • Lokland

    Tilikum has a point.
    I’d prefer if game didn’t go mainstream. It would just lower my value.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    Well there you have it, Rollo. All you have to do sanitize the message to be politically correct and you have nothing to worry about.

    Why didn’t any of us think of that?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      All you have to do sanitize the message to be politically correct and you have nothing to worry about.

      My message is far from politically correct, and I’m able to sleep most nights. I even still get invited to dinner parties. In fact, I’ve won over many feminist converts at dinner parties. Honey, not vinegar, you know?

  • Rollo Tomassi

    As I stated early, perhaps you should ask the programmers who lost their jobs courtesy of Adria Richards if you think I’m overreacting about the present interrgender environment and the near instantaneous fallout social media facilitates.

    Susan, like the host on the Huff-Po panel, are prone to use the same shoddy debate technique – poison the well. Valid and cogent argument stands no matter who owns it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rollo

      perhaps you should ask the programmers who lost their jobs courtesy of Adria Richards if you think I’m overreacting about the present interrgender environment and the near instantaneous fallout social media facilitates.

      Are you really trying to compare telling dick jokes in mixed company with speaking truth about gender relations in this country? One guy lost his job, and so did Adria Richards. Furthermore, his employer PyCon had such a problem with the potty mouths of their male employees they expressly forbade that kind of joking in their code of conduct. Once they were faced with proof he’d violated it, they sacked him. Very stupid move on his part.

      Valid and cogent argument stands no matter who owns it.

      I find your posts neither, an opinion I’ve seen shared on several other blogs.

  • Erasmus

    @ Clarence
    Speaking as an attorney whose practice includes divorce and child support*, your assertions demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of how the law works. (Ignore this if you live in Louisiana, that place is messed up.)

    *(mostly PI, estates, and traffic though)

  • modernguy

    The most controversial thing you can bring yourself to tell women is to think twice before “hooking up” and you think because of that you have the moral authority to call this guy a coward.

    Why should he reveal his identity? He’s not fighting a war, or representing the entire manosphere. He was called on there as a member of the manosphere to represent his point of view. Viewers can take his opinions or leave them. He’s not personally on a crusade. He stated openly during the interview that as far as he’s concerned individual men can do whatever they want. He shared what works for him and his opinions on the situation. Why should he risk his livelihood or put his reputation in the hands of women who might decide on a whim that they don’t like what he’s saying? This way, if they don’t like it, they can shove it. He has nothing to gain by revealing his identity, and everything to lose.

    And if you don’t like the precepts of game, then fight facts with facts instead of attacking people. One fact is that game works, unfortunately, because women tend to be fooled by appearances, and because these days women are extremely loose. If you want to fight that fact, a better way to do it than trying to tar puas, or men using game, or game itself, is to make your female audience aware of the dangers of letting their feelings guide them, especially into bed, if they are interested in more than a casual screw.

    On wildlife preserves poachers are arrested and jailed, and rightly so. But animals can’t be taught self-awareness and caution in the presence of a trap. The right thing to do here is not to punish the poachers, but to try and remind women that they are not animals and that behaving like them is going to get them in trouble.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @modernguy

      And if you don’t like the precepts of game, then fight facts with facts instead of attacking people.

      I do like the precepts of game. In fact, I’d love to see it taken up by a lot more guys. Sure, lots of guys are aware of Strauss’ book and the history of PUA. But very, very few guys have made learning Game a priority.

      The fact is that shady PUA types who claim the mantle of “the manosphere” are doing Game a great disservice. In some quarters I’m actually considered a Game blogger. I understand it very well, and regularly advise males here about it, along with a lot of male commenters. (Males are about 40% of my readership.) In that sense, I have a dog in the fight, and find performances like George’s very painful to watch.

  • Johnycomelately

    If a famed game blogger such as yourself views these writers as, “Unethical and manipulative,” then what would an HR officer think if they happened upon their writings?

    Freedom of Speech? I guess only for some…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If a famed game blogger such as yourself views these writers as, “Unethical and manipulative,” then what would an HR officer think if they happened upon their writings?

      Freedom of Speech? I guess only for some…

      Ha! There you have it! These men are indeed unethical and manipulative, so they can’t uncloak because their true natures would be apparent, and no company would want to employ them. I’m glad we got that straight. As I said, Game needs some new ambassadors.

  • modernguy

    The real problem is that you recommend unethical and manipulative tactics to help men even the score, as you perceive it. You’re aware that your views will be rejected in a civilized world, but that you can curry favor with deeply disappointed and disenfranchised men by setting women up as the enemy.
    You’re not helping young guys get relationships, you’re trying to gird guys for battle. Your battle.

    Which part is unethical and manipulative? That guys who are not alphas act like them in the company of women? What would you rather have? That they act their place and take their just deserts (rejection), so that average girls who are their SMP counterparts can continue screwing the jocks while make-believing that it could lead to something more? Would that be more “ethical” in your opinion?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Which part is unethical and manipulative? That guys who are not alphas act like them in the company of women?

      It depends on what you mean by alpha. I mean cad behavior. Lying and manipulation, mostly. I find that unethical and manipulative.

  • HanSolo

    I didn’t equate the risk or the consequences. Just gave civil rights as an example of where death was the result. In the case of the bloggers’ non-PC views it might lead to losing employment.

  • Miguel Monsivais

    Susan Walsh, you do not have a monopoly in how people choose to share their thoughts. The fact that you are questioning 3mm, or George’s, take on the subject is evident enough of why many other bloggers do not want to even join in on the subject.

    The ideas and concerns they are expressing are for men and men alone. You have not a say in the matters that they are discussing because you do not have a clue in how a man is going to attract you. You want to think you do, but you don’t. In fact, everything you are regurgitating here is exactly what many of these bloggers have warned other readers that women would say. Shaming tactics as in the case of Zepp who questioned George’s take on “eye contact” is an obvious example. These are just sound bytes ridiculing many of these bloggers at the sincere attempts they are making in helping other men.

    I’m furthermore, at a loss as to why we are so inclined to focus on the fact that this blogger, 3MM, decided to remain anonymous as opposed to focusing on what he actually had to say. Just pay attention at why we are criticizing you, Susan, and the HuffPo and Zepp. Notice how whenever there was an idea Goerge had to say such as his take on “eye contact” it was cut down. You want to say it was because he remained anonymous. That’s not true… that wouldn’t even make sense. You’re going to ridicule an ideas just because that person was anonymous? Or were you going to ridicule the idea regardless? I think, the latter holds more bearing and would also explain why George chose to remain anonymous.

    I hope you understand that.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Miguel

      The ideas and concerns they are expressing are for men and men alone.

      Huh? He went on HuffPo Live to discuss these views with women. Furthermore, I’ve been a proponent of Game, so I hate to see it come across as shady and creepy like it did in that interview, and as it does on some blogs.

      Shaming tactics as in the case of Zepp who questioned George’s take on “eye contact” is an obvious example.

      How is that a shaming tactic? 3MM agreed to go on there and talk about his blog. The host pulled out a readily available quote. One that sounded ridiculous, and fairly risky for the guy. Hold eye contact longer than is appropriate? Who thinks it’s a good idea to coach people to adopt inappropriate behavior?

      You want to say it was because he remained anonymous. That’s not true… that wouldn’t even make sense.

      Yes it does, because his black square had to be dealt with by the host, and it was dealt with in a humorous way. That immediately discredited 3MM. Furthermore, the other guests were all competed for air time, signaling dominance in various ways through facial expressions, jumping in, etc. They were watching each other. George was clueless and stayed silent except when addressed directly.

  • HanSolo

    One reason why some women and natural alphas don’t like game is that it dilutes the natural alphas. The evolutionary logic of non-assortive and upward mating for females is to get the better genes from a guy that won’t stick around than from the guy that will. If lesser males can learn some of the behaviors that the naturals naturally have then the women can be tricked out of their genetic jackpot and the alphas will be deprived of a few fucks.

    Shaming men out of learning game acts as one more shit test to separate the wheat from the chaff.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HanSolo

      then the women can be tricked out of their genetic jackpot

      So you think Game is tricks and deceit then?

  • VD

    Susan, the challenge is that there are real and very serious costs to men speaking out that women simply don’t face. It’s not about what sex has the most executives, but rather, which sex has the most pains-in-the-asses who are going to create a problem and lobby the management. Women aren’t taken seriously, for the most part, not even by other women. So a woman can write that she wants to castrate men and it will have no ramifications for her.

    Before I ever started AG, before I was even writing regularly on intersexual relations, I experienced the following:

    Thomas Nelson withdrew a signed book contract.
    A European publisher pulled out of a ready-to-sign book contract at the last minute.
    I was publicly labled mentally disturbed by an editor at Tor Books.
    A woman at a large game company I’d been brought in to fix tried to get me fired 5 minutes after I’d been introduced to the employees.

    Now, notice that for some reason, I was being sought after, then belatedly sandbagged. Why? Because in each case, one woman of sufficient influence pitched an absolute fit. She wasn’t in charge, she simply made life difficult enough that it was easier for them to ditch me than deal with her.

    This is the reality that men who speak out against feminism face. I’m not complaining. I anticipated it. I can handle it and I know I have to be three times better simply to get a fair shot. As it happens, it appears the European publisher is going to publish my books four years after they backed out the last time because my work has improved enough that even the same woman pitching the same hissy fit is no longer able to scotch the deal.

    I’m not condemning those men who feel they can’t take the heat. I understand why they can’t. But not all of them are in my position, not all of them have a wife who has their back, and not all of them are psychologically equipped for being hated 24-7. That being said, you’re absolutely right about those who should not be attempting to do media. Anyone who is not prepared to accept the media heat need to stay off the air. Especially since the media targets the weak links; shows of the sort that had George as a guest don’t want anything to do with likes of Roissy and me. They know we’ll fillet them in front of their audience.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VD

      WADR, your views are considerably more “out there” than a simple representation of Game.

      How would Roissy fillet an interviewer? Is he available for face to face bookings? That is something I would like to see.

      Anyway, you recently posted that the MSM will not give male bloggers their due. Dalrock then got linked, and HuffPo found this guy’s blog. If the manosphere wants MSM attention, they’d better be ready for it, because many more interviews like that and the word manosphere is going to be associated with slimy, shady characters, exactly as PUAs are today.

  • Abbot

    “They’re as bad as Amanda Marcotte.”

    Marcotte adds another level to this. She actually advocates for bad boys and denigrates the rest who she refers to as NiceGuys™ . To ensure that the bad boys get their due, she also encourages women to hook up in lieu of career-wasting marriage. In addition, she despises Game. Somehow, it flips the script on female empowerment and mocks 40 years of “progress.”

  • HanSolo

    @Abbot

    She doesn’t want a watered-down population of alpha badboys.

  • Abbot

    “She doesn’t want a watered-down population of alpha batboys.”

    or duped women

  • Lokland

    @HS

    “She doesn’t want a watered-down population of alpha badboys.”

    +1 I agree with you that a woman who complains about game is a woman who wants to segregate top and low quality men and not be duped.

    For the beta guy this means one of two things;
    1. P&D material
    2. Just move on

    In both cases she has invalidated herself for a relationship (with the guy who would need to learn game). which works well because she doesn’t want him either.

  • modernguy

    It depends on what you mean by alpha. I mean cad behavior. Lying and manipulation, mostly. I find that unethical and manipulative.

    You can be an extremely successful cad without lying – see Krauser. What exactly do you mean by manipulation?

  • HanSolo

    She wants to keep them barefoot and pregnant in heels and childless so they can pursue the greater glory of feminist career achievement.

  • Jab

    Are you really trying to compare telling dick jokes in mixed company…
    Wait, what?

    There were no “dick jokes”. It wasn’t “mixed company”. It was a private joke that was overheard by an eavesdropper. The sacked employee was not a PyCon employee, either (he was a PlayHaven employee).

    Where in the world did you read about that story from?

  • lovelost

    @Susan

    “But Game has a major PR problem.”

    that doesn’t matter, Global warming has very bad PR problem, but that doesn’t mean science is wrong.

    similarly any man can hide behind the black curtain or internet, what’s true in society can’t be ignored. this not only applies to dating, instead applies to pretty much everything.

    for example financial crisis, MSM said all is fine, bloggers with covered faces said things are not good.

    Central bankers promise you deposit guarantee, however Cyprus people gets haircut.

    Eat salad with salad dressing, check the ingredients its has HFC (high fructose corn syrup).

    credibility is not built upon PR, its built upon facts.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “But Game has a major PR problem.”

      that doesn’t matter, credibility is not built upon PR, its built upon facts.

      You can’t sell your product if you verbally abuse the customer. Well, you can sell a few, but you’ll never begin to saturate the market.

  • Lokland

    Essentially whether or not a woman is willing to accept game as a usable strategy is an excellent filter for women who would suit the LTR with a guy who needs game.

  • JP

    ” One guy lost his job, and so did Adria Richards. Furthermore, his employer PyCon had such a problem with the potty mouths of their male employees they expressly forbade that kind of joking in their code of conduct.”

    I remember that one of the items that was addressed in my hiring was that I would not have a problem with potty mouths or dick jokes, so to speak.

    There was one woman who had a real problem with bad language and she was quickly fired.

    Bad fit.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      There was one woman who had a real problem with bad language and she was quickly fired.

      Bad fit.

      Haha! One of my best friends from b-school became the first female MD at Merrill Lynch, in charge of Sales and Trading. Whew, did she get a mouth on her. They were making Challenger jokes within 60 seconds of the explosion.

  • Lokland

    @lovelost

    I think this is something men need to understand about women.

    They are more prone to grant credibility with good PR. In spite of or with facts.

    Men tend to lend credibility to facts first followed by PR.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    “So you think Game is tricks and deceit then?”

    I think there are two broad kinds of game:

    1) Inner game that leads the man to have more real value and market it better. Outer game will often come as a consequence or at least be congruent with his inner game.

    2) Outer game with less than commensurate inner game or substance can often work for short-term seduction and this is how the woman looking to fuck up(wards) can get evo-psych-tricked out of her genetic jackpot (not saying she will get pregnant but wanting the better genes is the drive behind the curtains).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HanSolo

      Put me down for one order of #1 Inner Game.

  • modernguy

    Yes it does, because his black square had to be dealt with by the host, and it was dealt with in a humorous way. That immediately discredited 3MM. Furthermore, the other guests were all competed for air time, signaling dominance in various ways through facial expressions, jumping in, etc. They were watching each other. George was clueless and stayed silent except when addressed directly.

    Ironically the entire “manosphere” has been built around a completely faceless, nameless, anonymous (at least until he was outed by an angry feminist) poster, Roissy, who built his audience with nothing more than compelling writing and eye-opening insights. You seem to want to think that George should be the face of the manosphere, or that any manosphere participant engaging in media relations should be, but that’s not necessarily what he was there for, or what anyone might be. The facts talked about in the “manosphere” stand on their own, and for people looking for it, the truth doesn’t need an ambassador.

  • HanSolo

    90 didn’t strike as I expected. Should read:

    She wants to keep them barefoot and pregnant in heels and childless so they can pursue the greater glory of feminist career achievement.

  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/6139615b1025fddd287fc36f95cdb4c5.png Mireille

    It seems to me it is more a battle among men for women rather than a battle against women. Men don’t want other men to get more “V” than they get. So they all congregate and exchange tips and theories, hence that Game.

    I think after reading some of the Married Man Sex Life blog and seeing his wife commenting on all of his tricks and stuff, I figured it was a bit pathetic. I’m talking about the whole situation where women witness men groveling to mimic confidence, power and such qualities. At the end of the day, women don’t want to know where all that juice is coming from, especially when there is actually NO juice, just an aroma in the air. While Game helps men mimic attractiveness, I worry that society in general doesn’t really nurture people into cultivating those qualities. I would be disappointed to find out I married a “faker” down the line and I bet men would be disappointed when women do that as well.
    I’d say use Game intelligently or you will get dumped down the line. It’s like for women, you can use concealer to camouflage blemishes momentarily, but in the end you have to take care of your skin.

  • Abbot

    “a woman who complains about game is a woman who wants to segregate top and low quality men and not be duped.”

    The irony is astounding. Due to the ease of access, women value female sexuality far less than men do. Yet, when a penis-imposter wins her over, she cries foul as if her vagina suddenly does have value.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Hahahaha….Susan, WADR, you’re missing the forest for the trees here. Game isn’t about Game, never has been anymore than guys are all about girls. I like to talk about North Korea and the stock market: same for the rest of the men here.

    Game is part of a larger social movement, and the objective is not about getting the word out about Game. That is, in fact, stupid. Men do not and should not need to know about Game. They haven’t needed to for a million years, why the hell should they now? The actual objective is to establish some semblance of social order that allows men and women to meet, WITHOUT men knowing every damn step of the Mystery Method.

    And that?

    That’s not just the objective of Game Artists. There’s a lot of trad-cons and right-wing people out there.

    You linked to Tyler Cowen in your original post, pointing to him of how he has been rejecting Game. Oh, so, so, SO wrong!

    Tyler Cowen reads Roissy frequently. So do the people in his social circle.

    Look at this relatively favorable view of “feminist” economics…
    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/06/feminist_econom.html

    Here is Tyler in 2012…not offering comments himself, because he is quite elusive like that, but he lets the study speak for him…
    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/03/correlations-on-porn.html

    We can dismiss the feminist (and sociological) charges of porn increasing sexual violence and leading to sexism

    Oooo, now isn’t that incendiary for an emotionally subdued blogger! This is the equivelant of him dropping an atom bomb on someone, just by linking to someone saying this.

    They’ve also been QUITE hard on the topic “why women don’t file patents.”

    He’s also been posing a lot of questions lately on “late marriage” and the “returns to marriage.” Not directly, of course, because you can’t be too overt about that, but here is an example…
    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/03/assorted-links-740.html

    I also cannot find the exact post, perhaps it has been taken down, but he in the past year made a post suggesting that feminism is bad. Because the elite can handle it, but it does not work well for the masses. He is making this relatively conservative argument a lot, lately, on many issues, see here:
    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/04/the-culture-of-guns-the-culture-of-alcohol.html

    This was all an obvious process and has an important catalyst, imo:
    Larry Summers
    Because a bunch of pissed off women forced him to resign, because he said it might be possible that there are not as many smart women as there are smart men.

    And I’d suggest that Roissy is an important facet of this transformation, even if it is behind the scenes.

    The battle has already been joined and the fight is on a different front.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ADBG

      You’re delusional if you think that Tyler Cowen is getting his ideas from Roissy.

      As for getting the word out about Game being stupid, all I can say is that a lot of young male readers find HUS via searches for information on Game. I assume you were one of them.

      If “why don’t I have a boyfriend” is the #1 search term for HUS, “why don’t I have a girlfriend” is in the top 10. That chart in the post? That’s trouble for the SMP. That’s hard numbers, long odds, and a hostile environment. Those guys in the bottom half of the status hierarchy are going to need some support, and Game offers that, if they’re willing to do the work. No quick fixes here.

      I mostly advise women. But I care about men, and even if I didn’t, we need a large population of men who can sexually attract women. The world must be peopled!

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Always be eye fucking. Make inappropriate eye contact. Look sideways, never up or down.”

    It’s actually not horrible advice if you can stop thinking like a girl, and think like a nerd male.

    1. Any eye contact will feel like eye fucking at first, even if it isn’t.
    2. It will feel inappropriate at first, even if it isn’t.
    3. Don’t stare at her tits or ass when looking away.

    Now have some empathy for us ‘spergy types. We know our own kind.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC

      Now have some empathy for us ‘spergy types. We know our own kind.

      This is a fair point. It’s been said that Roissy takes his ideas and magnifies them several times in order to hit his readers over the head in a way that they will understand. Perhaps that is effective, and if helps those guys, I have no problem with it. The problem there is taking the message mainstream, where the kind of misunderstanding I experienced is going to be the norm.

  • lovelost

    @Susan

    You can’t sell your product if you verbally abuse the customer. Well, you can sell a few, but you’ll never begin to saturate the market.

    See this the challenge, in this day and age, it is virtually impossible to give a objective feedback. i don’t believe 3MM abused anyone.

    Manosphere or Game, has already saturated the market, that the reason they are on MSM.

  • Abbot

    “She wants to keep them in heels and childless so they can pursue the greater glory of feminist career achievement.”

    While squeezing every last drop of ejaculate from bad boys.

  • Brendan

    Susan –

    In my view it is *not* a good idea to go about this via the MSM. They will control the message, and they are hostile to the message. Whether that message is Game (because any message about Game will eventually get into ideas about evo-psych and men/women and so on that are very easily targeted for ridicule by the MSM), feminism or anything else that the manosphere talks about. The manosphere participants are, for the most part, better suited to being an underground which develops a resistance not as a movement per se, but as a source of information and ideas. This is very much working, as we can see from Taranto’s writings, the cites for Dalrock and so on (which he linked surely having perused the comments there, or having a research assistant do that for him (I don’t think NYT columnists really have those any longer, but I’m not sure)). The idea is to get ideas out there, some of which are ugly, and let the ones that are more palatable spread diffusely through men on an underground basis. This is having a LARGE impact on younger men — of course, these are not the guys doing television interviews as a part of the MSM. But the ideas are spreading, as an underground, via samizdat.

    The reason why this works is that ideas about “the issues men face” and so on cannot be addressed in the MSM and other mainstream areas with either being solidly ridiculed or being completely co-opted by the reigning cultural and ideological hegemony. That way leads to disaster, because at the very best the ideas will be co-opted, twisted, adapted and sanitized and then thoroughly deprived of their transformative power for individual men.

    As I myself wrote several years ago, what worked for women (“the personal is political”) will not work for men, because men are competitors with each other, not supporters of each other. The first thing a man will do when evaluating another man who says things like men are disadvantaged or that the current system favors women or what have you is look for an opportunity to press advantage against a weak opponent, establish hierarchy over him. and dominate him. Because a man who says such things is weak. This also happens on the internet, but the evaluative process is amplified in the real world. So that’s the wrong way to go about it, because trying to go about it that way only plays to our disadvantages as a sex. For men, it’s the opposite of women, as one might expect — for us, the personal is not political, but the political is personal. That is, our personal issues won’t be solved by men becoming aligned in a social and political way about them — that won’t happen, because when it comes to women above all else we are deadly competitors with each other. Therefore, the social/political issues we face are best addressed personally, by means of personal decisions in our lives, rather than agitating for social or political change. That is the benefit of being an underground, and that is the strength of what we have been doing. For us, the political is personal.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Brendan

      . For men, it’s the opposite of women, as one might expect — for us, the personal is not political, but the political is personal. That is, our personal issues won’t be solved by men becoming aligned in a social and political way about them — that won’t happen, because when it comes to women above all else we are deadly competitors with each other. Therefore, the social/political issues we face are best addressed personally, by means of personal decisions in our lives, rather than agitating for social or political change. That is the benefit of being an underground, and that is the strength of what we have been doing. For us, the political is personal.

      Well I can relate to that because that is my stated strategy as well – I’m not going to end hookup culture, or rid the SMP of carousel riders, my goal is to help those women who want support to make good decisions and pursue effective strategies for finding a life partner. I often say I’m working on the margins.

      I would just say one more thing. The manosphere can potentially derive great benefit from female allies. Yes, Dr. Helen is awesome. But there are many other women sympathetic to your aims, and while you may prefer to operate underground, there can be women contributing in the MSM. This didn’t work out so well with me, but I would encourage men in the sphere to cultivate these alliances. A Voice for Men seems to have made inroads here. I can personally share that part of my mission with my focus groups was to open their eyes to misandry they’d never noticed before. I found them extremely receptive, especially during the period when MA was reforming divorce law. I really believe that most women will be open to appeals of fairness. Just my .02.

  • lovelost

    @Lokland

    I think this is something men need to understand about women.

    They are more prone to grant credibility with good PR. In spite of or with facts.

    Men tend to lend credibility to facts first followed by PR.

    So why blame men? or ask them to man up?

  • HanSolo

    @Abbot

    Is it possible for a penis-imposter to become a fuck-phantom? :D

  • practicallyperfect

    Simply for the sake of consideration…what would be the benefits of presenting the “red pill” position in an open manner? Look at the examples of people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter (to name a few not that I necessarily agree with them). There is no doubt that they are controversial to the extreme (sometimes saying things with which even their typical demographic disagrees). Yet, their willingness to “own” what they say in an open and forthright manner have helped them to acquire a larger stage from which to disseminate their points of view to a large audience, gaining them and their views even greater support. One wonders if they would have experienced such success if they were simply faceless, anonymous members of the blogosphere. I am old enough to remember the night Rush Limbaugh made his debut appearance on the Pat Sajak show. The audience was not receptive that night yet he became a voice for many. My earliest experience in the manosphere was on Dalrocks site, needles to say I’ve never been back because of how I was treated there just for asking questions, but I knew there was truth in what Dalrock was saying and I wasn’t going to be dissuaded, so I went to other sites that were not as intolerant (thanks Privateman.) I wonder if another reason for the continued anonymity is because it will mean the manosphere and those in it may have to let go of some of the anger and change how they deliver their message.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @practicallyperfect

      I went to other sites that were not as intolerant (thanks Privateman.) I wonder if another reason for the continued anonymity is because it will mean the manosphere and those in it may have to let go of some of the anger and change how they deliver their message.

      Privateman aka Drew is a great example. He uncloaked. Danny from 504 has incredibly tight Game and blogs under his own name. There are bloggers doing it. I’d love to see Danny on TV explaining how he loves women and how he attracts them. That would be serious money right there.

  • HanSolo

    @Abbot

    Or is the penis-imposter doomed to just be a nightmaric memory that shames her genetic conscience?

  • http://www.gravatar.com/avatar/6139615b1025fddd287fc36f95cdb4c5.png Mireille

    Yep, Inner game all the way. I can always tell when a guy is faking so…

    I have had quite a few guys using game on me, especially of the “negging” variety. It went something like this:
    _”I usually date girls younger than you (I was 26 at the time) but I think you have potential.”
    _”Wow, you look very expensive; I don’t think I can afford to take you out.”

    I just gave them the sad look “I’m so sorry to hear that it is not going to work between us; it will be hard but I’ll get over it.”
    I guess they wanted me to sell them my brand, I passed. Just to say, there are some aspects of game that might work, however, what is being advised or emerges in the mainstream media is mostly the crass/opportunistic/misogynist stuff. If there is really value in it, there has to be a way to present it in a palatable way.

    BTW, Roosh “the douche” is the gross!

  • lovelost

    @ Lokland

    Men tend to lend credibility to facts first followed by PR.

    I am always better off with facts. I don’t need PR. all I know, when shit hits the fan, no PR will help you, only facts. that the STEM PhD in me.

  • Lokland

    “So why blame men? or ask them to man up?”

    Because they are naturally inclusive herd creatures. Being a free spirit that runs around gets you eaten by wolves.

    The analogous male complaints/requests are to ask women to stop being solipsistic and/or use more logic and less emotional logic.

    Realization that neither are possible will help both sides relax. Not communicating in the same way does not necessitate being enemies. Not being willing to try and work from the others POV however is.

    Ex. I’m 95% positive the level of male logic Susan applies here is both extremely far right on the female curve and that some of it is unnatural and meant specifically do deal with the sperglings like me and Ted.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

      Realization that neither are possible will help both sides relax. Not communicating in the same way does not necessitate being enemies. Not being willing to try and work from the others POV however is.

      I know this is going to sound ridiculous, but this made me cry. Lokland, you’re a softie and you think no one can see it, but I can.

      Ex. I’m 95% positive the level of male logic Susan applies here is both extremely far right on the female curve and that some of it is unnatural and meant specifically do deal with the sperglings like me and Ted.

      Believe it or not, it’s not intentional. I think I’m fairly male brained. I’m sure I have ADD and a bit of OCD as well. That’s coupled with a highly emotional female side though. I know I’m a handful, fairly intense, but I am at least somewhat rational, some of the time. :)

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    You know when men are faking, Mireille? So you’ve never, ever made a mistake with a guy, EVER? You’re a seer?

    Men get this inner game…I think they also understand that if you have inner game and no outer game, your inner game is going to eventually end up in more rubble than Hiroshima.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Men get this inner game…I think they also understand that if you have inner game and no outer game, your inner game is going to eventually end up in more rubble than Hiroshima.

      I feel like I should quote Mr. Miyagi here or something. Inner game is the foundation of outer game. Outer game alone is a house of cards.

  • VD

    WADR, your views are considerably more “out there” than a simple representation of Game.

    This is certainly true.

    How would Roissy fillet an interviewer? Is he available for face to face bookings? That is something I would like to see.

    He has the verbal acuity and willingness to confront required to turn the spin around on the interviewer. I don’t think he’s particularly interested, though.

    Anyway, you recently posted that the MSM will not give male bloggers their due.

    Nope. We are too frightening for them, both in terms of our alien intersexual ideology and the fact that most of us are considerably smarter than they are. They simply don’t want to give us credit even when they have no choice but to accept our concepts. Look up religion and war sometime. The metric I conceived and one of the two arguments I presented on the matter in TIA have largely won the day and appeared everywhere from science journals to Wikipedia. But you’d have to dig pretty hard to figure that out.

    Again, not complaining. Merely observing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VD

      He has the verbal acuity and willingness to confront required to turn the spin around on the interviewer.

      He sure does. In your post about media attention, I happily cosigned your claim that Roissy is a more original thinker than I am. I truly stand in awe of the man, even when I am thoroughly disgusted with his writing. He has a brilliant mind. My husband once said that his intelligence is “sharp points” while mine is “round.” Roissy has both, a rare thing in either sex.

  • modernguy

    Game doesn’t need PR or an ambassador. The promise of game is it’s own PR – it will enable you to understand women, bed them, and manage them. The only consideration left for most men is – does it work? And it doesn’t take much to see that it does, including the more manipulative aspects of it.

  • Abbot

    “is the penis-imposter doomed to just be a nightmaric memory that shames her genetic conscience?”

    It carves a rut out of her ego and belittles her self determination

  • INTJ

    There’s a simple reason most so many males in the manosphere are anonymous: http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2013/03/23/why-are-men-silent/

  • Abbot
  • lovelost

    @ Lokland

    Not communicating in the same way does not necessitate being enemies.

    Neither does it leads to less credibility. hiding behind black box or curtain.

  • KiaW

    @Susan

    “I’ve worked with many men who were overtly conservative in their politics in the workplace, and made no bones about it.”

    There’s a big difference between people not having a problem with your views on a personal basis and your views becoming a target for others who don’t know you. People who are around me know I’m one of a handful of conservatives in a department of about two hundred people who are overwhelmingly liberal. They have no problem with me and I have no problem with them, but that’s because they see me as a legitimate intellectual debate partner, not some online click-bait target of the month.

    In the past, when I did use my own name to publish some non-PC opinion pieces, 99% of people had no problem with it, but one unfortunate soul decided to google-bomb me and now the top search result for my name is a bunch of outright lies and personal attacks. Was it worth it to take an intellectually courageous stand in that case? We’ll find out when I go on the job market soon.

    Consider too what young people at the start of their careers have to lose by speaking out. You’re already well established with a source of income that can’t be taken away for what you say. For those of us who are still many years away from ever getting to that point, it’s much more difficult to say things that might come back to haunt you down the line in one’s field of work. It’s not a lack of invitations to a dinner party that we’re worried about, it’s a permanent blackball in hiring. With the job market already difficult, the last thing anyone wants to have hanging around one’s neck is a bunch of easily searchable personal attacks.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @KiaW

      With the job market already difficult, the last thing anyone wants to have hanging around one’s neck is a bunch of easily searchable personal attacks.

      I can appreciate that. A friend of mine agreed to be interviewed for a dissertation on postpartum depression, and then the candidate published it online using her real name without her permission. Now there’s a whole page of Google hits chronicling her history of depression whenever a potential employer wants to learn more about her.

      However, if you’re going to go online and say incendiary things, you’ve already accepted considerable risk. Let’s take Rollo for example. From his posts, we know that he lives in Las Vegas, has a wife and a 14 year old daughter. He works for a liquor company, and employs “pour girls” at events. He travels internationally, and has shared which countries he has been to recently. The IP address of his computer is readily available. My guess is that for $100 I could hire a PI and out him in half an hour, all based on information he has voluntarily shared. (Alternatively, you could also make the rounds of LV neighborhoods and ask women who is creepily flirting with them at cocktail parties.)

  • Mike C

    Susan,

    Just curious, what does this post have to do with advising young restricted women on getting relationships? :)

    Since you have posted on this way OT subject to your self-professed mission, then I think linking comments from Rollo’s post on this is absolutely fair game if there is even a shred of honest intellectual debate here. I don’t agree with a lot of YaReally’s thoughts but he nailed this interview:

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/its-their-game/#comment-18162

    That was pretty painful, but good on 3MM for trying. It came off like kind of a blindsiding of “oh I thought I’d get a chance to share my view but it turns out they just wanted a villain for everyone to rally against” (cue the blonde-about-to-hit-the-wall jumping in with supportive laughter at the host’s pussy comment). Anyone who talks to the MSM about this stuff, or even their own female/white-knight friends, should be going in fully expecting to be shit-tested thru the roof with everything from tooling to accusations to armchair diagnoses to attempts to twist words and steal the frame etc. If you’re not prepared for that, you’re going to get raped. It’s a tightrope act where one slip up means they get to classify you exactly how they wanted to from the start…your performance has to be absolutely flawless, and even THEN at BEST they’ll begrudgingly accept that you might have a point about “some” things, but won’t be sucking your dick on-air. It’s like an MRA who gets goaded into a shouting match with a feminist. The instant he’s noticeably riled up she gets to go “SEE?? They hate women jus like we said! Why are you being so meeeeean to me??? :’(“. You’re toast the second you flinch, like a 10 disqualifying you at the bar because you showed a micro-second of insecurity when she shit-tested you. I think if the Manosphere goes public, the emphasis should be on spreading word that it exists and links to the resources, instead of focusing on trying to debate or convince the MSM/masses of anything. Out there are men who have no idea the red pill exists but they know something is off with their blue pill world…as long as people representing the Manosphere can focus on “cool, you can all think I’m retarded, but for the men who are curious out there, come check it out and make your own decision”, we’ll get more men to swallow the pill…because a guy who’s ready to swallow the pill is already at a point where he’s thinking “ya, ya, I know, MSM, this stuff is creepy and lame and pussy, you tell me that every day…….but i’mma check it out all the same cause what you’re telling me doesn’t seem to add up, don’t worry I won’t convert I just want to see what the this is about…..” and then they read shit that actually lines up with their actual life experience and there’s no going back. I mean what are you going to do? Get into a brilliant live debate with those HuffPost people that convinces them all to shit all over the blue pill? Like the blonde is going to go “you know you’re right, I sucked a LOT of dick in bar bathrooms back in my day but now that I’m getting ugly I’m looking to lure a helpless beta Provider into a legal arrangement where I have carte blanche to make him a slave while I fuck the poolboy, and if he gives me hassle I’ll just claim he was abusive and raped me as I take his money and our kids!” And then the host is going to go “ya that’s reasonable, I myself had to hire a hooker the other day because I spent the last 3 years of my life in a sexless marriage raising a son I’m not sure is even my own.”? And the uggo is going to be all “when you say “do it for her”, you mean like choke-fucks her in the ass right? Because my current husband is a wimp and my pussy has been dry for years, and play-raping being used like a dirty cum-whore now and then is important to me in a relationship but its cool, my hypergamy has me chasing my best friend’s asshole husband and fucking him and his buddies behind everyone’s back!” Now that’s a segment I’d watch lol but seriously, you will never ever ever win going AGAINST the MSM. Would putting your face on camera so you can get harassed in real life for going against the blue pill do ANYTHING to change the end result of that segment? Fuck no…because it was unwinnable from the start. Being anonymous just lobbed them a nice easy shit-test pitch to knock out of the park. Even if you we’re prepared for it with a witty little cocky/funny response to that, like a hot girl testing you in various ways for congruency they would just look for the next thing to shit-test you on, which is why I say you would need to run a flawless performance start to end to get anywhere. The PUA community learned this already, there’s a reason we’re still pretty underground and happy with that status…because we learned that giving men access to the information is all we can do. 90% of people will flat-out ridicule the notion that this kind of psychology can even BE understood let alone thoroughly deconstructed…but that 10%, when they find it, will go “wow this explains SO much of my life that has been confusing to me listening to the blue pill people”. Slow & steady wins the race. It’ll be a couple more generations before the red pill is commonplace among men, but it’ll happen. Can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube and all that. Side-step the villain frame they set for you and just use media time to promote access to the resources. You think any man trapped in an incel marriage WOULDN’T at least check out MMSL if he heard on TV that it existed? Even if feminists grabbed him by the balls, he would grit his teeth thru the pain to read what MMSL has to say. We don’t have to convince or change the MSM. Society will do that for us when enough men have taken the red pill. The very next comment is spot on right as well:

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/its-their-game/#comment-18163

    Manosphere writers are insurgents. What you see in the video is what happens when an insugent agrees to a stand-up fight out in the open with a conventional occupying force.

    Bottom line, there is no message to be spread through conventional channels/media with guys willing to put their faces up on television. As Rollo says, spreading the message to guys/unplugging guys is triage, save the ones you can, let the rest perish. The Red Pill/Game whatever doesn’t find guys, guys find it WHEN THEY ARE READY. It can’t be force fed to closed minds, but a mind has to be open to alternative explanations.

    Now I’ll count down….3….2….1…. to you attacking me as a “Rollo boy” :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      Just curious, what does this post have to do with advising young restricted women on getting relationships?

      Excuse me? Are you the HUS police? Why do you think it’s appropriate to question me on my subject matter? You didn’t ask this question when I posted a song I like last Friday.

      If you must know…it’s right in the post. I’m on record as saying that I am a proponent of Game because I think it makes more men relationship material. It nudges a bunch of guys upward a bit on that far right bar in the chart – enough to be in play. I have a vested interest in guys being as attractive as possible, and not shooting themselves in the foot by acting overeager, supplicating, etc.

      When I see displays like this one today, it’s actually painful. I groaned at the laptop. The SMP needs Game, and the Game bloggers are blowing it bigtime. They are making Game a subject of ridicule, of dubious shortcuts promoted by men lurking in lairs.

      The Red Pill/Game whatever doesn’t find guys, guys find it WHEN THEY ARE READY

      That’s a loser strategy. The typical guy who is ready will read Rollo and close his window in 10 seconds never to return. Who are my male readers? They’re mostly guys interested in Game who can’t stomach Roissy or Roosh. (Rollo isn’t even on their radar.) If a guy is ready, and he goes to the wrong place – like 3MM asking eagerly for feedback on his interview? Well that’s a good prospect that you just sent packing.

      This is literally the worst marketing strategy I have ever seen.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Ah! You got me Sue, this post isn’t about anything more than a shit slinging effort to draw all your manosphere hates together for another attention orgy.

    But OK I’ll entertain you:

    Aaron Clarey, Paul Elam, Athol Kay, Nick Krauser, RooshV, Matt Forney, Vox Day (may as well be his real name), what do all of these guys have in common? They’ve either made Game their vocation or they simply have nothing left to lose after having been vilified by a fem-centric society.

    Giggles, you can tell yourself you’re a hero for using your real name, but you will never appreciate the personal and professional risks unique to men in a society dominated by the feminine imperative. Georges efforts on the Huff-Po show are a shining example of how this operates.

    You can accuse cowardice of anonymous bloggers and make yourself feel good, but what you can’t fight is the validity of their ideas. That’s what keeps you up at night, that’s why you care.

    “A blogger who hides behind an empty screen demonstrates that he does not have the courage of his convictions.”

    I would say the same about a blogger who deletes/blocks any opposing views on their blog. That’s what you’ve historically done, and that’s in essence what the Huff-Po did with George. He was there to serve as their foil for ridicule because the feminine imperative can’t afford to have the majority of men become Game aware.

    In fact, working in business, which is highly male dominated, odds are your anti-feminist views would be no big deal.

    I’m sure the idea of some back room boys club fits your narrative, but no CEO male or female will have any tolerance for any association that contradicts the feminine imperative which has the potential to damage their brand.

    As per usual for your blog we come full circle and right back the the issue of explaining to a fish in water about how it’s wet. You fundamentally lack an appreciation of the risks men take in making even the most nonjudgemental of feminine criticisms because you’re a fish in water. Fem-centrism works for you, you exist in it and because of it, so in your own (admitted) solipsism, if there’s no significant risk for you men are just cowards for imagining the risks to themselves,

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rollo

      You can accuse cowardice of anonymous bloggers and make yourself feel good, but what you can’t fight is the validity of their ideas. That’s what keeps you up at night, that’s why you care.

      The only thing that’s kept me up at night were threats to harm me physically during Dalrockgate. Your paranoid revenge fantasies are easy to dismiss.

      He was there to serve as their foil for ridicule because the feminine imperative can’t afford to have the majority of men become Game aware.

      That’s BS. They offered him the same opportunity as everyone else. He was ridiculed for his KGB spy routine, and he did a terrible job in the interview. Had he been there as a talking head like everyone else, he could have made the same points about men needing some support to be better at dating, and he would have earned respect rather than contempt.

      I would say the same about a blogger who deletes/blocks any opposing views on their blog. That’s what you’ve historically done

      The fact that I’m letting you comment here disproves that. Every HUS reader knows that civil and respectful disagreement is always OK. I even let in hostile commenters who regularly mock me, as you can see. Read any comment thread and you’ll see more opposition than you’ve ever attracted at your surly echo chamber.

      You and your feminine imperative. You’re delusional.

  • lovelost

    “A blogger who hides behind an empty screen demonstrates that he does not have the courage of his convictions.”

    And i will add to this, by what i have said before.

    Don’t shoot the messenger. Hear the facts and make your self aware. I am the Red pill guy, who had the same reservation to the credibility of manosphere almost 2 years. now a day almost every action that i see women take i can make sense out of it based on what i have learned on manosphere.

    hiding behind the curtains hides the man not his message.

    locking up copennicus hides the man not his science.

  • Mike C

    Insurgents do not hide

    Of course they hide. Taking on the enemy in a conventional way will get them “killed.” Yup. Hello…hello…anyone here heard of the Vietnam War??? Any idea how the VietCong basically won the war against the most powerful military in the world? Ummm.. for that matter…anyone studied American History? Heard of this thing called the Revolutionary War? How do you think the Americans finally beat the British? The fact of the matter is the core strategy for insurgencies to win are calculated tactical attacks then back into hiding. Why do you think we are still in Afghanistan 12 years later? Insurgents don’t win by frontal assaults on a massively stronger force, and in this battle of ideas it is clear which is the powerful orthodoxy and which is the insurgency. If the insurgency wins, it will be slow chipping away, small tactical victories. I think the French first invaded Vietnam in the 1950s so it took them 30 years to finally drive off Western invaders for good.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    My message is far from politically correct, and I’m able to sleep most nights. I even still get invited to dinner parties. In fact, I’ve won over many feminist converts at dinner parties. Honey, not vinegar, you know?

    There is a big difference between losing invitations to dinner parties and getting blacklisted by your current and future employers or clients.

    I own a business that is partially web based. I have a website with a message board and I also post on message boards that are owned by clients. All under my real name.

    If I were to use my real identity in the manosphere all it would take is for one person to stumble across a comment that *might” be able to be misconstrued as misogynistic or distasteful and my ass is toast. Not only could it damage my reputation and cost me sales, but it could very well RUIN my business.

    I’m not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Good Luck Chuck

      If I were to use my real identity in the manosphere all it would take is for one person to stumble across a comment that *might” be able to be misconstrued as misogynistic or distasteful and my ass is toast. Not only could it damage my reputation and cost me sales, but it could very well RUIN my business.

      I’m not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

      *Might?* How about if it is misogynistic and your ass deserves to be toast?

  • Mister Floopywinks TinkleBots

    Some of the founding fathers wrote anonymously on a fairly regular basis in the publications of their times. I would not call them men who “did not have the courage of their convictions. “

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Some of the founding fathers wrote anonymously on a fairly regular basis in the publications of their times. I would not call them men who “did not have the courage of their convictions. “

      Interesting! Which of them was unwilling to stand up for his beliefs and remained anonymous over time?

  • lovelost

    so when women hide behind curtains to talk about sexual assault, does that mean they have less credibility?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @lovelost

      so when women hide behind curtains to talk about sexual assault, does that mean they have less credibility?

      Are you really going to equate rape victims and George the PUA?

      Lovelost, when did you lose your way. Very, very disappointed.

  • modernguy

    What it all boils down to is that Susan doesn’t like the idea of boys learning to make their girlfriends feel insecure about the stability of their relationship to keep them interested. Because she wouldn’t have liked that to happen to her, at least she imagines she wouldn’t. But girls live in a hot and cold world. And if you want her to keep it hot sometimes you have to make her fear the cold. As long as your intentions are good, it’s all for the good. Girls love being manipulated, as long as it ends well.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      What it all boils down to is that Susan doesn’t like the idea of boys learning to make their girlfriends feel insecure about the stability of their relationship to keep them interested. Because she wouldn’t have liked that to happen to her, at least she imagines she wouldn’t. But girls live in a hot and cold world. And if you want her to keep it hot sometimes you have to make her fear the cold. As long as your intentions are good, it’s all for the good. Girls love being manipulated, as long as it ends well.

      You’re a sick fuck.

  • Miguel Monsivais

    “Huh? He went on HuffPo Live to discuss these views with women. Furthermore, I’ve been a proponent of Game, so I hate to see it come across as shady and creepy like it did in that interview, and as it does on some blogs.”

    He went on the show to discuss it with women, but the ideas are not for women. You need to understand that. Its embedded in our nature, as the Psychologist who was on the show even admitted, its a primal instinct that a woman has to feel protected, etc, and in 3MM’s case, he is teaching men how tap into that natural ability that every man already has in order to attract a woman. His ideas are for men, not for women.

    And of course its shady and creepy to you… you are brainwashed by this feminine society. Even all those lonely men who stay at home watching porn all day are conditioned to thinking those exact things, which is an unnatural way of thinking and that’s why they’re “deadbeats” and deemed unfit to procreate in the first place. . It is completely natural for a man to look at a woman straight into her eyes without holding back. It displays dominance and security. Its exactly what you like… yet you don’t know it.

    “How is that a shaming tactic? 3MM agreed to go on there and talk about his blog. The host pulled out a readily available quote. One that sounded ridiculous, and fairly risky for the guy. Hold eye contact longer than is appropriate? Who thinks it’s a good idea to coach people to adopt inappropriate behavior?”

    Are you sure you’re “all for game”? Every “pua” has in some form or another suggested the ideas of holding eye contact. Its funny that you are denying it, yet when given the time you would get turned on by a man who is confident enough to hold eye contact with you. You are not about game, my dear friend.

    “Yes it does, because his black square had to be dealt with by the host, and it was dealt with in a humorous way. That immediately discredited 3MM. Furthermore, the other guests were all competed for air time, signaling dominance in various ways through facial expressions, jumping in, etc. They were watching each other. George was clueless and stayed silent except when addressed directly.”

    So, the “black square” discredited his ideas about “eye contact”? How?

    How was George clueless, lady? Even the psychologist was agreeing to what he had to say.

    Like I said… you’re already doing the very thing that George or 3MM decided to stay anonymous for but you don’t want to admit it. You are point blank wrong on this issue. If you want to make this world a better place, you need to accept this. I also must insist that you are not about “game”. Everything you are regurgitating is the same feminist ideology that makes people who teach game look as if they are clueless, when in fact it is they who are clueless. Men are evolving to dominate once again. The funny thing is, that even though you don’t want to accept this… this actually turns you on. Everyone wins.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Miguel

      Its funny that you are denying it, yet when given the time you would get turned on by a man who is confident enough to hold eye contact with you.

      You have no idea what turns me on. One of the biggest shortcomings of the manosophere is the way female nature is presented. In reality, we reside on a bell curve like everyone else. Yet Game bloggers advise men to hold eye contact longer than is socially acceptable, because that will turn women on. Yeah….if you’re Tom Brady. If you’re awkward or anxious or not particularly handsome that will make us go EWWWW! Stop staring like that, you’re creeping me out!

      At HUS I recommend holding eye contact for three seconds, which is the threshold for sexual attraction. That’s it. 3 seconds. That’s all you need to know. The goal is not to get fucked in an hour, but to learn through trial and error how people respond to sustained eye contact. Which is very well, when they find you attractive! If you make eye contact, and a woman averts her eyes and doesn’t look back, move on, you’re toast. If you sustain contact for three seconds, and she smiles, approach. If she looks away, but then looks back, you smile. Then approach. See? This can be done without looking like a total creep and potential rapist!

      Men are evolving to dominate once again. The funny thing is, that even though you don’t want to accept this… this actually turns you on.

      This would be great dialogue for a terrible novel. Men are evolving to dominate…priceless.

  • Anacaona

    The best ambassador the manosphere could get to start an actual revolution is a gay black man in a committed relationship/married to another man (better if the guy is form another race) that is raising some kids as well. Better if the kids are biologically his and he is divorced from a woman (He can play I was forced to live a lie by society card) best if he was born poor and now is educated and middle class.
    Virtually untouchable in all fronts: workplace lawsuit risk is too high and white people cannot doubt a person of color without feeling guilty IME.
    Him or Oprah ;)

  • Mike M.

    Susan has a point…but do does Vox. There’s a need for boldly taking the rostrum – but there are also women who will make a terrible fuss when confronted with an opinion they don’t like, and are quite likely to get their way.

    I do think there needs to be a sharp distinction between PUA Game and Courtship/Marriage Game. Somewhat different tactics, totally different objectives. C/M Game is more palatable than PUA Game.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I do think there needs to be a sharp distinction between PUA Game and Courtship/Marriage Game. Somewhat different tactics, totally different objectives. C/M Game is more palatable than PUA Game.

      +1

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Some of the founding fathers wrote anonymously on a fairly regular basis in the publications of their times. I would not call them men who “did not have the courage of their convictions. “

    Slave owners waxing eloquently about freedom and liberty?

    At least a grain of salt.

  • Ted D

    Susan – huh. I hope you had a restful holiday, because this thread may just become a shitstorm. What does Sassy always say?… I need to grab some popcorn…

    Lokland – “sperglings”

    Sincerely, thank you. This one word caused me to bark a laugh out so loud I startled my wife. My God, I might have to get that printed on a t-shirt.

  • HanSolo

    @Anacaona

    Deceived ex-wife of gay man still trumps gay man.

  • Anacaona

    Deceived ex-wife of gay man still trumps gay man.
    Feminists/liberals love their gay men and they all consider getting outed before you are ready a sin.
    If he has a sad story of being raised thinking he was going to hell for his preference or/and if he was physically punish for it specially being black. He has more victims points so he wins.
    In Jezebel the only time a false rape accusation was mentioned was when the falsely accused man was a minority. Racism/Homophobia > Feminism,YMMV.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    ENFJs are able to engage their inferior Ti function and become logical sometimes. It just tends to get overridden by the Fe function quite often.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @INTJ

      ENFJs are able to engage their inferior Ti function and become logical sometimes. It just tends to get overridden by the Fe function quite often.

      Thank you for enhancing my understanding. :)

  • Lokland

    @Ana/Han

    Theres an easy way around the ex-wife.
    Make him a widower. Her a fabled female commander in Iraq and him a nice house husband who took care of the kids.

    Feminism shield, check.

  • Clarence

    Erasmus:
    I would love for you to prove my “assertions” wrong.
    Hop to it, boy or girl. I dare you. I’ve been in this rodeo a very long time and I am very aware of many legal things.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/sunshinemary sunshinemary

    You can’t be a Dalrock regular and profess ignorance of the treatment of female commenters there, as well as the tolerance of that behavior by the host.

    I have always been treated politely by both Dalrock and most of his readers, even when I disagreed with them. I have never observed a woman who was being polite to receive any inappropriate treatment there.

    I don’t see what the problem is with remaining anonymous. Many, many people blog anonymously online; that isn’t unique to the manosphere. When I had my blog (The Woman and the Dragon), I wrote mostly anonymously because I wanted to be able to write truthful about sensitive issues (i.e. rape) without making myself unemployable. It’s not being cowardly; it’s being prudent.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @sunshinemary

      I have always been treated politely by both Dalrock and most of his readers, even when I disagreed with them. I have never observed a woman who was being polite to receive any inappropriate treatment there.

      Polite or a Christian submissive who has stood by a compulsively cheating husband?

      The only women tolerated at Dalrock are the Mea Culpa crowd. That means “my fault” for you non-Catholics.

      When I had my blog (The Woman and the Dragon), I wrote mostly anonymously because I wanted to be able to write truthful about sensitive issues (i.e. rape) without making myself unemployable. It’s not being cowardly; it’s being prudent.

      And yet weren’t you outed? Isn’t that why you shut down your blog? Blogging anonymously didn’t work for you at all. You probably would have been better off blogging under your real name and facing your nemesis by standing tall and defending your beliefs.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I feel like I should quote Mr. Miyagi here or something. Inner game is the foundation of outer game. Outer game alone is a house of cards.”

    No. Outer game is just training wheels for inner game.

    My boys used training wheels until one day, I took them off, pushed them… and they suddenly had balance.

    They relied on those wheels as babies. It kept them from falling down and cracking their head open. They werent useless or fake or evil. But, eventually, it limited them, and they didn’t even know it. At some point, it become necessary for me to step in, even with their protestations and that of their mother, to push them along.

    And they gleefully sailed down the street, downhill, fast, without a single wobble.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC

      Outer game without the inner work will not do. I’m not sure how this translates to your bicycle metaphor. I understand that “fake it till you make it” can be very effective. But there is an implicit goal of “making it.” 90% of Game blog advice is limited to faking it. It’s all about getting laid. The irony is that most readers of these sites don’t want to be players, they want to sustain attraction in a relationship. They can’t do that without inner game.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Susan, I disagree with your assessment of anonymous blogging by the manosphere.

    The manosphere is having an effect. Comment threads on MSM articles about gender issues now have a lot more anti-feminist dissent — the ones that don’t are likely being moderated stringently. The MSM itself saw fit to quote from a few of these blogs. Then there’s the SPLC fiasco, and now this.

    However, keep in mind that the MSM is hostile to manosphere ideas and always will be, because these ideas benefit men who can’t get dates, and the MSM favors women; there is no point in pleading for a “credibility” that they would never give to our ideas. To get “credibility,” one would have to water the message down to the point of meaninglessness. We have to go around them through anonymous blogging. This is the way to reach people when the mainstream avenues are determined to exclude you.

    Like other commenters noted, putting yourself out there under your real name will only increase the risk to yourself and your friends and family, and you won’t gain any benefit from it. Fighting fair makes no sense when your opponent doesn’t fight fair.

    Remember, Susan, your own mainstream media debut was favorable precisely because it explained the writer’s dating troubles and kept things locked on the female perspective. If you spoke in favor of men, they’d have been far more hostile.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Crisis Era Dynamo

      Remember, Susan, your own mainstream media debut was favorable precisely because it explained the writer’s dating troubles and kept things locked on the female perspective. If you spoke in favor of men, they’d have been far more hostile.

      Wrong. The most important part of that article, and the one I worked hardest to get included, was the bit about the apex fallacy. The revelation that a relatively small number of men are enjoying all the spoils. Kate Bolick was dubious about that claim, and I sent her article after article. We discussed it for hours on end. In the final piece, it was just a sentence or two, but I was thrilled.

      That was my paltry but hard fought contribution to the manosphere. Much to my surprise, it triggered Dalrockgate and general hostility from Game bloggers.

  • Mike C

    Just curious, what does this post have to do with advising young restricted women on getting relationships?

    Excuse me? Are you the HUS police? Why do you think it’s appropriate to question me on my subject matter?

    Yup, that is me Officer Mike reporting for blog patrol duty. :) I think it is a fair question. You often move to your core mission statement when stuff you deem OT comes up, yet here is an entire post dedicated to an OT subject. You can write about whatever you want…I just find it perplexing. As Ted said, this a “shitstorm” type post, this is “red meat”. I mean if you want to walk up to the hornest’s nest and start batting it around, be my guest…but you don’t get to cry foul when the hornets come out stinging. As you can see, this post drew out a lot of commenters who do not normally comment here.

    Who are my male readers? They’re mostly guys interested in Game who can’t stomach Roissy or Roosh. (Rollo isn’t even on their radar.)

    WADR, most of your regular male readers are not really interested in Game.

    If a guy is ready, and he goes to the wrong place – like 3MM asking eagerly for feedback on his interview? Well that’s a good prospect that you just sent packing.

    This is literally the worst marketing strategy I have ever seen.

    What you don’t get is many of the guys are not selling anything…just sharing knowledge and experience. The “target market” only consists of eager buyers, not people looking to hard sell.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      but you don’t get to cry foul when the hornets come out stinging. As you can see, this post drew out a lot of commenters who do not normally comment here.

      And I haven’t cried foul, have I? Ha, I knew exactly what would happen with this post. All I can say is that I read Vox’s post about it, watched the interview, and it was the biggest facepalm I’ve experienced in quite a while. I couldn’t stay silent.

      What you don’t get is many of the guys are not selling anything…just sharing knowledge and experience. The “target market” only consists of eager buyers, not people looking to hard sell.

      Disagree. None of these men, especially the Dark Triad types, is in it for the altruism. It’s an ego gratification exercise. That and exorcising demons.

  • Clarence

    SunShineMary, Susan:
    I’m going to partly agree with Susan and partly with you based on my own experiences at Dalrocks.
    I defended Susan at Dalrocks over an attack by CL. Basically, Dalrock and Susan had a disagreement over a post here. I forget which one it was. Basically, the comments section at Dalrock started devolving into talk of various ‘hamsters’ and this and that and CL took a singular comment of Susans out of context and accused Susan of being a moral relativist. I’ve read the comments here (and occasionally commented ) for years now, and I think I understand Susan well enough to say that was an unfair accusation. I also got sick of the personal attacks and lack of charity towards someone who was , and is, in many ways an ally. So I told CL she was basically full of it. Oh, the accusations of “white knighting” and such I got that day, and throughout the next week. Because I defended a woman I knew quite a bit about ONE TIME. And Susan is not the only one. The regular commenters there are all over the place – a few really are almost misogynists, others are Christian male chauvinists, and atheist male chauvinists (TFH). Of course there are some who are almost always rational and fair as well, such as yourself and Brendan. But often there’s a mob mentality there with trials conducted without a level playing field for the accused. So yeah, the various comments threads do devolve into downright misogyny at times – though Dalrock himself is never implicated in this. Dalrock basically has no moderation provided you aren’t disagreeing with him. Disagree with him, and he’ll let the regulars eviscerate your character (rather than simply attack your arguments they will either attack you personally or try to “psychoanalyze” you over the internet esp if you are a woman) and any counterattacks you get in might eventually lead to your banning and even if not, it’s rather hard for one person to take on 20. And his place is NOT THE WORST in the manosphere for females. There are far worse.

    That being said, you will far more often run into the exact opposite of this phenomenon pretty much anywhere else all over the web. Yes, even on some (not all) PUA forums. But esp on any mainstream website, let alone a feminist one. So I do give the “red pill” sites a little slack.
    That being said, any of those who hope to gain any mainstream influence are going to have to clean up their act at least a little. It’s sad to say but while misogyny is easily noticed all over the web (and heck, often over-diagnosed to boot) misandry is practically invisible to most people. It’s not a level playing field.

    That’s why I like “Genderratic” and “Feminist Critics” and places like that they have basic rules of civility which are enforced equally for those who argue or who at least let their biases out in the open.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      Thank you for a very fair assessment. I know you haven’t always been a fan of mine, but I do appreciate your honest evaluation of the dynamic at Dalrock’s at my experience there.

      Dalrock basically has no moderation provided you aren’t disagreeing with him. Disagree with him, and he’ll let the regulars eviscerate your character (rather than simply attack your arguments they will either attack you personally or try to “psychoanalyze” you over the internet esp if you are a woman) and any counterattacks you get in might eventually lead to your banning and even if not, it’s rather hard for one person to take on 20.

      Yes, this is why I characterized this as the “Flying Monkey” strategy. Dalrock can stay out of the fray knowing full well that his disturbed commenters will always attack and report back. Dalrock’s post against me was based on a comment in a HUS thread – apparently reported by a faithful minion.

      It’s sad to say but while misogyny is easily noticed all over the web (and heck, often over-diagnosed to boot) misandry is practically invisible to most people. It’s not a level playing field.

      True. It is necessary for people to identify and point out misandry wherever they see it, just as Dr. Helen suggests. I won’t lie – I got invested in this because I saw it affecting my son. There are many mothers of sons out there – and all are a target market for this cause. In this case, helicopter parenting may be useful. These parents will fight tooth and nail if they perceive their sons are disadvantaged by misandry. That is a group that should not be ignored.

  • Martian Bachelor

    OP: “This is why women complain…”

    In case Captain Obvious can’t get by, woe-men complain more about EVERYTHING!

    It’s like they think their purpose in life is to run a non-stop hellish bitch-a-thon for men to “enjoy”.

    “A woman in love will do anything for her man except give up the desire to improve him.” – Nathaniel Brandon

    That’s not “hypergamy”, it’s stupidity!

  • Clarence

    I shouldn’t cry about how horrid my comment looks when not edited. I should simply remind myself that unlike most places I comment on this place has no ‘edit’ function and I gotta get out the ol’ word processor and cut n’ paste if I want beautiful prose.

  • Mike C

    The fact that I’m letting you comment here disproves that. Every HUS reader knows that civil and respectful disagreement is always OK.

    Susan,

    This is demonstrably false. You’ve deleted a number of comments that were civil and respectful that crossed some line in your mind of appropriateness. There was the thread where you deleted Obsidian’s comment and Wudang’s comment, and Wudang was never uncivil. You deleted a comment on mine that simply mentioned the “spinning plates” strategy and it was not uncivil or disrespectful. The fact of the matter is periodically you will delete comments that meet the civil standard if they hit one of your emotional hot buttons. AFAIK, Rollo doesn’t delete any comments, but I’m willing to stand corrected on that if you know otherwise. It’s not my first preference to get into this kind of stuff, but I have to correct the record with inaccuracies.

    I even let in hostile commenters who regularly mock me, as you can see. Read any comment thread and you’ll see more opposition than you’ve ever attracted at your surly echo chamber.

    You and your feminine imperative. You’re delusional.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      You’ve deleted a number of comments that were civil and respectful

      That’s debatable. Obsidian was baiting and taunting female commenters something fierce. He would not stop. I was getting emails left and right.

      I don’t recall deleting Wudang’s comment, though I do recall Wudang as being very heavily invested in the idea that the hottest women are sluts. He constantly harped on that – 10s are easy. He shared the analysis of one Basil Ransom from the Roosh forum, and when I disproved it mathematically, he ran away with his tail between his legs and has not been seen since.

      Re your comment on spinning plates, I deleted your comment after asking you many, many times not to post comments in violation of my mission. Your insistence on posting Rollo-approved strategies here had to be dealt with, IMO. It would have been better had you rendered unto Rollo’s what was Rollo’s, and left HUS out of it. I have no intention of allowing comments that are designed to undermine my message.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @Good Luck Chuck

    If I were to use my real identity in the manosphere all it would take is for one person to stumble across a comment that *might” be able to be misconstrued as misogynistic or distasteful and my ass is toast. Not only could it damage my reputation and cost me sales, but it could very well RUIN my business.

    I’m not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

    *Might?* How about if it is misogynistic and your ass deserves to be toast?

    +++++

    This is just madness. The point he’s making is that he would be unfairly accused of misogyny merely for disagreeing with some feminist talking points, and you assume guilt.

    You never used to be this hostile, especially to someone who fears false accusation.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Crisis Era Dynamo

      This is just madness. The point he’s making is that he would be unfairly accused of misogyny merely for disagreeing with some feminist talking points, and you assume guilt.

      And yet many Game sites are extremely misogynistic, and not because they disagree with feminist talking points.

  • modernguy

    The fact is that shady PUA types who claim the mantle of “the manosphere” are doing Game a great disservice. In some quarters I’m actually considered a Game blogger. I understand it very well, and regularly advise males here about it, along with a lot of male commenters. (Males are about 40% of my readership.) In that sense, I have a dog in the fight, and find performances like George’s very painful to watch.

    You’re concern trolling. Do you think any guy cares whether or not “game” gets a good or bad name in the popular opinion? You’re trying to turn game into some kind of harmless fluffy bunny that guys and girls can play with in their happy fun safe relationship. Game works for the pua objective just as well as for the married man. It is inherently dangerous if used for malicious purposes and you’re not going to be able to sanitize it to the extent that women are going to be able to feel safe.

    You want guys like Athol Kay to go on tv and talk about how useful game can be in kindling your fizzling relationship and sparking up some sexual interest with your bored wife, but you don’t want puas going on tv letting men know that game can be used to seduce women against their better judgement and you especially don’t want them divulging the darker aspects of it, the jealousy, the dread, the insecurity. Aspects which work just as well as the others. Essentially you don’t want women’s feelings to get hurt, which is what you feel is going to happen if the popularization of game is not “managed”. It’s like trying to market a knife thinking that people will never get stabbed if you just insist that it’s only for slicing bread.

    Game is a new tool that has been discovered and like any tool it can be used benevolently or maliciously. If anything it will force women to judge men on a deeper level than the totally ignorant and superficial level they are judging on now.

  • Mireille

    I think it would be fair to distinguish between opinion bloggers and activists. If some Manosphere bloggers don’t want to come out, it means they just want to cater to their little circle and are not really interested in pushing for all men to reach that relationship wisdom. Activists are the one trying to make change happen publicly.
    I’m pretty sure a lot of first feminists were called refreshing names like lesbian, frigid or bitch by the male dominated MSM until their “propaganda” became accepted. So I think if it is truly something they believe in they will have to pay their dues and die for the cause.

  • modernguy

    You’re a sick fuck.

    LOL!

  • Mike C

    Over/under?

    I’m thinking maybe we take out the old record of 2500ish (I think that was recently)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Over/under?

      I’m thinking maybe we take out the old record of 2500ish (I think that was recently)

      Oof, we’re only at 192 now. I sure hope we don’t get to 2500. I’m hoping to have a lazy weekend.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan Walsh

    I have always been treated politely by both Dalrock and most of his readers, even when I disagreed with them. I have never observed a woman who was being polite to receive any inappropriate treatment there.

    “Polite or a Christian submissive who has stood by a compulsively cheating husband?”

    That was just low.

    Susan, what’s going on? Such venom…this is not normal.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “Polite or a Christian submissive who has stood by a compulsively cheating husband?”

      That was just low.

      Susan, what’s going on? Such venom…this is not normal.

      That’s not venomous. Sunshine Mary can correct me if I’m wrong. I believe she has stated that her husband has cheated on her 30 times? And yet she is a submissive Christian wife.

      Sorry Crisis, I do not respect that.

  • Mike C

    But there is an implicit goal of “making it.” 90% of Game blog advice is limited to faking it. It’s all about getting laid. The irony is that most readers of these sites don’t want to be players, they want to sustain attraction in a relationship. They can’t do that without inner game.

    The outer game versus inner game distinction has nothing to do with the distinction of getting laid (casual) versus sustaining a relationship. One could have tight inner game and be entirely focused on simply pursuing casual sex relationships. Sustaining a relationship is more about the right mix of attraction versus comfort traits whereas outer versus inner game is more about really internalizing the attraction traits.

  • OffTheCuff

    Three seconds is far *longer* than socially acceptable for someone you are not talking to, for a man. Normal behavior is barely a glance.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan Walsh

    Okay, I stand corrected on that point.

    However, why are you breathing fire on the manosphere because of anonymous blogging, knowing the unique risks men face and general MSM hostility? And why did you just swipe at sunshinemary in such a hateful way?

  • Mike C

    The revelation that a relatively small number of men are enjoying all the spoils. Kate Bolick was dubious about that claim, and I sent her article after article. We discussed it for hours on end. In the final piece, it was just a sentence or two, but I was thrilled.

    But you’ve since changed your position on this. Your current position is that the top 20% of guys are only getting with the “slutty, unrestricted 20%” so they certainly are not getting ***all the spoils just 20% of the spoils.

    Much to my surprise, it triggered Dalrockgate and general hostility from Game bloggers.

    This is false. Dalrockgate was triggered by the debate over “frivolous divorce” that got kickstarted in the Truth About Male Sexuality thread. The article and its timing just happened to coincide.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      This is false. Dalrockgate was triggered by the debate over “frivolous divorce” that got kickstarted in the Truth About Male Sexuality thread. The article and its timing just happened to coincide.

      Nope, there was discussion in the manosphere about my having gotten MSM attention, i.e. grumbling, that immediately preceded Dalrock’s attack.

  • Goldman Sucks

    A number of game blogs self-combusted in the past year with the bloggers basically saying they woke up one morning with an epiphany that they were wrong most of the time and that no amount of negs or carefully 3 days in advance planned out witty conversational/text comebacks can make up for looks, spontaneity and just plain normalcy. So they shut down their blogs and some went into depression.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Goldman Sucks

      So they shut down their blogs and some went into depression.

      Which blogs would those be?

  • https://en.gravatar.com/sunshinemary sunshinemary

    Polite or a Christian submissive who has stood by a compulsively cheating husband?

    Well, my goodness.

    Certainly I have been treated more politely by Dalrock than I should apparently expect to be treated here. But that is neither here nor there. The point is that it’s silly to expect a manosphere blog to be sanitized for female protection. And frankly, the worst things that have been said to me on manosphere blogs were said to me by other women.

    And yet weren’t you outed? Isn’t that why you shut down your blog? Blogging anonymously didn’t work for you at all. You probably would have been better off blogging under your real name and facing your nemesis by standing tall and defending your beliefs.

    Being outed without my permission made me angry because it was rude. And note: it was a woman who called me by my real name. But I had no choice about blogging under my real name; my husband told me not to do so, and I don’t make a habit of disobeying him.

  • modernguy

    And I haven’t cried foul, have I? Ha, I knew exactly what would happen with this post. All I can say is that I read Vox’s post about it, watched the interview, and it was the biggest facepalm I’ve experienced in quite a while. I couldn’t stay silent.

    How was it a facepalm? Nobody is looking for a “nice” debut of game into the mainstream, or a pretty debut, or a charismatic debut, or any kind of debut, except for you. Men don’t care if game is labelled “creepy” or “nice”, all it has to do is work. You seem to think that game needs the approval of women to work. But men don’t care what it sounds like to women, as long as it works, and it does. Men are slowly going to catch on, because the principles are sound, whether women approve of it or not. It is totally beyond the power of the collective feminine judgement of the MSM to determine the outcome of this, they can only slow it down.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Nobody is looking for a “nice” debut of game into the mainstream, or a pretty debut, or a charismatic debut, or any kind of debut, except for you

      That’s not true. Roosh has predicted that Game will go mainstream in the MSM in 2013, and both Rollo and Vox Day are on board.

  • Senior Beta

    With all the ‘sphere Generals (Vox and Rollo) leading the counter attack not much more a foot soldier can add. You really unleashed the Kraken with this post Susan. Not only is George a younger guy rightly fearful for his possibly shortened employment future is he is outed, you really went round the bend on this Adria Richards comment. This is my ‘hood. Those geeks were talking computerese. Had nothing to do with dick jokes. And that bitch got one of them fired. That is beyond the pale. You do a good job with on the fence young woman. But calling out a young kid who stands up for simple Game concepts (eye contact) is a cheap shot.

  • Anacaona

    Theres an easy way around the ex-wife.
    Make him a widower. Her a fabled female commander in Iraq and him a nice house husband who took care of the kids.

    Feminism shield, check.
    That is a good alternative as well.

  • Goldman Sucks

    ” a Christian submissive who has stood by a compulsively cheating husband?”

    The shadow side. There are deeper underlying issues when you get to that level of co-dependency and enabling.

    Hey Susan, since you have a husband and a son, do they ever express to you sentiments like feeling discriminated against in education or the workplace? Any complaints from them about a “war on boys” or “bias against males” or the ever omnipresent “cultural marxism” that supposedly pervades every nook and cranny of mainstream American life with the sole aim of destroying traditional masculine values?

    I mean, they know you write about male and female issues, right? So what’s their take on today’s cultural zeitgeist?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Hey Susan, since you have a husband and a son, do they ever express to you sentiments like feeling discriminated against in education or the workplace?

      No. But I witnessed misandry in our public school system and enrolled my son in an all-boys school.

      Misandry has not been an issue in the workplace for either my husband or son.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    *Might?* How about if it is misogynistic and your ass deserves to be toast?

    Good comeback. How can I even counter something like that?

  • modernguy

    And yet many Game sites are extremely misogynistic, and not because they disagree with feminist talking points.

    What the hell is misogynistic? Calling a slut a slut?

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Men are evolving to dominate once again.”

    Pix or GTFO!

  • Mike C

    That’s debatable. Obsidian was baiting and taunting female commenters something fierce. He would not stop. I was getting emails left and right.

    I am not referring to the totality of Obsidian’s comments. I am only referring to one comment in particular that had no baiting or taunting in it whatsoever….

    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/104557

    I don’t recall deleting Wudang’s comment,

    Hmmmm…fwiw..I take gingko biloba….it is very good for memory :)
    Yes, you deleted a rather extensive comment of his that was basically an exposition without even the slightest hint of incivility or attacking anyone.

    and when I disproved it mathematically, he ran away with his tail between his legs and has not been seen since.

    I think he simply realized debating many of these intergender topics here was largely a waste of time. I doubt he ran away simply because you think you bested him in debate.

    Re your comment on spinning plates, I deleted your comment after asking you many, many times not to post comments in violation of my mission. Your insistence on posting Rollo-approved strategies here had to be dealt with, IMO. It would have been better had you rendered unto Rollo’s what was Rollo’s, and left HUS out of it. I have no intention of allowing comments that are designed to undermine my message.

    This is all entirely irrelevant. Point stands. You delete comments that are civil that address subject matter you do not want addressed. Rollo’s point about your deleting comments is correct. You are free to justify whatever rationale you want behind the deletions…it is your blog…but it is farce to pretend you allow totally open discussion of intergender dynamic topics even if the comment is civil. You delete civil comments on subjects you deem off-limits.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You delete civil comments on subjects you deem off-limits.

      Eh, we could parse the word civil, but let’s not. The truth is, I censor less than any other blog with this volume of comments. It’s easy not to delete comments when you only have 25 to begin with, and they’re from the same 5 guys.

      Vox Day once advised me to delete freely, without any explanation whatsoever. I probably should have taken his advice…

  • Miguel Monsivais

    “You have no idea what turns me on. ”

    Yes, I do. You are turned on by a man that can lead, or in female terminology, “sweep you off your feet.” Stare or no stare, fat, bald, skinny, don’t matter… if he can lead you sexually and emotionally, you will be attracted to him.

    “One of the biggest shortcomings of the manosophere is the way female nature is presented. In reality, we reside on a bell curve like everyone else. Yet Game bloggers advise men to hold eye contact longer than is socially acceptable, because that will turn women on. Yeah….if you’re Tom Brady. If you’re awkward or anxious or not particularly handsome that will make us go EWWWW! Stop staring like that, you’re creeping me out!”

    Me? Personally? I wouldn’t stare at you. I’d rather approach a more down to earth woman who doesn’t make a living making men trying to better their lives feel inferior. I’d also stare at a woman who is more honest about herself and sexuality in general. No offense.

    “At HUS I recommend holding eye contact for three seconds, which is the threshold for sexual attraction. That’s it. 3 seconds. That’s all you need to know. The goal is not to get fucked in an hour, but to learn through trial and error how people respond to sustained eye contact. Which is very well, when they find you attractive! If you make eye contact, and a woman averts her eyes and doesn’t look back, move on, you’re toast. If you sustain contact for three seconds, and she smiles, approach. If she looks away, but then looks back, you smile. Then approach. See? This can be done without looking like a total creep and potential rapist!”

    Now why is “threshold for sexual attraction” okay, but “longer than is appropriate” is not? Why are you trying so hard to make a guy like 3MM feel bad, or make him sound like a creep, when you are essentially teaching the same thing? Why are you trying to make any men teaching others how to do better with women look bad? That’s weird. If 3MM is a creep by your logic, then what you are teaching is also creepy, by your very own logic.

    Why can’t you just accept that there are in fact men out there who know more than you do with hands on experience about attracting a woman?

    “This would be great dialogue for a terrible novel. Men are evolving to dominate…priceless.”

    ummmm…. lady… that is how we as a species came to rule. the. planet.
    And is that not what the psychologist said women are attracted to? A man who can lead, and make them feel secure?

    You do realize, right, that women being the bearers of life also deem who is appropriate enough to lead her and impregnate her so that we can evolve into more complex creatures? That’s evolutionary psychology at work. And a women’s biological disposition has not changed. You even talked about it on this very blog. You mentioned hypergamy. That is vital for us. That’s what makes us as humans profoundly beautiful and interesting creatures. I don’t hate women for it like many MRAs.

    YOU want US men to evolve and lead. YOU [women] are disposed naturally to push us men into being better.

    These are the very things that man of today are trying to fix in their own personal lives… its why you find women and men single because society today has essentially raised our boys to be little girls. Once they realized they’ve been duped, they start trying to fix their lives and yet even still there are people like you who give them a hard time, telling them to “man up” when that is in fact what they are already trying to do. You understand what I’m saying? Your logic is terribly flawed lady. And you do not support game. I’m sorry. You are doing exactly what Rollo and others have said women would do if others in the manosphere go “public” with these ideas.

    I have been through many scenarios that would easily dispute everything you’ve suggested, especially couples sleeping within the hour they meet. Mind you, I don’t have a problem with you as a person. It’s just the way society has fed us (especially you apparently) into thinking a certain way, when all of these things come very natural. Men like those in the manosphere, PUAs, etc are all making light of the regurgitation that ideas like yours are erred to its very core and its not founded in nature in any shape or form.

    Look at nature taking place in this video. It’s beautiful.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    That’s not true. Roosh has predicted that Game will go mainstream in the MSM in 2013, and both Rollo and Vox Day are on board.

    I took that to mean that it will get hostile coverage in the MSM, not “go mainstream” in a friendly way.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I took that to mean that it will get hostile coverage in the MSM, not “go mainstream” in a friendly way.

      I don’t think so. I think it’s supposed to be a positive development. And I think that would be good, if Game bloggers don’t blow it by acting like total dicks.

  • Mike C

    Susan,

    Question for you. You called out Rollo for his use of “feral female” and that puts him squarely in the misogynistic camp. I’m trying to figure out exactly where these dividing lines exist.

    Does this language from Vox Day also count as misogynistic?

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/03/sexual-equality-or-freedom.html

    Because women are collectively more short-sighted and more self-centered than men, giving them an equal voice in society is tantamount to a slow-motion execution for any society. This is not theoretical, it is observable, as the equalitarian societies of Europe are already demographically in demise and in the process of losing their democracies and their property rights.

    I understand that many people believe women’s rights are important. But are they more important than property rights? Are they more important than democracy? What those who support women’s rights are understandably reluctant to accept is that equalitarianism necessarily requires the elimination of democracy, property rights, freedom of movement, and even, in the end, capitalism and most of the tenets of Western civilization. But like it or not, that is the choice that has been made, and is being made, even today.

    The Founding Fathers of the USA were no more mindless sexists than the Conscript Fathers of the Roman Senate. They knew full well what would happen if sexual equality was ever granted. It is not a coincidence, still less ironic, that those who built the greatest and freest human societies have always vehemently opposed women’s rights, while the totalitarians who most avidly sought to curtail human freedom it have tended to support them.

    I am trying to figure out if this also falls into your categorization of misogynistic?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      I am trying to figure out if this also falls into your categorization of misogynistic?

      Totally.

  • J

    Wow! Quite a thread. I’m sorry to be so tardy to this party; much of what I’d have to say about it has already been said. I will add one issue regarding the need to blog anonymously.

    While game, in and of itself is a morally neutral tool, game/manosphere blogs seem to draw commenters whose side issues are going to be repugnant to most mainstream readers. If the ‘sphere ever wants to gain mainstream credibilty a couple of things will need to happen:

    1) The ladies’ auxillary will need to stop posting about their past sluthood and cheating and/or alcoholic husbands, their BDSM-like sexual practices and their use of SSRIs and spankings to manage their depression and anxiety. While the ladies look like heroines to guys whose wives have cheated on them or denied them sex, they look unstable to the outside world.

    2) The men will need to divorce themselves from racism and anti-Semitism and general right-wing crackpottery that gathers at the fringes of the ‘sphere. Likewise the tone of bitterness, the “she done me wrong” stories, the anger, the name-calling, and the group therapy-like atmosphere really make the ‘sphere look like a freak show to the mainstream reader. For every new reader that writes “Dude, I found your blog, and I can really relate,” there are several Josh Zepps who can barely contain their amusement. Zepps reaction was sadly very predictable and one quitely likely to be shared by his audience.

    Are ‘sphere bloggers endangered socially and professionally when they are outed? Yep, damn skippy they are. But anyone with the ability to see themselves as others see them shouldn’t be too surprised as to why……….And that’s the elephant in this room no one wants to talk about.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “That’s not venomous. Sunshine Mary can correct me if I’m wrong. I believe she has stated that her husband has cheated on her 30 times? And yet she is a submissive Christian wife.

    Sorry Crisis, I do not respect that.”

    IIRC she and a few other women with dysfunctional marriages were actually advising young married women on how to have happy marriages on that blog! There was this one commenter who actually had a balanced, happy, egalitarian marriage with a man she deeply loved and who also loved her and neither had ever cheated, and SSM and Sarah’s Daughter (a particularly bitter women from a very troubled marriage herself), as well as other “submissive” women and “dominant” men were always telling her that she was a bad wife, her marriage was bad because it was “egalitarian” and that the marriage would end if she didn’t “submit”.

    And she was like the only happy woman in a trustworthy marriage on that blog!

    Truly bizarre.

    “I mostly advise women. But I care about men, and even if I didn’t, we need a large population of men who can sexually attract women. The world must be peopled!”

    We’re already over 7 billion. How many more of us do you want?!

  • modernguy

    That’s not true. Roosh has predicted that Game will go mainstream in the MSM in 2013, and both Rollo and Vox Day are on board.

    That may happen, it may not. The point is that they are not interested in “managing” it’s debut in the way you seem to think is necessary, and what your whole criticism of this interview is based on. Men are not looking at that interview thinking the guy is a coward for not showing his face. They watch the interview and see a friendly host with good social skills nonetheless admit failure with women, what must be a mid-twenties loser in grad school who is completely inept at attracting women, a meek looking guy who claims to have a live in girlfriend with a chip on his shoulder about “game”, and two babbling airheads squawking over each other to have their voices heard. And besides that, a calm, cool guy who writes a blog and claims to have an idea of what women want and where guys go wrong. It wasn’t a perfect presentation but I bet he’s going to get more pageviews for it. And that’s how game is going to capture it’s audience, in my opinon. Slow and steady, because for most guys reluctant to change their world view on a dime, it’s a difficult pill to swallow.

  • Miguel Monsivais

    @Susan Walsh: I don’t think so. I think it’s supposed to be a positive development. And I think that would be good, if Game bloggers don’t blow it by acting like total dicks.

    Why do you assume that they will go public acting like total dicks? Did George, 3MM, here act like a total dick? What constitutes a total dick to you? Someone who doesn’t teach game? There’s something fishy about that statement of yours.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Why do you assume that they will go public acting like total dicks? Did George, 3MM, here act like a total dick? What constitutes a total dick to you? Someone who doesn’t teach game? There’s something fishy about that statement of yours.

      No I don’t think George was a dick. I haven’t read his blog, but he seems decent enough, even if he didn’t acquit himself well in that interview. I have said that I think Game is potentially beneficial to many men. What is needed is an effective marketing strategy. Unfortunately, I think that amounts to doing the opposite of what most Game bloggers are doing today.

  • SayWhaat

    But anyone with the ability to see themselves as others see them shouldn’t be too surprised as to why……….And that’s the elephant in this room no one wants to talk about.

    Elephant? Where?? Is he cute?

  • Mike C

    Elephant? Where?? Is he cute?

    Yes, he is pink

  • Goldman Sucks

    “That’s not true. Roosh has predicted that Game will go mainstream in the MSM in 2013, and both Rollo and Vox Day are on board.”

    “I took that to mean that it will get hostile coverage in the MSM, not “go mainstream” in a friendly way.”

    There’s absolutely no reason why Roosh’s version of “game” should get friendly exposure. He writes that female orgasm is irrelevant and that men should purposely try to make sure their sex partners do NOT have one.

    I don’t know if he’s trying to ruin the chances of his readership EVER getting a woman in the sack so that he has more chances for himself or what. Whatever it is, its bad advise and bad science.

  • Miguel Monsivais

    @modernguy:That may happen, it may not. The point is that they are not interested in “managing” it’s debut in the way you seem to think is necessary, and what your whole criticism of this interview is based on. Men are not looking at that interview thinking the guy is a coward for not showing his face. They watch the interview and see a friendly host with good social skills nonetheless admit failure with women, what must be a mid-twenties loser in grad school who is completely inept at attracting women, a meek looking guy who claims to have a live in girlfriend with a chip on his shoulder about “game”, and two babbling airheads squawking over each other to have their voices heard. And besides that, a calm, cool guy who writes a blog and claims to have an idea of what women want and where guys go wrong. It wasn’t a perfect presentation but I bet he’s going to get more pageviews for it. And that’s how game is going to capture it’s audience, in my opinon. Slow and steady, because for most guys reluctant to change their world view on a dime, it’s a difficult pill to swallow.

    You forgot to mention that through all of that the one who turned out being the bad guy, creep, was 3MM himself. It is what Susan Walsh here apparently wants us all to believe.

  • Mike C

    Totally.

    FWIW, I respect that you answered that. I thought you might dodge that one so props for having the stones to answer. Maybe you forgot….but you might not want to link to misogynistic blogs on your blogroll.

  • SayWhaat

    Mike C, your wit resembles your brawn in sure-footedness.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Why do you assume that they will go public acting like total dicks? ”

    Roosh already has gone public acting like a total dick. See the official reactions he’s getting from a few of the countries he’s been dicking in.

  • modernguy

    You forgot to mention that through all of that the one who turned out being the bad guy, creep, was 3MM himself. It is what Susan Walsh here apparently wants us all to believe.

    Of course if he had shown his face it would be some other criticism, like he’s too ugly or something. Or failing that they’d dig into his lifestyle. Maybe he’s had too many hookups in the past year. Do you really want that kind of guy representing the manosphere!? It never ends. It’s never good enough. When you don’t want to talk about the substance the best thing to do is to keep talking about the presentation.

  • Mike C

    SW,

    :)……OK, Ana, Jackie where are you I think it is time for cat pictures! :)

  • Clarence

    J: Actually, a lot of this ‘red pill’ stuff (not just ‘game’) is going to go mainstream short of outright censorship and there’s really nothing even the worst representatives of red pill blogs can do to stop it, even if they make nothing but a habit of shooting themselves in the foot.

    Want to know why? Take a look at things like “Donglegate” (the Adria Richards fiasco), the whole “Elevatorgate” thing in the skeptic community , etc. One heck of alot of agents of social change have come to rely on hurting men in order to earn their livelihood – by being ‘professional victims’ and threatening lawsuits, relying on wealth transfers from family destruction etc. When the economy was good and most people were married (and we didn’t have nearly 30 percent ‘illegitimacy’ rates in the white community and nearly 75 percent in the black community) this process could go on, and the largely individual victims were powerless to do anything about it or get their messages out to the mainstream.

    Now the economic bubble has burst, most of the old “MSM” is losing relevancy, the second generation of men raised fatherless or raised in schools filled with feminism is growing up, and the internet has spread to most houses in the developed world. All sorts of legal and historical information can be looked up and men can share experiences.

    Sorry, this genie just keeps getting bigger and bigger. It ain’t going back in the bottle.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Susan’s response reminds me of this Commandment of Poon from Heartiste:

    XI. Be irrationally self-confident

    No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

  • J

    IIRC she and a few other women with dysfunctional marriages were actually advising young married women on how to have happy marriages on that blog! There was this one commenter who actually had a balanced, happy, egalitarian marriage with a man she deeply loved and who also loved her and neither had ever cheated, and SSM and Sarah’s Daughter (a particularly bitter women from a very troubled marriage herself), as well as other “submissive” women and “dominant” men were always telling her that she was a bad wife, her marriage was bad because it was “egalitarian” and that the marriage would end if she didn’t “submit”.

    I’d call that a pretty accurate assessment of that dialogue. I liked T; she struck me as sane and happy
    And she was like the only happy woman in a trustworthy marriage on that blog!

    And she was like the only happy woman in a trustworthy marriage on that blog!

    I found the irony of that LOL very funny.

    I have to say that I do miss SSM’s blog. It was well written, and the commentariat was very amusing in a trainwreck sort of way. I also enjoyed the pix of the panties and fuck me pumps in much the same way.

  • Miguel Monsivais

    @Susan Walsh:No I don’t think George was a dick. I haven’t read his blog, but he seems decent enough, even if he didn’t acquit himself well in that interview. I have said that I think Game is potentially beneficial to many men. What is needed is an effective marketing strategy. Unfortunately, I think that amounts to doing the opposite of what most Game bloggers are doing today.

    He didn’t acquit himself well because they didn’t give him much of a chance. Had he shown his face the host guy already had other ideas that would mentally block out anything that Georg would have said, such as anyone who goes out to better themselves as men are already missing the point because its supposed to come naturally.

    Something tells me that no matter who it would have been, and no matter what or how they would have said, you and the MSM would have made up reasons to disregard those ideas. You’ve already disregarded even Rollo which I feel he has some of the best ideas that the manosphere has out there. And I don’t know why you are already alienating yourself from even him? Does he come off like a dick to you? How would you feel if he went mainstream? Would you support him?

    Btw, does this site block out youtube or something? I made a reply to one of your posts but it didn’t show up. I’m thinking maybe because I put up a youtube so it got blocked… not sure. I would like to hear your response if you received it.

  • Sarah Liandra

    Dear Sue,

    I hope you actually reported the threats of bodily harm to you to the authorities.

    Anonymous threats over the internet are the ultimate in cowardice.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I hope you actually reported the threats of bodily harm to you to the authorities.

      Anonymous threats over the internet are the ultimate in cowardice.

      I didn’t. I was really freaked out and talked with my husband, obvs. His advice was to get the hell off the internet. It was also very unnerving that this happened on Dec. 23. I had lots of family arriving, and I was imagining bloodshed during Christmas dinner. Terrible. That’s the worst experience I’ve ever had. Thank you Dalrock and Co.

  • Miguel Monsivais

    @modernguy:Of course if he had shown his face it would be some other criticism, like he’s too ugly or something. Or failing that they’d dig into his lifestyle. Maybe he’s had too many hookups in the past year. Do you really want that kind of guy representing the manosphere!? It never ends. It’s never good enough. When you don’t want to talk about the substance the best thing to do is to keep talking about the presentation.

    I hate it when men who have slept with many women are looked on as “bad” yet if men look down on a women who’s “slept around” they deem him insecure and misogynist, etc. It’s insane. Susan Walsh here claims she’s on men’s side… but I’m not buying it. She said she supports game and bloggers, etc, but she’s managed to throw just about most of them under the bus. Hasn’t anyone caught on yet?

  • http://en.gravatar.com/marellus Marellus

    … You’re aware that your views will be rejected in a civilized world, but that you can curry favor with deeply disappointed and disenfranchised men by setting women up as the enemy.
    You’re not helping young guys get relationships, you’re trying to gird guys for battle. Your battle.

    … there are so many of them … so many …

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan Walsh

    And yet many Game sites are extremely misogynistic, and not because they disagree with feminist talking points.

    Regarding Good Luck Chuck, that has nothing to do with him and his own situation. The danger remains: if they perceive him as a misogynist (disagreeing with feminist talking points does that) they will attack him just like the guys Adria Richards twitter-shamed (though they weren’t talking about women.)

    Such callous disregard for false accusation.

  • Mike C

    Something tells me that no matter who it would have been, and no matter what or how they would have said, you and the MSM would have made up reasons to disregard those ideas. You’ve already disregarded even Rollo which I feel he has some of the best ideas that the manosphere has out there. And I don’t know why you are already alienating yourself from even him? Does he come off like a dick to you? How would you feel if he went mainstream? Would you support him?

    Hahahahahahaha….I laughed out loud at this. Support? If you imagine pure archnemesis and up the ante by a factor of 1000x you’d then have the dynamic between the two of them.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Other anonymous bloggers have been portrayed as modern day equivalents of Lex Luthor, cooking up misogyny underground. Marginal Revolution blogger Tyler Cowen (real name) has called Roissy evil, even as he has pitied him:

    Can he still be saved by a good woman? Indeed there are so many good women out there and yet not one has saved him to date. If only he would read Henry James’s ”Beast in the Jungle.”

    Poor Roissy. Poor, poor Roissy.”

    Excuse me for the bad language but WHY THE F*CK would a “good woman” want to “save” Roissy?

    What on earth would be in it for her? An unattractive, unemployed ex-government worker drone pushing 50 who spends his days, nights AND weekends writing bad copy of what he perceives to be Old English?!?!?

  • J

    J: Actually, a lot of this ‘red pill’ stuff (not just ‘game’) is going to go mainstream short of outright censorship and there’s really nothing even the worst representatives of red pill blogs can do to stop it, even if they make nothing but a habit of shooting themselves in the foot.

    Mainstream in what way? I’ve seen some amusing send ups of game in the MSM. I believe CSI did a show in which the murderer kills a guy for gaming his sister.

    As to Donglegate, I agree it was ridiculous. At the risk of sounding like an old lady, I remember a time when Ms. Richards would have simply been told that it’s rude to eavesdrop on conversations that don’t concern you.

  • Mike C

    Goldman Sucks = PJ?

  • Mike C

    Mainstream in what way?

    What was it your son said the other day that gave Susan a heart attack?
    The younger guys are growing up with entirely different attitudes than us Gen Xers did.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      What was it your son said the other day that gave Susan a heart attack?
      The younger guys are growing up with entirely different attitudes than us Gen Xers did.

      Wasn’t it that he wanted a girl too stupid to make her own decisions?

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Miguel Monstralis

    Susan Walsh here claims she’s on men’s side… but I’m not buying it. She said she supports game and bloggers, etc, but she’s managed to throw just about most of them under the bus. Hasn’t anyone caught on yet?

    Oh, I certainly have. The devil is in the detail:

    “If what they have to say would jeopardize their careers in male-dominated industries, or destroy their personal relationships, then maybe their message needs rethinking as well. [emphasis mine]

    I don’t ever remember her being this hostile to the manosphere as a whole. Shaming? All because 3MM didn’t stick his neck out in front of the MSM, who will never give the manosphere a fair hearing anyway (so there’s no point in playing by the rules of what a “fair discussion” should be like, since the game is rigged)?

    It’s as if Susan is a different person.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I don’t ever remember her being this hostile to the manosphere as a whole. Shaming? All because 3MM didn’t stick his neck out in front of the MSM, who will never give the manosphere a fair hearing anyway (so there’s no point in playing by the rules of what a “fair discussion” should be like, since the game is rigged)?

      This is bad strategy. The sphere is currently a fringe group representing a tiny, eensy weensy percentage of American males. A more polished presentation would make Game available to millions of guys.

  • http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com George

    Susan, you attack me hysterically based on my anonymity, rather than engaging at length with what I have to say. Then, you wonder why we decide to stay anonymous when we blog about these issues. You are just further reinforcing the decisions of those who choose not to disclose their identities.

    Please engage with the subject matter and I will write back.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @George

      There is nothing hysterical in my response. I have noted that you made some good points. I also saw on your blog that you don’t tolerate misogyny, a good sign on a Game blog.

      But why were you anonymous? That set you up for ridicule. You’re an Australian expat living in Scandinavia – why not write under your own name? The hiding is what makes the whole thing seem sketchy. And Game is not sketchy, or at least it needn’t be. If you’d been present during that interview, you would have been right in there with Golland. You and she were on the same page anyway! I really see it as a wasted opportunity. There’s nothing shameful about Game. So why keep it a secret?

  • J

    Mike, do you seriously think my son needed the covert influence of the ‘sphere to come with a comment like that? Or that comments of that sort haven’t been around since the day the first men started talking. C’mon……

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Mainstream in what way? I’ve seen some amusing send ups of game in the MSM. I believe CSI did a show in which the murderer kills a guy for gaming his sister.”

    Its been mainstream for a decade already. MTV’s The Pick Up Artist series premiered 7 years ago.

    Yawn.

    Now what about Obama signing that Monsanto bill?

  • http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com George

    Susan, in regards to what you have said about my eye contact post and comparing it to being a ‘douche bag’ or ‘serial killer’. I think that this is an APPALLING misrepresentation and that you should be utterly ashasmed for making it. Again, why would I want my personal life to be sullied with these baseless and shamless accusations that you are making?

    In terms of ‘appropriateness’.
    When people are in a relationship, they spend more time looking in each other’s eyes than would be considered ‘appropriate’ in most situations. Similarly, prior to getting to that stage, a man and woman who are attracted to each other will usually hold eye contact longer than is ‘appropriate’ in most situations.

    The same thing applies to touching someone else’s hand. In most situations, any time at all would be longer than ‘appropriate’. Between two people who are attracted to each other, this is entirely normal.

    I seriously can’t believe I’m having to spell this out. If you can’t understand that some things between a man and women are appropriate that in broader society would be inappropriate, I suggest you shouldn’t be providing advice on male/female dynamics.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    You tell men in the manosphere to stick their necks out, talking about their topics but not being too harsh with women.

    Good Luck Chuck states that he remains anonymous because someone might perceive him as misogynistic and try to get him fired, even if he wasn’t too harsh.

    Then you insult him, saying that maybe he deserves to be fired for misogyny, not even acknowledging the possibility of misunderstanding or overreaction.

    +++++
    The post in question:
    @Good Luck Chuck

    If I were to use my real identity in the manosphere all it would take is for one person to stumble across a comment that *might” be able to be misconstrued as misogynistic or distasteful and my ass is toast. Not only could it damage my reputation and cost me sales, but it could very well RUIN my business.

    I’m not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

    *Might?* How about if it is misogynistic and your ass deserves to be toast?
    +++++

    This is venomous and hateful. Sorry Susan, I just don’t respect that.

  • Jackie

    @Mike C (223)
    Hi! :-) *waves*

    Cat pics?
    *wiggles ponytail* *presto*
    fatcatart.ru/gallery-2/?lang=en

    I like the one with Venus Cat on a half shell! ;-)
    ===
    If I may, I did have a thought on the discussion:

    I don’t have a dog in this fight, so I’m not quite sure of what the current goal of this movement is. Is it to gain traction in the mainstream? To rally supporters? Stay a fringe movement? The aim feels, to me, nebulous at present.

    If the aim and wish is to gain traction, any movement –or “face” of a movement– has had to take massive amounts of constructive criticism and polishing of narrative. (If they are interested in long-term sustainability, as opposed to being a flash in the pan, I mean.)

    In my own life, this has been quite challenging. I remember getting some professional criticism that was actually quite cruel. (The person issuing it was an extremely weak man who would bolster his ego by diminishing others; a middle-aged man belittling a teenage girl is pretty pathetic.)

    Yet, there was grain of truth and usefulness in his bloated ego droppings and toxic shaming. I learned both the professional point and that there are much healthier ways of communicating. (The contempt he had for others eventually blew up in his face. Karma lives!)

    I think it boils down to this: What do you want to achieve? From there, as the great Anna Pavlova said, To follow without halt one aim, there’s the secret of success.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/sunshinemary sunshinemary

    Oh my goodness, J and Goldman Sucks, you silly geese! “T” was a troll, a made up character played by several different people. S/he couldn’t even keep her story straight from day to day. She was not a happy young woman in an egalitarian marriage. Anyway, there is no such thing as an “egalitarian” marriage; that’s just code for “bossy wife”.

    As an aside: the advice that Sarah’s Daughter and I gave was based on hard-learned lessons on what not to do; we were unsubmissive and disrespectful and consequently lacked peace and joy in the early years of our marriages. We would like to see young women take Ephesian 5:22-24 to heart:

    Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

    @ Mrs. Walsh
    I really don’t understand why you would not respect a woman who stands by her husband and honors her promise of “until death do us part.” Do you really advise women to be that unforgiving? For my part, I realize that I am as much a sinner in need of forgiveness as my husband. Jesus taught us: He who has been forgiven little loves little and he who has been forgiven much loves much.

  • Major Clanger

    Spreading game is a battle, we should be looking to win the war. The msm is the enemy, no need to engage it on its terms – As the show showed…no need for a media meisterplan

  • http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com George

    “There is nothing hysterical in my response”

    “George claimed that he has to stay anonymous to protect the identity of his readers, which is obviously BS.”

    “A blogger who hides behind an empty screen demonstrates that he does not have the courage of his convictions. He is not willing to be interviewed and state what he believes..”

    “That post sounded downright creepy when directly quoted by the host. The confident version is douchebag, the less confident version is serial killer.”

    Susan, hysterical is a completely apt word.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @George

      Susan, hysterical is a completely apt word.

      Hysteria is uncontrolled extreme emotion, and is derived from the Greek hystera, or uterus. It’s nothing but shaming language.

      So let’s unpack this rationally.

      “George claimed that he has to stay anonymous to protect the identity of his readers, which is obviously BS.”

      How would your writing under your own name expose your readers? What does their identity have to do with yours? I’ve received almost three quarters of a million comments on this site and have never exposed a reader, though I have written about their personal lives many times.

      “That post sounded downright creepy when directly quoted by the host. The confident version is douchebag, the less confident version is serial killer.”

      Example: Handsome, confident guy maintains eye contact longer than is appropriate, meaning long enough to make the woman feel profoundly uncomfortable (since that is what inappropriate behavior does to people). He then smirks and slides his glance sideways. Douche.

      Less handsome guy with social anxiety holds eye contact longer than is appropriate, making the woman feel downright alarmed. She looks around nervously, planning her escape. When she turns back she sees his lips moving as he counts to three, then his eyes dart nervously to the left. Serial killer.

  • Major Clanger

    Good luck with your challenge girls. Hope it works (no sarc intended)

  • J

    Wasn’t it that he wanted a girl too stupid to make her own decisions?

    Yes. It was part of a larger discussion prompted by the engagement of an older friend. The engagement led one of the older women present to ask the young men what they were looking for in a wife or girlfriend. I mentioned a particular young lady as a possible date for a one of the guys, but he turned her down as too old as she was a few months older than hime and he wanted someone at least a year younger. My older son joked that the young man needed to have a girl who was inferior to him in at least one way so he could “keep her down.” This generated some laughter at the young man. At that point, my younger son made the remark above.

    I later made the point that my son will probably end with a reasonably strong woman despite his protestations. He’s going to be a strong man who will need a strong woman. And since I view marriage as two horses, yoked together, pulling in the same direction, I hope he does meet someone strong enough to be a good match. I wouldn’t want him to be with a girl who can’t pull her own weight.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ sunshinemary

    You no longer have your blog, so you can’t defend yourself properly. You had an excellent blog; Susan and Goldman Sucks and J are just kicking you while you’re down because you’re now an easy target.

    Note how Susan gratuitously bashed Good Luck Chuck, who was worried about false accusations of misogyny ruining his livelihood.

  • http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com George

    “Bt why were you anonymous? That set you up for ridicule.

    You called my reason BS. Why should I give you another one?

    “The hiding is what makes the whole thing seem sketchy.”

    No, you would have decided it was sketchy regardless, aka your hysterical and bizarre attack on my post on eye contact. I’ve spelled it out for you above since you twisted it so horifically.

    “There’s nothing shameful about Game. So why keep it a secret?”

    Apart from you comparing the advice I wrote to sounding downright creepy or like a serial killer? I cannot take you seriously Susan.

  • Major Clanger

    STRANGE, I always thought that T was J coming back for a rematch…another fine theory hits the buffers

  • Goldman Sucks

    Mike C April 5, 2013 at 12:21 am

    “Susan,

    Question for you. You called out Rollo for his use of “feral female” and that puts him squarely in the misogynistic camp. I’m trying to figure out exactly where these dividing lines exist.

    Does this language from Vox Day also count as misogynistic?

    http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/03/sexual-equality-or-freedom.html

    Because women are collectively more short-sighted and more self-centered than men, giving them an equal voice in society is tantamount to a slow-motion execution for any society. This is not theoretical, it is observable, as the equalitarian societies of Europe are already demographically in demise and in the process of losing their democracies and their property rights………”

    Yeah, Susan’s support for V.Day is baffling. I take it she has only ventured occasionally, if that, over to his “Alpha Game” blog and not his Vox Populi blog which is full of what J describes below that the Manosphere will have to divorce itself from;

    J, ” The men will need to divorce themselves from racism and anti-Semitism and general right-wing crackpottery that gathers at the fringes of the ‘sphere. ”

    Being that Susan describes herself as a “Massachusetts Liberal” there is no way her social and cultural values could mesh with the one’s V.Day professes at that particular blog.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Being that Susan describes herself as a “Massachusetts Liberal” there is no way her social and cultural values could mesh with the one’s V.Day professes at that particular blog.

      I am not a MA liberal. In MA, I’m far to the right of center, but nowhere near VD.

      VD: Perhaps Susan is correct and equalitarianism is not the cancerous rot I believe it to be. Or perhaps I am correct and it is eating away at civilization. In either case, Susan and I are able to differ and discuss our conceptual differences without it negatively affecting our positive mutual regard.

      Exactly. Mike C has been playing, “Let’s Susan and VD fight” for months now. I have no intention of indulging him.

      I’d even welcome your contribution, Susan, if you’d care to provide me with what you would consider to be the definitive “women’s rights”.

      Ha, tempting but I’ll pass. I look forward to reading your posts, though.

  • Anacaona

    OK, Ana, Jackie where are you I think it is time for cat pictures!

    Last time I tried that I was accused of wanting the fight to end because I supported the ‘winning’ side. I’m just thinking on what can be more powerful than cute cats to stop a fight this days *backtothedrawingboard*

    Mainstream in what way? I’ve seen some amusing send ups of game in the MSM. I believe CSI did a show in which the murderer kills a guy for gaming his sister.
    The Big Bang Theory, XKCD had referred to it too. Of course they mock the concept and the results but they did mention them.

  • J

    Oh my goodness, J and Goldman Sucks, you silly geese! “

    Oh my socks and garters, I find you to be quite the silly goose yourself! OTOH, whatever gets you through the night.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Anyway, there is no such thing as an “egalitarian” marriage; that’s just code for “bossy wife”.”

    Your husband cheated on you multiple times. You wouldn’t know “egalitarian” from a hole in your head.

    “As an aside: the advice that Sarah’s Daughter and I gave was based on hard-learned lessons on what not to do; we were unsubmissive and disrespectful and consequently lacked peace and joy in the early years of our marriages.”

    After you became submissive did your husband completely stop cheating on you?

    “We would like to see young women take Ephesian 5:22-24 to heart”

    This is not a Christian blog. We’ve got atheists, Jews, Hindus and others on here.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ George

    She has attacked every manosphere writer of significance, and even the very concept of anonymously blogging about these things.

    I’m not so sure she wants anything to do with the ‘sphere.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Crisis

      I’m not so sure she wants anything to do with the ‘sphere.

      I do not seek a formal alliance or partnership with the ‘sphere. I incorporate discussions of Game, sex differences, feminism and misandry into my own work.

      The manosphere has actively been seeking and promoting itself to the mainstream media. Vox Day has made the claim that I have benefited from MSM attention because I am a woman, while equally qualified male bloggers have been ignored.

      Dalrock’s analysis of statistics sources was linked by Ross Douthat in the NYXs, and this was rightly greeted with warm congratulations all around. Joyous cries of “Here comes the manosphere!” were heard round the world. Although much of the writing is far too pathological to achieve broad acceptance, there are some potential benefits to men in sharing what we know about sex differences, and female sexuality in particular. However, like any group, whether formally organized or loosely affiliated, representatives who can communicate effectively are needed. Once people use the word “manosphere” in the MSM, that’s it. That’s your identity. Right now that’s not in very good shape, IMO.

      Now, none of this is relevant if the sphere has no desire to propagate its ideas or influence mainstream thinking in this country, as Brendan has suggested. However, I wrote this post under a different impression, as explained above.

      Personally, I think Game could benefit a great many young guys. For years, it’s been discredited by shady PUA types who are only interested in “what works” without regard to ethics. Also, the neg is a very unfortunate tactic. That single small bit of Game has provided many, many rounds of ammunition to feminists and other skeptics.

  • J

    STRANGE, I always thought that T was J coming back for a rematch…another fine theory hits the buffers

    Oh goodness, no. I’ve long given up trying to talk to people at Dalrock. And if I did post there, I’d do it as J. There’s no reeason to make up a new screen name.

  • Clarence

    I have to agree with George about your characterizations of him, Susan.
    They did seem to vary from post to post and certainly weren’t all flattering.
    Now in your defense I will state that I don’t believe you meant you believe he was like a serial killer (“seems like” is almost certainly you saying thats how he looked to a mainstream viewer) or any of that, but I certainly understand how he could take it that way.

    As for him living in Sweden, well, currently the Scandanavian countries are run by some of the most radical feminist regimes on the planet. Only the fact that even most divorced people have extended families that stay close (and thus most fathers are somewhat in their childrens lives divorce or no) and most of their penal punishments are very light (in Sweden you can get as little as 2 years for rape – this may seem horrid for rape victims until you remember just what they consider rape to be in Sweden and how defendants in Sweden don’t have all of America’s ‘due process’ rights) keep them from being absolutely horrid places for a man to live. Heck, in Norway, some of them would like to get “antifeminism” outlawed: http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/norwegian-experts-want-to-work-against-antifeminism/

    Anyway, it’s stuff like this that undoubtedly would make it much harder for someone like George to be openly anti-feminist in a Scandinavian country.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      Now in your defense I will state that I don’t believe you meant you believe he was like a serial killer (“seems like” is almost certainly you saying thats how he looked to a mainstream viewer) or any of that, but I certainly understand how he could take it that way.

      I apologize if my remark implied I thought George was a serial killer. That was not my intention. I only meant that a guy who holds eye contact for longer than is appropriate will get different results based on his SMV, as well as his level of comfort and ease in his own skin. Unfortunately, I’ve witnessed some men applying this kind of literal instruction to their movements when there was no inner game in place, and the result was awkward and a bit alarming. As Zepps pointed out, this does not address anything intrinsic. However, I am no Game instructor and have no wish to teach Game. I simply agree with Zepps – those kinds of tactics are inauthentic in and of themselves without actual self-development, or inner game.

      Anyway, it’s stuff like this that undoubtedly would make it much harder for someone like George to be openly anti-feminist in a Scandinavian country.

      Is George an MRA? Why would he have to be anti-feminist to write about Game? I don’t understand.

  • J

    The Big Bang Theory, XKCD had referred to it too. Of course they mock the concept and the results but they did mention them

    Generally derisively, but yes, a mention is a mention.

  • Major Clanger

    It was just a theory…with no consequences whether right or wrong.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “I defended Susan at Dalrocks over an attack by CL. ”

    CL, isn’t that the lady who also calls herself “Thug Jones”?

    “…CL took a singular comment of Susans out of context and accused Susan of being a moral relativist.”

    Moral relativist? Any relation to “cultural marxist”?

  • Major Clanger

    So many women concern troll over the presentation of the spheracle message. The message is seldom intended for those of a delicate set of sensibilities. It’s for MEN! Leave it alone. By the time you make it media friendly it has no meaning, the MSM (if unable to ignore the issue) will try to ridicule it. Failing that it will try to polish it to ‘the patriarchy hurts men too – you should support feminism because it cares about men too’ (see? Feminists do have a sense of humour.)

  • J

    @MC

    TBH, I’m a little hurt. Have you ever know me to be less than forthright? That multiple screen name nonsense is below me.

    But I’ll forgive you because you’re witty. :-)

  • Anacaona

    We would like to see young women take Ephesian 5:22-24 to heart:
    Why do you not quote the companion to this for the husbands?
    “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ”
    Did Christ betrayed The Church?
    I really don’t understand why you would not respect a woman who stands by her husband and honors her promise of “until death do us part.” Do you really advise women to be that unforgiving? For my part, I realize that I am as much a sinner in need of forgiveness as my husband. Jesus taught us: He who has been forgiven little loves little and he who has been forgiven much loves much.
    Hebrews 13:4 also says
    “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”

  • Goldman Sucks

    Commandment of Poon from Heartiste:

    XI. Be irrationally self-confident

    “…Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.”

    Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!!

    Of course his confidence is irrational. He has nothing to be genuinely confident about.

  • Clarence

    I miss Aldonza.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I miss Aldonza.

      Don’t we all! Ironically, she left because she could not bear the commentary of the men here. She found it openly misogynistic and plagued with negativity. She felt that way for a long time and disagreed with my willingness to entertain all points of view. Ultimately, she grew tired of debating “Roe for Men” and other MRA-friendly topics and said goodbye forever.

  • Erasmus

    @Clarence

    Previously you were too vague for me to provide substantive rebuttals. Now that you have addressed civil code countries, I retract my previous accusation. You are completely divorced from reality.
    If you wish to challenge this assertion, please cite a statute that exemplifies Scandinavian countries as being “some of the most radical feminist regimes on the planet.” Oh, and please tell me more about the lack of due process, you pathetic clown.
    Of course you can’t and won’t.

  • Major Clanger

    @J
    Witty? Awwwwwh shucks *blushes in a manly way*

    I intended no judgement over the different name. I use different names all over the place. The style is always the same, but I have no interest in having a coherent web-persona across sites. Would be nice to say hello to familiar characters, I guess, but sooner or later they recognise me (assuming that they even care).

    An obvious example is American Yogini; My love for PJ cannot be hidden, whatever we call ourselves. BTW What did she do this time, my caring, guiding hand being absent? Can’t someone else help her stay on track? In a kindly way? She ain’t so bad as long as she gets peejcon status alerts framed in a friendly way. Come on you Christian folk…

    Isn’t it bedtime? I think that the party died. I have to get up soon

  • Anacaona

    Shut up, PJ

  • INTJ

    Game doesn’t need to go mainstream. Most guys are already aware of the principles involved, even if they’ve never heard of game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXjIvvaTL6o

  • Major Clanger

    Awwwh don’t be like that PJ

    Roissy is a cracking writer. I love many of his insights. I’m not personally interested in living his lifestyle, but I love his blog. He was my gateway to the sphere, gotta love him for that. Some English super independent yugogirl bubblehead called him ‘he who must not be named’ and admitted a fixation on him…I tracked a link down on her neurotic blog. Et voila le chateau

  • Clarence

    Erasmus:
    Go fuck yourself.
    Be civil or don’t expect civility from me.
    I make no claim to be a lawyer but I doubt your law degree gives you the license to practice in Scandanavia. I researched their laws some with the help of some Swedish translators back during the opening days of the Julian Assange trial.

    But I’m far more familiar with American law. So have at it. Here’s a challenge to you shit-for-brains – give me an example of a single CIVIL OR CRIMINAL law in the US that currently either punishes women more for the same crime or forbids them from doing something that a man can currently due on the basis of his sex alone. And due to the recent policy change, ‘join ground combat units in the military’ (as if this is a freaking privilege) is not one of them. Go on.

    Come on, I’m waiting. I have child support laws, rape law, and tons of other examples waiting to shove in your face.

  • Major Clanger

    Bye bye sweetie moffagin

  • INTJ

    @ George

    “There is nothing hysterical in my response”

    “George claimed that he has to stay anonymous to protect the identity of his readers, which is obviously BS.”

    “A blogger who hides behind an empty screen demonstrates that he does not have the courage of his convictions. He is not willing to be interviewed and state what he believes..”

    “That post sounded downright creepy when directly quoted by the host. The confident version is douchebag, the less confident version is serial killer.”

    Susan, hysterical is a completely apt word.

    QFT.

  • Clarence

    Sigh. I should have said Julian Assange case as he’s never made it to trial. More to the point (though some stupid lawyer thinks otherwise) I linked to some of the shenanigans of feminist groups in those countries. I can link to far more.

  • INTJ

    @ Erasmus

    Julian Assange. ‘Nuff said. No matter your opinion of his politics, you have to admit that the whole rape thing is downright ridiculous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVt-WD-p950

  • Clarence

    INTJ:
    http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Rule-of-Law.html

    That’s just some more. But I suppose all those people and MRA’s like Pele Billing are just a bunch of liars. By the way, this guy ALSO didn’t catch that I said defendant’s in Sweden don’t have ALL (emphasis mine) of American due process rights. Apparently this goofball thinks due process in Sweden and due process in America are exactly the same.

    By the way goofball, if you do bother to try and put your money where your mouth is please be notified:
    A. I am aware that family law, rape law, and some C.S statutes (though the CS tends to be far more standardized due to Federal involvement) do vary across States. Pointing out that some law is not that way in some state is not an argument against it being that way in another state.
    B. I am aware that there is no universal legal license in the US. Thus, you are not an expert on all state laws, so you aren’t going to bluff me. Indeed, since you want to spout your legal credentials perhaps you could tell me which state you got your degree in , which states you are licensed to practice in, and what areas of law you specialize in. You know. To try and intimidate me with your expertise and all that.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “I’m not personally interested in living his lifestyle”

    Lifestyle?
    Unemployed? On line almost all day and night and entire weekends furiously promptly deleting any and all comments that remotely suggest there are other opinions out here besides his own? Comments that suggest black people are human or, gasp, have IQs higher than 80?

    Now, if he is employed then the time he spends online is even more curious.

    Lifestyle, my ass.

    J is right about the racism in the Manosphere. She says its on the periphery. I see it smack dab in the middle. Either way, ITS NOT SEXY and probably one of the many reasons these guys can’t get laid.

  • Erasmus

    Clarence, you made the initial claim. I never said that there was any statute that “either punishes women more for the same crime or forbids them from doing something that a man can currently due on the basis of his sex alone.”
    I am asking you: how does the law afforded greater privileges to women than men?
    The only examples that come to mind immediately(still recovering from the bar) are rape(which can be explained away by less than thorough legislative drafting. Yes, men can be raped by women.), abortion(which is a distinction that would quickly fall away if somehow men were able to carry offspring to term), and military service(particularly the SSS which is long overdue for an update). The notion that contemporary family law is somehow weighted against men is ludicrous.

    You are correct that I am not licensed to practice outside of the United States and its holdings. However, I have studied comparative civil and criminal law and procedure, as well as the jurisprudential roots of both common law and civil code back to Rome.

    Just a heads up though. I probably won’t get back to this thread for about fourteen hours (sleep, morning meetings, and some motions I need to file). But if you would like to continue, please feel free.

  • Erasmus

    INTJ, the Assange situation is screwed up, I’ll admit.
    Clarence, I’m not sure what you mean by C.S, but I’ll be glad to address it when I get back.
    I’m not posting my entire CV on this forum. I graduated from an accredited school, passed my state’s bar exam, and am admitted to practice in my state’s federal courts. My state does not recognize specialization for attorneys.
    Later, champ.

  • v

    Here’s why women like “bad boys.” Bad boys are men who rank lower in impulse control and more frequently do ‘bad things.’ Men who have lower levels of impulse control approach more women. Men who approach more women have more sex than men who approach fewer women. Also, of the women these men approach, they are more successful with women who are susceptible to this type of man. More sex means more children–more male children with a tendency to lower impulse control and more women with greater susceptibility to low impulse control men. In other words, men have an innate tendency toward low impulse control and women have an innate preference for low-impulse men. Although these characteristics might be controlled by education and socialization, they are a powerful influence in an era when education and socialization toward impulse control is lacking.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @V

      In other words, men have an innate tendency toward low impulse control and women have an innate preference for low-impulse men. Although these characteristics might be controlled by education and socialization, they are a powerful influence in an era when education and socialization toward impulse control is lacking.

      Well said.

  • Miguel Monsivais

    Susan Walsh:This is bad strategy. The sphere is currently a fringe group representing a tiny, eensy weensy percentage of American males. A more polished presentation would make Game available to millions of guys.

    Susan Walsh, listen closely. This “sphere” sure does represent a “fringe group” because a lot of men in America are being force fed by society with ideas such as yours. Then when the manosphere come out to the public like George here questioning the norm, they get ridiculed by the likes of you. All this fringe is are men realizing the BS and it is these very few men who are out there making a name for themselves achieving things, and gaining control of their own lives, albeit at the risk of being vilified.

    So when you say, “a more polished representation” all you are saying is you’d rather have a processed unnatural appeal to the masses the kinds that make it okay for the rest of the world in other words “feminized”, unlike the organic and raw male energy that these people in the manosphere are finding out for themselves. The moment we budge, that is when we lose and we don’t get laid.

    Why do you want something unnatural? Don’t you appreciate the men who are out there improving their lives without the influence of female energy? Do you not believe in polarity between sexes and relationships? I’m sure you like it when your husband behaves like a man. That is all that those in the manosphere are finding out for themselves. I really don’t know why its such a hard thing to at least consider.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Miguel

      Bah, I just typed out a long response to you and my laptop hiccuped. I’ll try to hit the high spots.

      I didn’t ridicule George, the host did that. I am simply pointing out that Game and now the manosphere specifically, have a big image problem. Now, that’s irrelevant if the manosphere doesn’t care about its image or seek mainstream acceptance of its ideas. However, most of the prominent sphere bloggers have stated that as a specific goal.

      You’re focused on what gets Miguel laid, and there’s nothing wrong with that. You couldn’t care less who goes on TV and looks (or sounds) foolish.

      For my part, I have publicly discussed all of these ideas, including in interviews with journalists, and have been told point blank on several occasions that I had shifted their thinking, especially around the nature of the contemporary SMP, and how that reflects the changes that feminism wrought. The only negative response I have ever received was from radfems at feministing, Marcotte, etc.

      The reality is that there are many women, especially Millennials, who feel no allegiance to feminism whatsoever, are angry that the SMP is so hostile in general, and want to see change. Many are willing to make personal decisions to help effect that change.

      In my opinion, it would be a good thing for young people of both sexes if helpful information could be disseminated in a forthright manner. I simply do not accept that men will lose their jobs for this.

      Of course, I haven’t been writing rants filled with obscenities, vague threats of personal harm, revenge fantasies, and a persecution complex about Fem-Centrism. Most days I don’t sound like a lunatic.

  • Clarence

    Erasmus:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/ncfm-sues-selective-service-for-sex-discrimination/
    http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html
    I’m unaware of any statutorily raped girl that has ever had to pay child support to her rapist.
    I also like how guys can be raped when passed out and forced to pay, and can have sperm downright stolen by women they didn’t even have sex with and be forced to pay. I’m sure that “unequal situation” rationalization for these inequities and abominable practices makes lots of sense now that women have regular birth control, abortion, adoption (check into ‘putative father registry’) and abandonment statues. I just love this double talk from the final paragraph:

    “Both men and women have reproductive rights and responsibilities. By virtue of biology, because a woman is the one to bear the child, it so happens that men must exercise their rights not to bear children earlier than women, that is, in the bedroom and not at the abortion clinic or the courtroom.”
    Actually, this does not follow at all. I’d say with absolute power (and as I just showed the law does give absolute power to a woman no matter how she gets a mans sperm) should come absolute responsibility. It would make sense to make a man ‘pay up’ back in the past when there were no hormonal sources of birth control, no legal abortions and no welfare whatsoever, but it makes absolutely no sense today esp as ‘no fault’ divorce punishes men who do the right thing. Dalrock, today, has a post where he mentions that it wasn’t until 1973 that the SCOTUS invalidated state laws that did not mandate that men pay for illegitimate children, and while I would never socially shame or discriminate against a child based solely on to whom or how it was born, all such laws(mandating support outside of wedlock) do is incentivize fatherless child bearing.

    Rape Law:
    Now , I will state that more men than most think are raped by females by any definition of the word. Even when you only consider the female to have to penetrate the male with something, you still get a victimization rate of female rapist/male victim of around 1.5 percent:
    http://www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/

    And of course some States don’t allow for the rape of men at all, meanwhile I have not found one statute (though I haven’t checked all 50 states yet) that allows for forced sex (not just penetration) by a woman done to a man to be considered rape.

    All that being said, I still think the vast majority of forced rapes are male perps and female victims. Ok, so you are accused of rape. Overwhelmingly you will be a male, not a female. What do you run into when you go into that courtroom?
    A. Rape Shield laws , which while necessary, can often be overbroad.
    http://daltondailycitizen.com/local/x1221097368/Life-after-accusation
    B. Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and apparently similar state laws:
    “Congress, however, was dissatisfied with the low conviction rates in sexual assault and child molestation cases and decided to float new rules of evidence in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.[21] These rules would have been contrary to the general propensity character proscription and allowed for the admission of evidence of a defendant’s prior crimes, wrongs, or acts to prove, “once, a rapist, always a rapist,” “once a child molester, always a child molester,” or any other relevant matter. These new rules were sent for public comment to judges, lawyers, law professors, and legal organizations, with the “overwhelming majority” of respondents opposing the new rules.[22] Given this response, Congress decided to bypass the typical rulemaking process to enact what are now Federal Rules of Evidence 413-415 (with Rule 415 applying in civil cases).[23] A number of states followed suit in the ensuing years, with Nebraska joining their ranks in 2010.[24]”

    http://lawreviewbulletin.unl.edu/?p=1060
    So rape, which is considered by most people to be a ‘gendered’ crime gets its own special rules to help ensure conviction. Like my previous link showed have yourself an overbroadly drafted or interpreted rape shield and have yourself a state level 413 so you can prejudice the Jury against the defendant by bringing in cases where the guy was acquitted or even which never made it to court in the first place.

    Well, that’s enough for now. Let’s see how you respond.

  • VD

    In your post about media attention, I happily cosigned your claim that Roissy is a more original thinker than I am.

    Yes, I expected you to recognize that wasn’t a criticism and you didn’t disappoint me. He’s a more original thinker than I am too.

    With regards to the media, I think what some of the men are missing here is that you’re talking about pure rhetoric. They’re talking about dialectic. To a certain extent, you’re talking past each other.

  • VD

    I am trying to figure out if this also falls into your categorization of misogynistic?
    Totally.

    (laughs) I should say this is a simple category error. To assert that the observable, demonstrable, provable contradiction between women’s rights and the rights upon which Western civilization are founded could somehow be misogynistic to set oneself against logic, history, and reality itself. But no one need take my word for it; as I plan to methodically prove it, conclusively, in a series of forthcoming posts.

    I’d even welcome your contribution, Susan, if you’d care to provide me with what you would consider to be the definitive “women’s rights”.

    Yeah, Susan’s support for V.Day is baffling. I take it she has only ventured occasionally, if that, over to his “Alpha Game” blog and not his Vox Populi blog which is full of what J describes below that the Manosphere will have to divorce itself from

    Susan is entirely familiar with VP and I’m sure she can speak for herself. But I suspect that she understands that while my reasoning is, like everyone else’s, tainted by my personal feelings, I generally manage to excise them in the arguments I present. Also, we have more or less similar objectives, in that we both value civilization. We simply happen to have some differences of opinion regarding how various processes effect it and how it is best preserved. Perhaps Susan is correct and equalitarianism is not the cancerous rot I believe it to be. Or perhaps I am correct and it is eating away at civilization. In either case, Susan and I are able to differ and discuss our conceptual differences without it negatively affecting our positive mutual regard.

    Consider, too, that I am a Christian who wishes to preserve Western civilization and Roissy is a nihilist who wishes to fiddle and fuck while it burns, and yet no one ever seems to question our mutual regard.

    None of us have intersexual relations and their effect on civilization entirely correct. No one does. The only question is where each of us happens to be wrong, and to what extent. But what I recognize in all of the major Game bloggers, from Roissy’s brilliant, misanthropic nihilism to Susan’s male-friendly modest equalitarianism, is that they ultimately seek the truth. And that is something that I value in others, particularly in the intelligent, because these days, so many are actively seeking to avoid it, if not bury it.

    We all have a role to play in the continued development of Game. Athol, Roissy, Roosh, Rollo, Dalrock, Susan, and others still to come. Our personal differences, our likes and dislikes, are largely irrelevant.

  • VD

    J, ” The men will need to divorce themselves from racism and anti-Semitism and general right-wing crackpottery that gathers at the fringes of the ‘sphere.

    Translation: “The men will need to divorce themselves from science and accurate historical observation and general liberty-oriented that is gathering rapidly growing numbers.”

    I don’t think you understand how small and intellectually irrelevant the mainstream media is becoming, or how fast people are coming to understand that the “crackpots” were much more correct than the “serious” people. These are times of crisis and it is increasingly evident that the entire conceptual system is built on a foundation of deceit and fraud.

  • OffTheCuff

    Back to white text on white again. Intetional change or is it randomly flipping?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Back to white text on white again. Intetional change or is it randomly flipping?

      I can’t figure this out! I am doing absolutely nothing. How many people are having this problem?

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Susan, you do realize that any less-than-fawning analysis of female sexual and social power is considered “misogyny” by the MSM, right?

    That is why they blog anonymously. The very fact that they’re talking about female social power and giving men the tools they need to seduce women means that the MSM will only mock them or sabotage them, because the MSM is inherently hostile to men.

    Sticking their necks out won’t increase their “credibility,” it’ll just make them easier to shame and to harass without any net gain for them or for the manosphere.

    You can only gain “credibility” by watering down the message and not saying anything that might make a woman feel bad, even if it’s true.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Crisis

      The very fact that they’re talking about female social power and giving men the tools they need to seduce women means that the MSM will only mock them or sabotage them, because the MSM is inherently hostile to men.

      Without addressing the ethics of those tools, mainstream society will always reject Game. Much of what Game bloggers suggest includes outright lying and other extremely Machilavellian tactics. Rollo has declared that there is no such thing as “dark” or unethical behavior, there is only what men want.

      That is a dangerous message, and one that should be shamed. That is the real reason these men cannot go public. They are narcissistic enough to want to create immoral disciples, but they recognize that their version of right vs. wrong is anathema to civilized society.

  • Danger

    Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies ~Orwell

    One cannot speak the truth today without fear of serious repurcussions. Your mistake is in applying the “game maxim” of confidence to an interview setting in a world which is subservient to feminism, not to logic.

    Different games, different rules cupcake.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Different games, different rules cupcake.

      Ah, what I would give to see a ‘spherian say this to Diane Sawyer or Katie Couric!

  • RT

    Ah back to purging comments we don’t like I see. Seems like cowardice if you ask me.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ah back to purging comments we don’t like I see. Seems like cowardice if you ask me.

      It’s not cowardice to rid my blog of toxic waste. If I were a coward I wouldn’t have written this post in the first place. A coward is a blogger who passive aggressively attacks his opponents with silly nicknames instead of civil discourse. A coward is a man who cooks up a scheme to blame women for his own failures, names it FemCentrism, and pimps it relentlessly on everyone else’s blog with links.

      That’s what a cowering bad boy looks like.

  • Danger

    I actually find it entertaining that one would desire so badly to know whot he person is.

    If you are debating logically, does it matter the source? Shouldn’t only the facts matter?

    The only purpose for a face or name to the argument is to have a “fallback” in the event one is losing. Perhaps that is the true desire for knowing who “George” is?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If you are debating logically, does it matter the source? Shouldn’t only the facts matter?

      George had no way of presenting the facts. He took himself right out of the game, because he didn’t show up. Can you imagine a live debate in which one party sat backstage?

  • Danger

    “George had no way of presenting the facts. He took himself right out of the game, because he didn’t show up. Can you imagine a live debate in which one party sat backstage?”

    Facts exist without a presenter. They just are.

    So again, why the need for a face or name to the facts?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Facts exist without a presenter. They just are.

      So again, why the need for a face or name to the facts?

      There is no need if you have no wish to disseminate information. It’s about the communication of ideas, not facts. You think we have facts, but we do not. The best and brightest minds who study sex differences, evolutionary behavior, etc. do not have facts. They have theories, and there is not consensus around most of them.

      People report their “facts” here all the time, blind to the massive confirmation bias at work in their own heads.

      We don’t even know “what works.” We know that certain individuals have experiences with certain other individuals, based on millions of signals and pieces of data exchanged between those two people in a short time. We can generalize about certain aspects of human behavior, keeping in mind that the distribution will always vary across a spectrum, like a bell curve. There is very little you can say “all men are like that” or “all women are like that.”

      People take comfort from thinking someone has cracked the code, and now all they have to do insert Tab A into Slot B. It doesn’t work that way.

  • VD

    If you are debating logically, does it matter the source? Shouldn’t only the facts matter?

    You’re not debating logically when you go on TV or radio. The facts don’t matter, except in how they are used rhetorically. It is an intrinsically rhetorical environment. Even when one uses logic in media discourse, it is only utilized in a rhetorical manner. In other words, as a rhetorical weapon used primarily to discredit the other parties.

    If you don’t understand the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, or how this difference applies to the mainstream media, you should not even think about accepting an invitation to do TV or radio.

  • VD

    Exactly. Mike C has been playing, “Let’s Susan and VD fight” for months now. I have no intention of indulging him.

    I have to confess, the thought hadn’t ever even occurred to me.

    So again, why the need for a face or name to the facts?

    Because the facts are tertiary, at best.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Exactly. Mike C has been playing, “Let’s Susan and VD fight” for months now. I have no intention of indulging him.

      I have to confess, the thought hadn’t ever even occurred to me.

      Yes, he’s challenged me to justify your spot on the Blogroll, accused me of giving you unfair advantage over other commenters, i.e. playing favorites, quoted you at times when he felt certain I would disagree (like this time) and challenged me to argue the point.

      It was clear from his comment – “I thought you would dodge that” – that he was simply looking to paint me into a corner.

      I’d rather be waterboarded than pick a fight with Vox Day. I’m certain I’d come out of that in better shape. :)

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Susan, you assume the media argues in good faith. It doesn’t, especially on matters like this.

  • http://3rdmilleniummen.wordpress.com George

    “Susan, hysterical is a completely apt word. Hysteria is uncontrolled extreme emotion, and is derived from the Greek hystera, or uterus. It’s nothing but shaming language.”

    In current usage it can mean uncontrolled or extreme. Yours was clearly extreme.

    You deserve to be shamed for using such false and derogatory language, along with the disgraceful aspersions you have cast.

    “So let’s unpack this rationally. George claimed that he has to stay anonymous to protect the identity of his readers, which is obviously BS.
    How would your writing under your own name expose your readers? What does their identity have to do with yours? I’ve received almost three quarters of a million comments on this site and have never exposed a reader, though I have written about their personal lives many times.”

    Go back to what I originally said. You have misrepresented it, just like you have misrepresented numerous other things I’ve said. My quote in the interview is “I write so much about peoples personal lives and experiences that I need to be able to protect their identities as well”.

    Readers are ONE part of that. People I know in real life are the more important part of that. I thought you appreciated that when you referred to ‘readers’, but no, again I apparently need to spell this basic point out for you Susan. You should realise that your fallacious strawman arguments are completely see-through.

    “That post sounded downright creepy when directly quoted by the host. The confident version is douchebag, the less confident version is serial killer.” Example: Handsome, confident guy maintains eye contact longer than is appropriate, meaning long enough to make the woman feel profoundly uncomfortable (since that is what inappropriate behavior does to people). He then smirks and slides his glance sideways. Douche. Less handsome guy with social anxiety holds eye contact longer than is appropriate, making the woman feel downright alarmed. She looks around nervously, planning her escape. When she turns back she sees his lips moving as he counts to three, then his eyes dart nervously to the left. Serial killer.”

    You have not engaged with anything I said in my logical and rational comment. I made the point very clearly that what is appropriate between a man and a woman who are interested in each other or dating is different to what is ‘appropriate’ between other types of relationships. Go back and read it again if you didn’t understand that.

    Susan, I am completely appalled at how badly you have tried to twist and manipulate what I have said and the asperions you have cast. I don’t see the point in engaging with you further.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @George

      My quote in the interview is “I write so much about peoples personal lives and experiences that I need to be able to protect their identities as well”.

      Wait – wasn’t that your response to Zepps asking you why you were anonymous? Did I miss the part where you explained that? How does your anonymity have anything to do with your readers’ identities?

      Susan, I am completely appalled at how badly you have tried to twist and manipulate what I have said and the asperions you have cast. I don’t see the point in engaging with you further.

      The post reports the dialog word for word. It’s Zepps’ response that is material, not mine. The post doesn’t twist or manipulate anything – I report the facts. My judgment that the interview was poor PR for the sphere is my opinion based on those facts.

      By definition, anything “underground” will only see mainstream acceptance if it is brought into the light of day and subjected to scrutiny by everyone, including enemies. I’ve written on the record about nearly every aspect of Game, those posts are available for viewing right now. I’d happily go on TV and defend any one of them.

      If you didn’t anticipate that “Always Be Eye Fucking” would be red meat for these pros, you were naive. I don’t see the message as evil, just ineffectual, which is how Zepps treated it.

  • Danger

    @VD,

    The facts are tertiary only to someone or group who is interested in outcome more so than what the facts are or what they mean. This is Susan’s desired outcome and reveals her true intentions.

    Thus, the desire for a face or name to attack when the facts don’t play along with the narrative.

    This is exactly why Rollo is right when he says any attempt to portray logic and reason by the manosphere in the MSM will result in failure.

    Or to put it another way…..

    Reason can be fought with reason, but how are you going to fight the unreasonable?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I really didn’t want to comment on this thread until it cooled down again…perhaps never…but I wanted to just make sure this gem by Vox got read:

    You’re not debating logically when you go on TV or radio. The facts don’t matter, except in how they are used rhetorically. It is an intrinsically rhetorical environment. Even when one uses logic in media discourse, it is only utilized in a rhetorical manner. In other words, as a rhetorical weapon used primarily to discredit the other parties.

    Probably not even limited to television. The internet is not some single-minded entity of no rhetoric and all facts…

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ danger

    Reason can be fought with reason, but how are you going to fight the unreasonable?

    By learning the rules of engagement of the medium and engaging on those terms.

    When you hit on a girl, do you give her a bullet point list of all the reasons you should be attractive?

    On a battle-field, do you use your superior reason to try to defeat the enemy, through speeches and soapboxes?

    Reason is a tool, it isn’t suitable for every battlefield anymore than you bring a tank to your local court-room or a powerpoint to a first date.

  • Danger

    @Beta Guy,

    I agree with you. Except the game is rigged for the manospherians in a debate that has no basis in logic.

    Thus, the only reason to request a face or name to go with the logic, is to attack the “problem” at it’s root source. Vilify and make an example of those who dare question the narrative, regardless of facts.

    Susan and crew are well aware of this. They cannot fight the logic, so they look for the weak spot in a social manner, as women tend to fight. If you can’t win, you ostracize.

    My comment on “reason can be fought with reason” was to illustrate that there is no way to fight the unreasonable through words. Their decision is only made and more rhetoric will do nothing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Danger

      Susan and crew are well aware of this. They cannot fight the logic, so they look for the weak spot in a social manner, as women tend to fight. If you can’t win, you ostracize.

      Brilliant. And that is why the manosphere will never go mainstream, folks…

      I will continue to do my own thing and make tiny inroads here and there. You’re welcome, but I’m not doing it for idiots like this.

  • VD

    Reason can be fought with reason, but how are you going to fight the unreasonable?

    With rhetoric, by discrediting the unreasonable.

  • lovelost

    @Susan
    so when women hide behind curtains to talk about sexual assault, does that
    mean they have less credibility?

    Are you really going to equate rape victims and George the PUA?
    Lovelost, when did you lose your way. Very, very disappointed.
    —————————————————————————————–
    Susan, if you’re disappointed that’s fine. However I haven’t lost my way. In fact gaining sanity, clarity and more objectivity in life. I am proud to say all of my learning has taken place on Manosphere and not on MSM. In fact I am poster child of MSM delusion. That applies not only to dating but to other aspects of life, for example financial & health. That’s the very reason I gave the example of salad dressing and financial crisis.

    Now coming back to what I had equated. yeah the examples of George and rape victims, are extremes, however the not the facts. You have 2 distinct individuals who are choosing to remain anoymous, however the message they are delivering is factual account. And as long as the facts can be verified, do you have to verify the individual?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      And as long as the facts can be verified, do you have to verify the individual?

      George is not dealing in facts, but his anonymity would have prevented him from sharing any if he had them. He was not able to communicate, and that is generally an obstacle to disseminating information of any kind.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “all they have to do insert Tab A into Slot B. It doesn’t work that way.”

    Actually in many ways this is EXACTLY how it works. ;-)

    Re: mobile HUS. I have an Android phone and use Chrome as well as Dolphin as my browser and I’ve run into the white on white issue randomly over the last few weeks. In all cases the easy fix is to request the desktop version of the page. This sucks a great deal since HUS is now blocked by my employers blacklist, which forces me to use my phone. I know there are work around for filtering, but I just don’t think its worth the effort. Don’t take it personal, I don’t enjoy that type of home tinkering the way I used to. Making IT a career kinda killed the enjoyment for me. :-p

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      There are reports online in various forums of people complaining about the white on white problem, starting in March. I have not yet found any solutions. Will keep looking.

  • Danger

    @VD,

    When 90% of the world is against you, rhetoric will only continue against your favor. At best it will present you a coin-toss as far as who wins, and you can bet you won’t get the “best”. Consider the army of white-knights who will join the women and vilifying men. Not unlike what went on in this clip.

    @Susan,

    Even the sharing of ideas does not require a face or name. You read books don’t you? Have you not learned from them? When you read a history book, or a textbook, or even a technical manual…..do you need a name and face of the writer to go with what ideas you are reading?

    Again, their is no need for a name or face. The only purpose it would serve is to attack, vilify and damage the person involved. Which as you stated earlier to Good Luck Chuck, appears to be your purpose.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      When you read a history book, or a textbook, or even a technical manual…..do you need a name and face of the writer to go with what ideas you are reading?

      I certainly do. That’s what the inside flap of the book jacket is for. The author is introduced, previous publications and their level of success is described. Often education is included. When I pick up a book I want to know if it’s written by a well-respected writer or a crackpot.

      Is the theological essay by L Ron Hubbard or CS Lewis?

      Is the history textbook that fails to mention who won the Civil War written be a man who wears a Confederate flag pin on his lapel?

      Is the analysis of the history of race relations in the U.S. written by a proud member of the KKK?

      In order to get to facts, you have to remove bias. Notoriously difficult to do, even in controlled experiments.

      The credibility of a source as unbiased is of paramount importance when considering any argument.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “It was clear from his comment – “I thought you would dodge that” – that he was simply looking to paint me into a corner.”

    In all honesty, from my POV he’s just fighting fire with fire. Just my .02 of course…

  • RT

    Dalrock’s analysis of statistics sources was linked by Ross Douthat in the NYXs, and this was rightly greeted with warm congratulations all around. Joyous cries of “Here comes the manosphere!” were heard round the world. Although much of the writing is far too pathological to achieve broad acceptance, there are some potential benefits to men in sharing what we know about sex differences, and female sexuality in particular

    Ahhh, that explains it. Dals validating notoriety with the NYT was more positive attention than you could bear. So you decided to hit a softer target like George rather than engage Dalrock directly knowing he’d eat you alive.

    Suzie, the more you screech the more you sound like a petulant child. But keep damaging your brand, I’m all for it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rollo

      Ahhh, that explains it. Dals validating notoriety with the NYT was more positive attention than you could bear. So you decided to hit a softer target like George rather than engage Dalrock directly knowing he’d eat you alive.

      Can you step outside your NPD for one minute? I have no need to engage Dalrock directly, though I criticize him freely when I see fit. He has no way of eating me alive as neither his views nor those of his readers are credible, IMO, at least on the topics I care about. I do think he’s very good with the numbers though. (In spite of the fact that he’s never put up numbers to support his frivorce claims – because the only numbers available don’t support him.)

      The “target” I am hitting is the whole damn manosphere. The PR is lame, you’ve got a massive image problem. I don’t expect you to understand, as your own writing is extremely sociopathic and would no doubt get you fired and probably socially ostracized as well.

      Suzie, the more you screech the more you sound like a petulant child. But keep damaging your brand, I’m all for it.

      Funny you should say child, I feel like you’re always trying to pull my pigtails and hit me because you have a secret little crush on me. One thing readers around here say is “Haha, Susan, Rollo can’t quit you!” It’s sort of sweet actually. I just wish I could tell a teacher that you’re bothering me, and that she would make you go sit in the principal’s office.

  • JP

    “I’d rather be waterboarded than pick a fight with Vox Day.”

    Kind of funny.

    Vox Day seems like he would be really fun to fight with.

  • Jason773

    Just read this post and not surprisingly, there are already 300+ comments.

    Anyways, Susan, you are way off here. I watched that interrogation, and the deck was stacked against the guy from the start. He held his own well and I understand his decision to remain anonymous. There is such vitriol and mockery out there for “game” and anyone who professes it that you are essentially playing russian roulette with your identity if you come out to MSM with these ideas. If a guy has anything to lose and decides to be the public face of the manosphere, I guarentee he is going to lose it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I watched that interrogation, and the deck was stacked against the guy from the start.

      Yup, by himself.

  • Esau

    J at 208: ” If the ‘sphere ever wants to gain mainstream credibility a couple of things will need to happen … The men will need to divorce themselves from racism and anti-Semitism and general right-wing crackpottery that gathers at the fringes of the ‘sphere.”

    It’s only a ripple that will be lost in this larger thread, but for the record I think J is on to something important here, which goes strangely (IMO) un-remarked upon. Has anyone else had the experience of reading some Game-ist, maybe nodding along at some points and fuming at others, and then suddenly WTF!! as he (they’re mostly, though not 100%, male) segues seamlessly (to him) / veers wildly (to me) into some kind of right-wing goldbuggery or paean to Jefferson Davis?

    Yes, I can salute the idea that truth is independent of the speaker … but … really, when you show up at the garden club and find that everyone else is wearing hoods and white robes, something is undeniably a bit off.

    My only quibble with J here is that, in my anecdotal and casual reading, I don’t think racism and right-wing crackpottery just gather at the fringe of the ‘sphere, and could be readily scraped off; to me they seem pretty well shot through and not so easily “divorced”. For whatever else his gifts may be, doesn’t anyone find it worth noticing that Roissy, for example, is a proud and self-admitted stone-cold racist? So I agree with J here, but even more so: this connection is going to have to be admitted, exposed and understood before “Game” can sit at the big table.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Esau

      Has anyone else had the experience of reading some Game-ist, maybe nodding along at some points and fuming at others, and then suddenly WTF!!

      Yes, usually when my own name has been randomly thrown into the thread for purposes of ridicule and mockery. Well, there are other times too.

      Yes, I can salute the idea that truth is independent of the speaker … but … really, when you show up at the garden club and find that everyone else is wearing hoods and white robes, something is undeniably a bit off.

      The lynch mob metaphor is apt.

      So I agree with J here, but even more so: this connection is going to have to be admitted, exposed and understood before “Game” can sit at the big table.

      Then sadly, that will never happen, because there are too many damaged and Dark Triad men drawn to Game and eager to lead the charge. There are several bloggers who used to practice and write about Game, and have written at length about their experiences in the PUA realm. Every single one has described the soul-destroying nature of it, the slipping into completely selfish and unethical behavior. That pretty much leaves us with men who are incapable of introspection.

  • JP

    “Exactly. Mike C has been playing, “Let’s Susan and VD fight” for months now. I have no intention of indulging him.

    I have to confess, the thought hadn’t ever even occurred to me.”

    I played this game with my Pentacostal friend and my Mormon girlfriend once.

    It *is* a fun game to play.

  • BC

    Susan’s support for V.Day is baffling

    Not half as baffling as V.Day’s support for Susan.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Not half as baffling as V.Day’s support for Susan.

      LMAO! Our respective readers are confounded!

  • Danger

    @Susan,

    Are you trying to tell me that in girl world, girls don’t fight by ostracizing the offending girl?

    Are you suggesting that girls don’t fight by first building a social support network to alienate the “enemy”?

    Are you suggesting that women don’t employ other men to beat up an offending male?

    It is common knowledge that women make use of social networks far more so than men, and they use them as a support tool when it befits them, much moreso than men. This goes similarly for employing the MSM.

    As far as the “image problem” for the manosphere…..you are aware that anything questioning the fem-centric viewpoint has an “image problem”? This is not limited to the manosphere at all. There are a litany of examples to this effect. Lawrence Summers of Harvard being a good example. He had a name/face to his statement, which by the way is supported by facts…..and yet still he suffered.

    As I pointed out before, the fact that you need to link a name/face to an idea reveals your intentions of engaging the social network to attack the person instead of the idea.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      He had a name/face to his statement, which by the way is supported by facts…..and yet still he suffered.

      It wasn’t even a statement, it was a question. Of course he suffered, he was speaking to a roomful of Feminist Professors. Stupid move LS!

      I can’t really understand your stubborn refusal (or inability?) to consider the idea of a marketing strategy in the realm of change and ideas. I guess this is a MBTI thing.

  • J

    Did Christ betrayed The Church?

    Good point Ana. It’s not like he went out and messed with with 30 other churches.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Good point Ana. It’s not like he went out and messed with with 30 other churches.

      ROFL

  • J

    I intended no judgement over the different name. I use different names all over the place. The style is always the same, but I have no interest in having a coherent web-persona across sites. Would be nice to say hello to familiar characters, I guess, but sooner or later they recognise me (assuming that they even care).

    Not a problem. I wasn’t really offended, just being light-hearted about “forgiving you.” I did think though that since I’ve complained several times about PJ’s constant name switching that it was clear that I don’t do that. OTOH, I suppose a lot of peole complaing about things and then do the same damn thing themselves.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    All right, now what about you trashing Good Luck Chuck because of his concern, presuming that if some woman accuses him of misogyny, it must be because he’s guilty?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      All right, now what about you trashing Good Luck Chuck because of his concern, presuming that if some woman accuses him of misogyny, it must be because he’s guilty?

      Honestly, I’ve lost track of that comment, but the point I wanted to make is that there is a lot of very real misogyny on these Game blogs. Not all of them, perhaps, but in general the manosphere is misogynist. Therefore, to the misogynist who says, “I can’t write under my real name because I’ll be called a misogynist” I say, “You are a misogynist!” If you want to speak out in a way that 95% of women and men will find deeply offensive, go ahead and be prepared to defend your statements.

      The point is, if you’re offending almost everyone who isn’t typing underground by a blue light, maybe you’re wrong.

  • Jason773

    Susan,

    That’s a loser strategy. The typical guy who is ready will read Rollo and close his window in 10 seconds never to return. Who are my male readers? They’re mostly guys interested in Game who can’t stomach Roissy or Roosh. (Rollo isn’t even on their radar.) If a guy is ready, and he goes to the wrong place – like 3MM asking eagerly for feedback on his interview? Well that’s a good prospect that you just sent packing.

    Most of these guys are losers anyways with ~0% chance of changing. Game, and the underlying male/female dynamics behind it, takes some intelligence and critical thinking in order to fully understand. I think my first taste of the manosphere was Roissy, when I was 19yo or so, and yes, the ideas were harsh but my rational brain said “Honestly, I might not like it, and this guy might be over the top, but he damn sure has to some valid points that I can’t deny, even if I might want to”.

    Men who would turn away and wholly dismiss this information without critically thinking about it tend to be hopeless anyways.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Men who would turn away and wholly dismiss this information without critically thinking about it tend to be hopeless anyways.

      And sadly, so are the many men who accept it wholesale. Follow Roissy’s advice to the letter and you’ll wind up like Roissy. If that’s your goal, more power. Some people really don’t want relationships.

  • Danger

    @Susan,

    So how many textbooks in school did you notice had a cover on the jacket saying who provided the information?

    And to further clarify, you have dismissed ideas altogether without critical thought then?

    You do realize that all people have an agenda, whether it shows on their “book cover” or not?

    You also realize, that by ignoring ideas altogether based ont he source is a flavor of the “poisoned well” argument, aka a form of ad-hominem attack?

    This is why I continue to point out that if you thought the ideas had no merit, you could argue against them effetively without need of a face or name to engage in the ad-hominem poisoned-well attack.

    The same goes for any discussion with an audience.

    So the question then becomes, are you more interested in the debating the ideas? Or attacking the credibility of the presenter?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You also realize, that by ignoring ideas altogether based ont he source is a flavor of the “poisoned well” argument, aka a form of ad-hominem attack?

      I’ve stated before that the appeal to ad hominem fallacy is sorely overused. There are many books I would decline to read based on the source alone, my familiarity with that source’s stated views, their past body of work, etc. We all do this. None of us is equally inclined to read all authors or all books. It’s a preposterous notion.

      I have limited time and therefore select those books that I have reason to believe will be well-researched, well-reasoned and well-written.

      Good ideas always rise to the top. If someone writes a worthy book with new ideas, the buzz will serve as an early indicator in the case of a brand new source. There are of course many good books that do not achieve the recognition they deserve, but ferreting them out would be a difficult and time-consuming task.

      So the question then becomes, are you more interested in the debating the ideas? Or attacking the credibility of the presenter?

      Why do I have to rank them? Why can’t I assess the credibility of a source and then listen to his ideas if it seems warranted?

      For a good example of how the presentation matters, see the 1960 Nixon Kennedy debates.

      You cannot separate the message from the messenger. Human beings don’t operate that way.

  • JP

    “When you read a history book, or a textbook, or even a technical manual…..do you need a name and face of the writer to go with what ideas you are reading?”

    No.

    I generally use my intuition to see whether it’s useful to my

  • INTJ

    The Rollo-Susan relationship seems to be the blogosphere equivalent of a mutual fuck-phantom…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The Rollo-Susan relationship seems to be the blogosphere equivalent of a mutual fuck-phantom…

      This sounds hilarious, but I have no idea what it means.

  • http://8oxer.wordpress.com Boxer

    I was really freaked out and talked with my husband, obvs. His advice was to get the hell off the internet. It was also very unnerving that this happened on Dec. 23. I had lots of family arriving, and I was imagining bloodshed during Christmas dinner. Terrible. That’s the worst experience I’ve ever had. Thank you Dalrock and Co.

    Would you mind posting a screenshot of this? I’d be very interested in evidence that “Dalrock & Co.” threatened your family with “bloodshed” during Christmas dinner.

    I was around back then, but never posted, and I found the dramatics sort of annoying and boring and was glad when things settled down. As I recall, things got pretty eristic on every side, so you’re right to be offended. I never saw any death threats fly, however.

    Regards, Boxer

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Boxer

      Would you mind posting a screenshot of this? I’d be very interested in evidence that “Dalrock & Co.” threatened your family with “bloodshed” during Christmas dinner.

      I was asked to do this once before and did retrieve the comments, but found it so upsetting I won’t do it again. My heartrate has soared as I type this.

      It wasn’t actually during Christmas dinner that the conversation took place, Dalrockgate got really ugly on the 23rd. My family holiday was very much affected. I was unwise to engage, that was the very expensive lesson, and I take responsibility for that error.

      If you’re genuinely curious, I’m sure you can easily find it. That is if Dalrock has left it up. TBH, he shouldn’t. Bloggers are potentially legally liable for the commentary on their blogs. I delete anything way out there for that reason.

      And for the record, the threat was specific to me, not my family. And I do not recall the specific mention of blood, just physical harm. I was genuinely frightened, as my name as well as the name of my town are common knowledge.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Exactly. Mike C has been playing, “Let’s Susan and VD fight” for months now. I have no intention of indulging him.

    No. He’s just been wondering about your hypocrisy of constantly calling Rollo and others a misogynist every time they try to voice their (non-misogynist) opinion. All while Vox Day get’s a free pass.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Rollo and others a misogynist every time they try to voice their (non-misogynist) opinion.

      If you don’t think Rollo is a misogynist, you either haven’t read his blog or you’re hopeless.

  • J

    Look at nature taking place in this video. It’s beautiful.

    To tell you the truth I find that video rather gross–precisely because women as you say are the bearers of life. The woman was dressed in a way that signals to many men that she is DTF and her accepting the man’s advances to the extent she did suggests that she’s not too particular about with whom. A more prudent woman might have walked off after the first kiss on the cheek.

    Although anything is possible, I would think that the video was staged.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Honestly, I’ve lost track of that comment, but the point I wanted to make is that there is a lot of very real misogyny on these Game blogs. Not all of them, perhaps, but in general the manosphere is misogynist. Therefore, to the misogynist who says, “I can’t write under my real name because I’ll be called a misogynist” I say, “You are a misogynist!” If you want to speak out in a way that 95% of women and men will find deeply offensive, go ahead and be prepared to defend your statements.

    So you are presuming his guilt, knowing that it takes very little to be called “misogynist.” Even you have suffered similar attacks, and you’re far more moderate.

    The point is, if you’re offending almost everyone who isn’t typing underground by a blue light, maybe you’re wrong.

    Now you’re saying that “offensiveness” determines the rightness or wrongness of ideas. Just because the truth makes people feel bad doesn’t make it any less true, and if we don’t state the truth, we would be lying.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So you are presuming his guilt, knowing that it takes very little to be called “misogynist.” Even you have suffered similar attacks, and you’re far more moderate.

      I am not presuming anyone’s guilt. I am saying that if you are a misogynist, expect to be labeled as such. If you are not a misogynist, you can discuss your ideas and be heard by reasonable people. That is what I have done. What I don’t support is being a cloaked misogynist, spreading your views around in the dark of night and then running away rather than take responsibility for them.

      Just because the truth makes people feel bad doesn’t make it any less true, and if we don’t state the truth, we would be lying.

      This is like Esau’s observation that when you show up at the party, and everyone is in a hooded white robe, maybe things are a bit off.

      Maybe your truth is a bit off. If everyone but a handful of spiteful males with anger management issues disagrees with you, maybe you want to rethink your position.

  • INTJ

    @ Esau

    It’s only a ripple that will be lost in this larger thread, but for the record I think J is on to something important here, which goes strangely (IMO) un-remarked upon. Has anyone else had the experience of reading some Game-ist, maybe nodding along at some points and fuming at others, and then suddenly WTF!! as he (they’re mostly, though not 100%, male) segues seamlessly (to him) / veers wildly (to me) into some kind of right-wing goldbuggery or paean to Jefferson Davis?

    Yes, I do agree with this. It’s truly unfortunate that there isn’t any marginally liberal version of game.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    If you don’t think Rollo is a misogynist, you either haven’t read his blog or you’re hopeless.

    No that’s not what I said. I’m saying that the views that Rollo expresses here aren’t misogynist. Anymore than VD’s are. And yet you have the overwhelming need to constantly bring up how he’s a misogynist (on his blog). Well so is VD (on his blog). Yet you don’t constantly bring that up.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      And yet you have the overwhelming need to constantly bring up how he’s a misogynist (on his blog). Well so is VD (on his blog).

      There is no comparison. Both in the views held, in the degree of sociopathy, and finally, in the quality of the writing. Reading Rollo’s blog requires a virtual machete to cut through the propaganda and make any sense of the prose.

  • Tomato

    I believe that the Sphere will not gain positive MSM attention as long as it focuses on blaming feminism for all of the problems faced by men. This focus needs to be shifted from blame to raising awareness of these problems and promoting solutions (that A part of MRA).

    Likewise, I believe that Game will not gain positive attention as long as it has the undercurrent of fucking over women (figuratively and literally) for the sake of men, instead of working to develop positive traits in men that benefit men, women, and society in general.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    This sounds hilarious, but I have no idea what it means.

    Well, others who have been here longer than I have mentioned how you and Rollo had a blogosphere history together, but had a big falling out or something. Now you seem to hate each other with a passion, given the names you call each other.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Well, others who have been here longer than I have mentioned how you and Rollo had a blogosphere history together, but had a big falling out or something.

      No, I’ve always considered him the manosphere’s Dexter, only not as nice.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Oh. I must have mixed him up with Obsidian then.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Oh. I must have mixed him up with Obsidian then.

      Yes, Obs and I have a very friendly history, lately not as much but I don’t believe there’s any anger there. He disapproves of me not speaking out forcefully on issues related to mating and race as they affect all of society, rather than college hookup culture. Whatevs. We do different things.

  • J

    @George

    George had no way of presenting the facts. He took himself right out of the game, because he didn’t show up. Can you imagine a live debate in which one party sat backstage.

    Hi George, I took a look at your blog and find it to be one of the more reasonable game blogs. I appreciate your anti-mysogyny post. I agree with Susan that you could have used this opportunity to represent the game community in a more credible fashion had you shown your face. I understand your desire for anonymity, but I don’t think you did the community any favors by being anonymous. That just made anything you might say seem laughable from the get-go. Your anonymity, rather than the content of blog, became the issue. Perhaps the next opportunity to speak publically should go to someone who can present a reasonable public persona.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    I am not presuming anyone’s guilt. I am saying that if you are a misogynist, expect to be labeled as such. If you are not a misogynist, you can discuss your ideas and be heard by reasonable people. That is what I have done. What I don’t support is being a cloaked misogynist, spreading your views around in the dark of night and then running away rather than take responsibility for them.

    That’s the thing. Merely holding ideas critical of the feminist norm gets you labeled a misogynist from the start. You yourself have stated that you have been attacked by feminists for your ideas. Like I keep saying here, the MSM doesn’t act in good faith or play fair. The mere fact that you disagree with them makes you a target.

    Maybe your truth is a bit off. If everyone but a handful of spiteful males with anger management issues disagrees with you, maybe you want to rethink your position.

    But the truth about male-female relations must ultimately be expressed, and one’s feelings about these matters do not affect what is.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You yourself have stated that you have been attacked by feminists for your ideas. Like I keep saying here, the MSM doesn’t act in good faith or play fair. The mere fact that you disagree with them makes you a target.

      Yes, and I fought back with reasoned argument. It was extremely effective. There was no long-term punishment or negative effect on my blog or my life. If anything the effect was beneficial. Had I hidden myself away with random anonymous strikes, no one except other furtive bloggers would have ever heard of HUS.

      Being anti-feminist is not that controversial. Being hateful toward women and society is. Easy. Be the former without being the later. Don’t open conversations, with “Enjoy the decline, bitches!”

      But the truth about male-female relations must ultimately be expressed, and one’s feelings about these matters do not affect what is.

      There is no consensus on what that truth is, which is why there is debate and always will be.

  • Angelguy

    “Women are attracted to men who are dominant.

    Disagreeable, even violent men are the most dominant.”

    I always had trouble with this one. I am naturally a more laid back type of Man. Whenever I feel I need to be dominant with a woman, I get the feeling I am being the parent of a little girl. It lowers the SMV in a Woman for me. Now this doesn’t apply to taking someone out for a date, but to small other things.

    How does one cope with that feeling?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Angelguy

      Now this doesn’t apply to taking someone out for a date, but to small other things.

      How does one cope with that feeling?

      The appetite for dominance varies a great deal among women. It’s about the match. If you feel that you need to treat a woman like a child, you’re not with the right woman.

      I’m assuming you have some baseline natural level of dominance, i.e. self-confidence and ability to lead, make decisions, etc. If you’re uncomfortable choosing a restaurant, on the other hand, you need to work through that because most women like that level of manliness and will penalize a guy who seems indecisive or weak.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com Bastiat Blogger

    Re: mainstream Game stuff, etc. I teach an undergrad course on influence and persuasion skills—influenced in some areas by Game—to undergrads at an institution that has, in the past, been ranked as a Top 5 Party School by Playboy (think it peaked at #3, but it is almost always in the Top Ten. The more interesting aspect is that this is a private liberal arts college with <2000 undergraduate students and a relatively mild Greek system, so the ranking is based almost entirely on the attractiveness of female students).

    This is my first term teaching this particular class, but the material has generally been very well-received by students. The women have absolutely no problem admitting that they like a dangerous, hot version of the bad boy archetype, and they will work with the young men in small groups during breakout sessions to offer observations, insights, and advice. The men do the same for the girls, usually about things that men find compelling for
    relationships.

    One small lesson from this may be that the general message can be effectively transmitted in a PC setting when women are co-opted into the process and given incentives to support it.

  • VD

    LMAO! Our respective readers are confounded!

    It would appear we are the lambada of blog relations.

    I’d rather be waterboarded than pick a fight with Vox Day.

    You are too kind.

    Vox Day seems like he would be really fun to fight with.

    And yet John Scalzi doesn’t seem to think so….

    No that’s not what I said. I’m saying that the views that Rollo expresses here aren’t misogynist. Anymore than VD’s are. And yet you have the overwhelming need to constantly bring up how he’s a misogynist (on his blog). Well so is VD (on his blog). Yet you don’t constantly bring that up.

    VD is no different on his blog than anywhere else, given the caveat of my attempt to abide by other people’s rules on their home turf. It’s not that difficult. People reciprocate. Susan will naturally tend to tolerate far broader differences of opinon from me than she will from those who attack her because those differences are expressed in a friendly and respectful manner. I am no different with various commenters on my blog.

    In essence, you’re asking why Susan isn’t hitting me back too. The answer is simple. I’m not hitting her. It’s no secret that I like and respect Rollo and Dalrock too, or that more of my views are in line with theirs than hers. But so what? My social and educational background are probably more in line with hers.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Susan will naturally tend to tolerate far broader differences of opinon from me than she will from those who attack her because those differences are expressed in a friendly and respectful manner. I am no different with various commenters on my blog.

      In essence, you’re asking why Susan isn’t hitting me back too. The answer is simple. I’m not hitting her.

      Of course! The notion that all dissenting views should be equally welcome (or unwelcome) regardless of delivery or communication style is ludicrous.

      As a fairly conservative person in Boston, I have the exact same kind of dynamic with some of my closest friends. We have fun together, are fond of one another, can debate for hours on end in a way that does not get anyone particularly upset, even though we hold views 180 degrees apart. It’s not personal to me when someone disagrees with me. Not unless they choose to make it so. And if they tell me I’m full of it because I know nothing about immigration, and am not qualified to debate the topic, that’s fair if it’s true.

      I have no difficulty getting along with Vox, and as I already said, I’d never be so foolish as to invite Vox to eviscerate me for fun. If he and I were alone at the dinner table, I’d dive into topics I don’t want to discuss here on the blog, and I have no doubt we’d be able to discuss them cordially.

  • Ian

    This is bad strategy. The sphere is currently a fringe group representing a tiny, eensy weensy percentage of American males. A more polished presentation would make Game available to millions of guys.

    I’m actually hopeful about the state of Game. It’s useful to remember that NTJ’s will argue a point to test it’s strength, and adjust

  • Angelguy

    “The appetite for dominance varies a great deal among women. It’s about the match. If you feel that you need to treat a woman like a child, you’re not with the right woman.”

    @Susan

    Thanks, I appreciate this advice. I have suspected it as much, but felt I needed to hear it from a woman. There was something that stuck with me at the end of the HuffPo video, about giving Women the chance to earn one’s affection. I think it is something I am going to keep in mind, the next time I go out for a date.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      There was something that stuck with me at the end of the HuffPo video, about giving Women the chance to earn one’s affection. I think it is something I am going to keep in mind, the next time I go out for a date.

      Yes, this was an excellent point – I think it was made by George, wasn’t it? I’ve covered that material here as well, you might like this post:

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/01/01/relationshipstrategies/7-reasons-women-reject-eager-men/

  • Abbot

    Sex sells. Especially one that delivers the message that you can sleep your way to worthiness. Amazing. No wonder Game is growing in popularity.

    http://www.amazon.com/Screw-Everyone-Sleeping-Way-Monogamy/dp/1580054390

    “Skeptical about long-term relationships, Eisenberg approached dating as a sort of research experiment from early on: she spent her twenties traveling from futon to futon and gathering data, figuring that one day she’d put it all together somehow and build her own perfect Frankenmate. When she met a guy who didn’t fall for the emotionally cavalier facade she’d constructed (a guy who wanted marriage and monogamy), she knew it was time to reevaluate.”

  • Esau

    Angelguy at 369, quoting from the OP:

    “Women are attracted to men who are dominant.

    Disagreeable, even violent men are the most dominant.”

    I came across this nice quote just today:

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

    – Bertrand Russell

    Easy enough for him to say! But it is true, I think, that as the world more and more values the appearance of certainty over the reality of accuracy, (nearly) everyone will become more miserable.

    “I always had trouble with this one. I am naturally a more laid back type of Man. Whenever I feel I need to be dominant with a woman, I get the feeling I am being the parent of a little girl. It lowers the SMV in a Woman for me. Now this doesn’t apply to taking someone out for a date, but to small other things.”

    Yes, I can certainly sympathize from my experience. So much of appears in the ‘sphere, including HUS, parses down — if you’re honest about it — to the idea that “woman as large child” is the natural or correct ordering of the world.

    “How does one cope with that feeling?”

    There was an “advice to my younger self” thread a while back; and while I don’t know how old you are, I can tell you what I, having the same feeling, would have benefited from hearing at a younger age, which is this: Understand that the kind of woman you’re seeking, who will be happy as a true and equal partner, not a subordinate or a large child, is a rarity. Then, if finding the rarity is important to you, you have to face and deal with that reality appropriately: be prepared to search for a long time, to cope with many failures, and not become resentful of “normal” folks for not having what are in fact very rare qualities. If you insist on the rarity, then you have to own up to the trouble of finding it.

    I did eventually find the rarity myself; but it took a very long time, long enough to cause many other problems. So while I wouldn’t change where I am now, I also can’t romantically recommend for others to start down the same path. What would have helped me back then, though, would have been to have a realistic understanding of how hard the task would be.

  • J

    So I agree with J here, but even more so: this connection is going to have to be admitted, exposed and understood before “Game” can sit at the big table.

    Thanks for the vote of confidence.

    Then sadly, that will never happen, because there are too many damaged and Dark Triad men drawn to Game and eager to lead the charge.

    And loads of damaged little guys dying to be lead. A lot of the HBD stuff stuff that ends up being cited in the ‘sphere gives these guys pseudo-scientific rationalization for their own shortcomings as in “How can I be expected to compete with black guys when they are so high-T they have natural game?” or “White women dig Joooz because of hypergamy.” Thank God for Asian men. If they didn’t exist some of these guys never feel good about themselves. (And that’s not a slam on Asian men, but on the need to feel racially superior. I’m a bit of a Randist in this. I see racial prejudice as a form of collectivism. If all your self-esteem comes from yor group identity and not your individual accomplishment, you’re fucked.)

  • Ian

    …and adjust, on the way to a truth. If you look at Mystery’s field reports, it’s basically a social experiment. The NT’s of Game are seem to be groping out the truth of gender relations, giving the philosophy a spine.

    Once what they’re saying seems very true – less self-serving or demon-exercising – it should gain momentum, and I think it already is. Once it hits the typical TV watcher, people will be wearing Pilot Goggles, not knowing what they mean. A philosophy that brings sex should catch on quickly, even though it’ll likely be more Nickleback than Nirvana.

    It’ll be interesting to see if sexual access is enough of a lure to help Game reverse some of the cultural trends of the last 60 years. To me, if I had to bet on one motivation, it might me that one.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “In order to get to facts, you have to remove bias. Notoriously difficult to do, even in controlled experiments”

    The only time I pay that level of attention to the “source” is if I am using it for a paper.

    The way I usually “remove bias” is to read all I can on a subject from all POV’s and then do a compare/contrast. By systematically removing the conflicting information, I eventually whittle the info down to basic facts, and THEN I make up my own mind about what it all means.

    This is why I read CNN and Fox News. They are both full of shit but pass on kernals of truth. If I remove the conflicting messages around those kernals, the remainder is likely to be the truth.

    Put another way: I don’t give a rats ass who/what the source of info is. I’m just as happy to read something biased to the hilt as I am a short lost of facts. The list just makes my task easier, bit less interesting.

  • Lokland

    @J

    “Thank God for Asian men. If they didn’t exist some of these guys never feel good about themselves. ”

    This was literally so unnecessary, uncalled for and irrelevant. Despite whatever misgivings you have about all those ‘little (ie. low value) men’ using racism to prove your point was totally uncalled for.

    “And that’s not a slam on Asian men, but on the need to feel racially superior.”

    No just using a slam other people use to prove a point and then saying you don’t believe in it.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    I know for a fact that game and manosphere ideas about relationships (that is, anti-feminist ideas) can be transmitted without bitterness toward women, because I’ve done it in my personal life.

    What I do generally is:

    1) I don’t attack women for their sexual attraction triggers (tendency to prefer dominant men), but neither do I attack men for theirs (pretty faces and cute dispositions.)

    2) I explain how acknowledging sexual difference and differential attraction triggers benefits both men and women.

    3) I then go on to how the current family law structure and cultural messages shortchange both men and women.

    4) I avoid manosphere jargon.

    I was surprised by how receptive people, both men and women, were. Most of the people I talk about this with either understood the concepts already or didn’t dispute them. In fact, one time I heard a girl discussing relationships, and what she said about what women liked sounded like it came from Roissy!

    So I know that a less hardened approach can work, without you losing your job or getting shamed all the time.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I was surprised by how receptive people, both men and women, were. Most of the people I talk about this with either understood the concepts already or didn’t dispute them. In fact, one time I heard a girl discussing relationships, and what she said about what women liked sounded like it came from Roissy!

      So I know that a less hardened approach can work, without you losing your job or getting shamed all the time.

      Well then we are in agreement! What’s the issue?

  • J

    So how many textbooks in school did you notice had a cover on the jacket saying who provided the information?

    Major textbook publishers do have a vetting process for textbooks, and the credentials of the vetters as well as the authors are generally used as a selling point when school districts purchase books.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Major textbook publishers do have a vetting process for textbooks, and the credentials of the vetters as well as the authors are generally used as a selling point when school districts purchase books.

      A woman in my b-school class was the daughter of an RPI professor who wrote a textbook that became the standard and put all of his kids through school. (Resnick)

      I’m sure many other textbooks contained the same factual information and didn’t sell many copies.

  • Esau

    CED at 383: So I know that a less hardened approach can work,

    Hmm; what do you mean by “work” here, exactly? What’s the goal?

  • HanSolo

    Good point Ana. It’s not like he went out and messed with with 30 other churches.

    Maybe you’re forgetting the part where he said, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, to them I must also go.” :D

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    By work, I mean convince people of our ideas without being abrasive. Of course, the ideas themselves will encounter some resistance from dyed-in-the-wool feminists, but that’s to be expected.

  • INTJ

    @ Esau

    I get the felling I am your younger self Could you link to that letter to your younger self? :)

  • OffTheCuff

    CED: “Susan, you do realize that any less-than-fawning analysis of female sexual and social power is considered “misogyny” by the MSM, right?”

    Story time, why I am totally desensitized to the word “misogyny”:

    I was at a friend’s house having dinner. After dinner, my good friend (the 6’7″ bodybuilder who lost 260 lbs) and I were chatting about work and stuff, while wives were talking. I noticed a pair of new tumblers in his cabinet, so he pulled out a bottle of small-batch local scotch and offered me a glass.

    For the record, our wives don’t like scotch.

    His wife got very offended, and proceeded to berate him in front of us. She called him rude, and a “misogynist” for not offering.

    That was it. He made the social error of forgetting to make an insincere offer of a drink, that he knew they didn’t like, to two women who were engrossed in their own conversation. But I believe the real crime is doing something enjoyable with other men without thinking about women first and foremost.

    That’s misogyny today.

    When they left I said… don’t worry, dude, you’re not a misogynist. He seemed relieved.

    Here is a guy who has busted his butt, supporting her as a SAHM for 10 years while she earns hobby money, and even paid cash for her “ABD” masters in music, and he’s a misogynist.

    (Years ago she tried this with me, when we were talking about work stuff. She yelled at us for talking about technical stuff that implicitly excluded the women. I looked at her and said – hey, we talk about work maybe once every month for about an hour. You two spend far more time together, yet when we’re all together, have no problems swapping goopy birth stories over and over. Give me a break.)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      His wife got very offended, and proceeded to berate him in front of us. She called him rude, and a “misogynist” for not offering.

      That sounds like something Larry David would script. He once thanked the man in a couple for dinner (the wife did not work), and she became irate that he hadn’t thanked her as well. She had a point but the usual over the top emotional responses were fodder for his brand of humor.

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland

    I think you misread what J said. She was merely pointing out that some of those guys who’re envious of black men would be even more pitiful if there weren’t Asian men for them to consider themselves superior to.

  • OffTheCuff

    Vox: “If you don’t understand the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, or how this difference applies to the mainstream media, you should not even think about accepting an invitation to do TV or radio.”

    Vox’s post on the difference was the most striking bits of insight I’ve learned in many years, distilled down into a very clear and concise form. I am grateful for that.

  • J

    You’re misunderstanding me, Lok. I was poking fun at both their feelings of inferiority to black and Jewish men as well as their feeling of superiority to Asian men. I see their tying their preceptions of their own masculinity to their whitenes and their membership in a white collective as laughable. When I read that stuff I imagine some guy whose no Bruce Lee saying to himself “I know I’m no Jay Z, but thank God I’m not Asian.” when in pont of fact he might tbe better off if were Bruce Lee.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    However, I still hold that one will be called “misogynist” merely for questioning feminist thought or saying something that happens to make a feminist feel bad, hence the anonymity.

    Be prepared for such people.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    Yes, I do agree with this. It’s truly unfortunate that there isn’t any marginally liberal version of game.

    Many of the more pure PUA types are quite liberal or feminist in their views on sexuality because that mindset of “women should be able to fuck like men” provides the cultural environment that allows players/PUAs to get laid without providing commitment:

    –don’t worry about a woman’s past partners because you’re the man she’s with now
    –tell her that you think it’s great that women are sexually empowered

    Of course, this can all just be a façade to make the woman think the PUA is fine with her loose, ummm, morals. Actually, some of them really are fine with it though, like Mystery having the stripper gf.

  • J

    Whenever I feel I need to be dominant with a woman, I get the feeling I am being the parent of a little girl. It lowers the SMV in a Woman for me. Now this doesn’t apply to taking someone out for a date, but to small other things.

    How does one cope with that feeling?

    I don’t think you’re alone in that feeling of not wanting to parent a mate. Not every woman wants or needs the sort of dominance in a man that the ‘sphere says they do. Just look for those women. They’re out there.

  • Anacaona

    That is, our personal issues won’t be solved by men becoming aligned in a social and political way about them — that won’t happen, because when it comes to women above all else we are deadly competitors with each other.

    You know this is in direct conflict with your hypothesis that men created Monogamy on their own to foment cooperation? You know I disagree with this and I think both genders came to this development but you cannot claim that men were incapable to suppressing their need for competition for a greater purpose thousands of years ago but cannot do it ever again. Aside from denying your claim it also ignores things like celibacy and revolutions. I think you are selling your gender short men can and will do it but like Susan says only a leader can do that and you are going to lack for a while, specially if you keep thinking no men is capable of achieving that, YMMV.

  • anon

    Walsh, I can’t tell if you’re being willfully obtuse or just ignorant, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and submit that you, a woman, belong to a protected class that enjoys free speech and freedom of conscience. A man like George would lose his job, family, and friends if he were to make his voice heard. Sure, mock us for “cowering in anonymity” and lose what little respect we have for you.

    He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      A man like George would lose his job, family, and friends if he were to make his voice heard.

      For helping guys to get better at dating? There are tons of people doing that already using their real names with no detrimental effects.
      What the hell is so threatening about coaching guys on how to use eye contact? If George isn’t being unethical, he should be able to hold his head proudly. There is nothing controversial about this at all.

  • VD

    I was poking fun at both their feelings of inferiority to black and Jewish men as well as their feeling of superiority to Asian men. I see their tying their preceptions of their own masculinity to their whitenes and their membership in a white collective as laughable. When I read that stuff I imagine some guy whose no Bruce Lee saying to himself “I know I’m no Jay Z, but thank God I’m not Asian.” when in pont of fact he might tbe better off if were Bruce Lee.

    Precisely what white man writing in the androsphere has expressed feelings of inferiority to Jewish men, J? Can you name even two examples? As a general rule, the feeling and expression of sexual inferiority is a Jewish trait; the hapless adoration of the shiksa long precedes both Philip Roth and Woody Allen. Moreover, you appear to be confusing concerns about the preservation of white European civilization with perceptions of masculinity.

    Perhaps you would like to live in Detroit or Mexico City. That’s perfectly fine, but many white men and women have no desire to do so.

  • Esau

    CED at 387: “By work, I mean convince people of our ideas without being abrasive. ”

    Well, now the success or worthiness of this achievement really depends on which “ideas” you mean! In your experience as described at 383 above

    Most of the people I talk about this with either understood the concepts already or didn’t dispute them.

    which “concepts” do you mean, specifically? can you re-state what it is that you think people agreed with, that was perhaps surprising or you didn’t expect them to?

    There’s a wide range of concepts/ideas that it is more or less of an achievement, and more or less of an enlightenment, to see people agree with. For example, if you got someone to agree with “Women are attracted to confidence”, then, yeah, that’s nothing to write home about. But if you got someone to agree to “Women are attracted to confidence way above other qualities, such as intelligence or integrity”, which is less flattering to women, then I’d say you’ve earned your pay for the week. And if you can get someone to agree with “Women often mistake arrogance for confidence, or aloofness for strength”, which is even less flattering but even more important to understand (IMO), then I think you’ll really have accomplished something.

    So, whether your approach “works” depends on which ideas, exactly, you think it is most important to have be appreciated. Certainly YMMV.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    I second what anon says; they might have granted you leeway because you were female.

    Though I have been able to talk to people in person about manosphere issues without being abrasive, it still carries risk. Merely being male and having anti-feminist ideas, especially in the MSM which loves to trash men, is enough to get you called “misogynist.”

    You’re a woman. It’s different for you. You’re allowed to hold some unorthodox ideas as long as you don’t go too far.

    Once again, the issue with Good Luck Chuck is that someone would destroy his livelihood because they disagreed with his ideas, and feminists do not tolerate men who disagree with their ideas; they simply shame them. You dismiss his concern by assuming that if a woman accuses him, it must be true or legitimate, rather than done out of spite.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You dismiss his concern by assuming that if a woman accuses him, it must be true or legitimate, rather than done out of spite.

      Not at all. I’m simply saying that if it is legitimate, he deserves to be criticized.

  • Esau

    INTJ at 388: “@ Esau I get the fe[e]ling I am your younger self”

    I assume you mean this as a compliment? (I would have, at your age, so…)

    “Could you link to that letter to your younger self?”

    Fortunately you have some advantages growing up in this time, when better information is readily available, compared to the high tide of feminism that I grew up under; so I’m not sure that a message aimed at a different era would actually be the most useful thing for someone to uncork today.

    I don’t quite remember what I wrote on that HUS thread, or if I did at all. But I think the useful headline would be the same as in my note to AngelGuy at 378 above; if that’s useful, then great, no charge.

  • Abbot

    “What turned me on the most was the seduction, the thrill of trying to get someone to like me, and seeing how far I could take it. Rarely was it a problem to get the ball rolling; the issue was how to control it once it picked up speed”

    From the book “Screw Everyone: Sleeping My Way to Monogamy”

    The screwees had it made. However you get to be a screwee does not matter. Fake it, game it…whatever. Why would any man willingly demean himself by going beyond that?

  • Mark Minter

    Hi,

    My name is Mark Minter. I am a commenter and writer in the Manosphere. It has come to my attention that you are associating me as sex offender because another person with the same name was arrested.

    He lives is Florida. I live in Texas. I am sure you found that man by seeing a mug shot of him.

    I use a Facebook profile for most comments and my photo is readily available. It would have been quite easy for you to actually check facts before making a statement.

    But from what I understand about you, it is something you rarely do.

    Mark Minter of the Manosphere.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mark Minter

      My name is Mark Minter. I am a commenter and writer in the Manosphere. It has come to my attention that you are associating me as sex offender because another person with the same name was arrested.

      What are you talking about? I was previously unaware of your existence. Did you take a wrong virtual turn?

  • Joe

    @Susan

    A woman in my b-school class was the daughter of an RPI professor who wrote a textbook that became the standard and put all of his kids through school. (Resnick)

    Heh. Small world. My brother went to RPI just after Resnick retired. Halliday & Resnick is still the classic physics text, against which all others are measured.

  • Esau

    Susan: “A woman in my b-school class was the daughter of an RPI professor who wrote a textbook that became the standard and put all of his kids through school. (Resnick)

    I’m sure many other textbooks contained the same factual information and didn’t sell many copies.”

    If you’re referring to Halliday and Resnick, the famous intro physics textbook, then I’m afraid you’re completely off the beam with any argument centered on credentialism. Yes, H & R are certainly qualified profs, but so are the authors of many, many similar textbooks that cover the same material. The reason H&R sold so well was its completeness and presentation values, plus good marketing (study guides, etc.) that made it (appear to be) a safe choice for a wide audience; not the best, but never the worst. Just as, at some point in the past, “no one ever got fired for buying IBM”, no one ever failed tenure because they assigned H&R for freshman physics.

    So, sorry, if you want to talk about jacket-cover credentials then I think you flubbed this one as an example.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Esau

      The reason H&R sold so well was its completeness and presentation values, plus good marketing (study guides, etc.) that made it (appear to be) a safe choice for a wide audience;

      I’m certainly not qualified to judge any physics textbook. I’m simply aware that one has been popular for decades. I guess it speaks to the power of marketing, which was actually the whole point of this post.

  • J

    @OTC

    His wife got very offended, and proceeded to berate him in front of us. She called him rude, and a “misogynist” for not offering.

    That was both rude and silly on her part.

    I think you misread what J said. She was merely pointing out that some of those guys who’re envious of black men would be even more pitiful if there weren’t Asian men for them to consider themselves superior to.

    Thanks, INTJ. That’s pretty much it, though I’d emphasize that I find the need to bolster own’s own ego by discrediting other individuals or groups pretty pathetic in and of itself. It demonstrates a probably well deserved lack of self-esteem.

    This is a prime example of that sort of thinking: A Roissy poster had linked to Stormfront, s0 out of curiosity I followed the link. There was a female poster there whose sig included a very provocative picture of a brutish looking black woman kneeling before an Aryan goddess–and I laughed my ass because I knew that the poster must look more like Cigstache than any Aryan goddess. She might imagine herself as a Valkyrie, but I’m sure she was no Beyonce. Likewise, the female anti-Semites there certainly can’t hold a candle to Natalie Portman (but then again, who can?)

    Thank God these losers have people who they can feel superior to; otherwise they’d all kill themselves…………oh, wait.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    The issue is that the tag of “misogynist” is applied unfairly, as a demand to stop speaking anti-feminist ideas. There’s no true way to discuss this publicly without people calling you misogynist; this even happened to me when I tried to convince some people that sexual attractiveness matters in a relationship just as much as attitude does, all without any kind of personal attack.

    As for the points I’ve convinced people of?

    - Women are attracted to confidence, over and above personal integrity, since “good” men are often too passive while “bad” men are more forward and self-assured. It’s not the badness, it’s the forwardness and dominant behavior that matters. This one surprised me.

    - Women want a man who can lead. Note that I did not say that she must follow men generally, since so many men are passive and unattractive anyway.

    - Family law is biased against fathers, making marriage extremely risky for them. Most who deny this try to cloud matters by talking about “love.”

    - Women do not want a man who defers to her too much. This is by far the most frequent one I encounter.

    - Mere niceness isn’t enough to spark attraction in a woman, and women are not these mysterious creatures with random attraction triggers.

    My success rate isn’t 100%, but I often can get people to concede that men and women aren’t some blank slate.

  • http://dannyfrom504.wordpress.com dannyfrom504

    i know a blogger that posts openly……

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      i know a blogger that posts openly……

      You’ve already been mentioned Danny Boy! I said that I thought you’d be awesome on a talk show, because you love women so much and have such tight Game.

  • Anacaona

    Maybe you’re forgetting the part where he said, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, to them I must also go.”

    Sheep =/= Church.
    I guess you are trying to joke but SSM is already confused enough as it is,refrain from this please, if you don’t mind.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    A woman in my b-school class was the daughter of an RPI professor who wrote a textbook that became the standard and put all of his kids through school. (Resnick)

    I’m sure many other textbooks contained the same factual information and didn’t sell many copies.

    Wait she was Robert Resnick’s daughter? :) I’ve seen a lot of textbooks and none of them have the depth that the original Halliday Resnick book did. That includes the newer dumbed down Halliday, Resnick, and Walker editions.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @INTJ

      Yes, Regina Resnick, daughter of Robert. I’m not sure how much she liked growing up in Troy, NY though…

  • INTJ

    @ J

    This is a prime example of that sort of thinking: A Roissy poster had linked to Stormfront, s0 out of curiosity I followed the link. There was a female poster there whose sig included a very provocative picture of a brutish looking black woman kneeling before an Aryan goddess–and I laughed my ass because I knew that the poster must look more like Cigstache than any Aryan goddess. She might imagine herself as a Valkyrie, but I’m sure she was no Beyonce. Likewise, the female anti-Semites there certainly can’t hold a candle to Natalie Portman (but then again, who can?)

    That reminds me of that one time several years back that I saw a thread on Stormfront about beautiful white women. There were a bunch of oohs and aahs about a picture of one actress until someone noticed that she was a Jewish actress. Amazing to see the backpedaling after that. :D

  • J

    Han: Maybe you’re forgetting the part where he said, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold, to them I must also go.”

    Ana: Sheep =/= Church.
    I guess you are trying to joke but SSM is already confused enough as it is,refrain from this please, if you don’t mind.

    J: Actually what scares me most is that woman out there will use that quote as a scriptural justification for her husband screwing sheep…because God knows one can use Scripture to justify anything.

  • J

    Amazing to see the backpedaling after that.

    LOL. I bet.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Well then we are in agreement! What’s the issue?”

    It only takes one.
    Lil story,

    When I first started learning game guess who I told it about? And what my goal was (to get laid).

    My Grandmother, she was the one driving me to uni and asked what I was reading.

    I started explaining the concepts and she largely agreed with a few of them. She said I should use them ethically but no complaints.

    My Grandmother, the Catholic Jesus freak had no problem with game.

    —-

    Fast forward some years, living with 4 girls (mentioned prior). We got into a discussion of game tactics, these people knew me, the second I mentioned my prior study and application of game I was accused of being one of those losers who insults women to get laid (Btw, though the neg can be effective I agree with you that it is the single most facet of game that can misinterpreted by enemies of game to make game itself evil). These women knew me, that I had a fruitful dating history and was good in my niche. Yet the mention of game still made them turn on me like I was a lecher.

    If one of those women had been in a position to get me fired or some such it could have been devastating.

    Quick note on the neg,

    Misrepresented by both men and women.
    General rule, is the woman you are attempting to neg a model and/or could be a model.

    Yes–> Neg required
    No–> Agree and amplify

  • Lokland

    @J

    I re-read it, pardon, my mistake.

  • J

    Not a problem, Lok. I just felt a bit misunderstood.

  • Goldman Sucks

    ” It would make sense to make a man ‘pay up’ back in the past when there were no hormonal sources of birth control, no legal abortions and no welfare whatsoever, but it makes absolutely no sense today”

    Welfare? Seriously? Why should I or any other tax payer have to support the child that results from someone else’s CHOICE not to wear condoms?

    Roe vs Wade For Men: CONDOMS.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    ” The reason H&R sold so well was its completeness and presentation
    values, plus good marketing (study guides, etc.) that made it
    (appear to be) a safe choice for a wide audience; not the best,
    but never the worst.”

    Wasn’t that part of Susan’s point? That the manosphere needs better presentation? Or did I totally miss the point in my skimming?

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Susan 396, bravo! It is exactly because you don’t keep nasty sorts around that I converted to your blog from the manosphere mess several years ago.

  • Anacaona

    Then, if finding the rarity is important to you, you have to face and deal with that reality appropriately: be prepared to search for a long time, to cope with many failures, and not become resentful of “normal” folks for not having what are in fact very rare qualities. If you insist on the rarity, then you have to own up to the trouble of finding it.

    I agree with this concept with a caveat calling it rarity discourages people right from the beginning. Lets say find a suitable mate in body, heart and soul.Hard but not impossible and not such a rarity, YMMV.

    That reminds me of that one time several years back that I saw a thread on Stormfront about beautiful white women. There were a bunch of oohs and aahs about a picture of one actress until someone noticed that she was a Jewish actress. Amazing to see the backpedaling after that.

    I have a anti-semitic friend that was a huge fan of Natalie Portman. I usually don’t mess with people specially people I care about but this friends was messing with so many people that week (he is pro commie, anti-yanki, down with the government and religion and cultural elitist) that I had to rub this fact on his face once. Men went silent for like a week. In the office they actually used to threaten him with calling me when he was being a pain in the neck. I’m not entirely proud of that but it did shut him up once in a while.

    Actually what scares me most is that woman out there will use that quote as a scriptural justification for her husband screwing sheep…because God knows one can use Scripture to justify anything.

    The sad thing is that I agree with this. If you can consider cheating totally okay why no bestiality? :(

    Quick note on the neg,
    Misrepresented by both men and women.
    General rule, is the woman you are attempting to neg a model and/or could be a model.
    Yes–> Neg required
    No–> Agree and amplify

    Caveat being that if the woman ‘feels’ like she could be a model regardless of reality you got a problem there.

  • John

    I couldn’t disagree more with Susan’s points. Every author/speaker of the ‘sphere has their own situation to consider. I’m sure someone in the comments mentioned it, but a woman doing an advice blog for women saying that male bloggers who have controversial opinions should release their identities reveals that she doesn’t get it. It’s obvious (I guess not) that a woman can get away with 100 times what a man can with the same message. Just look at Judgybitch. She’d be seen as a top 3 misogynist in the world if she was a man.

    Also, there’s no problem with the ‘sphere’s image or credibility. In fact, it doesn’t really matter at all. The way the sphere works for the majority of its participants is that real life sends you there. Your experiences eventually lead you to that search bar. You put in something about women and the rest is history. At this point, it’s just a numbers game. MSM is concerned with ratings. They’ll start talking about ‘sphere issues when enough people have taken the Red Pill. They’re whores. They don’t care about the content. Just the viewers. George’s appearance, despite all the criticism, was perfect to me. It was just an opening salvo and we should expect to see more of it very soon. Even if it was bad publicity, we all know what that is better than: no publicity. Also, don’t discount the fact that they being despised and hated is all the more reason they’ll get more exposure. They’ll eventually be some MSM liberal wanker who will invite sphere bloggers onto their shows like when KKK used to go on daytime TV during the Donahue/Geraldo era. And unlike racist crackers from Alabama, the guest will actually say something which resonates and the whole charade will blow up in their faces.

    Men’s default position, unless they’re taught game by a male relative or friend, is to reject the ‘sphere. Those men have to get to the point in their lives where they’re ready to reject that paradigm and start caring about their own happiness. Even if there’s just a part of them that is questioning the feminized hell they live in, all it might take is some mystery man shrouded in darkness to say one thing that matches his actual experience and voila!

    Lastly, let’s remember (despite plunging testosterone levels and herbivore men) game is a solid product. It’s selling you how to get free pussy for just being a better version of yourself. It’s win-win. Charles Manson could be selling it. If it works, it’s only a matter of time.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @John

      It’s obvious (I guess not) that a woman can get away with 100 times what a man can with the same message.

      It’s not obvious to me, especially since George was only talking about helping guys date. No one actually had an issue with anything he said on the show. The issue was his “man of mystery” shtick.

      Oh wait, you mean this?

      It’s selling you how to get free pussy.

      Yup, that’s going to offend most people. That is not the kind of Game I endorse.

      And there’s no such thing as free pussy.

  • Miguel Monsivais

    Bah, I just typed out a long response to you and my laptop hiccuped. I’ll try to hit the high spots.

    I didn’t ridicule George, the host did that. I am simply pointing out that Game and now the manosphere specifically, have a big image problem. Now, that’s irrelevant if the manosphere doesn’t care about its image or seek mainstream acceptance of its ideas. However, most of the prominent sphere bloggers have stated that as a specific goal.

    You’re focused on what gets Miguel laid, and there’s nothing wrong with that. You couldn’t care less who goes on TV and looks (or sounds) foolish.

    For my part, I have publicly discussed all of these ideas, including in interviews with journalists, and have been told point blank on several occasions that I had shifted their thinking, especially around the nature of the contemporary SMP, and how that reflects the changes that feminism wrought. The only negative response I have ever received was from radfems at feministing, Marcotte, etc.

    The reality is that there are many women, especially Millennials, who feel no allegiance to feminism whatsoever, are angry that the SMP is so hostile in general, and want to see change. Many are willing to make personal decisions to help effect that change.

    In my opinion, it would be a good thing for young people of both sexes if helpful information could be disseminated in a forthright manner. I simply do not accept that men will lose their jobs for this.

    Of course, I haven’t been writing rants filled with obscenities, vague threats of personal harm, revenge fantasies, and a persecution complex about Fem-Centrism. Most days I don’t sound like a lunatic.

    Susan, you called him a creep and you agreed with the host’s assessment on George.

    And also again, I thought I painted a clear picture for you but I’ll try my best to do a better job, the manosphere’s image will never be accepted by the mainstream not because that’s how the manosphere wants it, but because the mainstream is under a state of social conditioning that it be too difficult for them to accept the truth.

    I am not focused on what gets me laid. I am focused on how to make myself a better person. This is what the manosphere is trying to get into all of our thick skulls! The moment we try and figure out how to get laid is when we lose. Figuring out what gets me laid without figuring out what makes me a better man is a selfish way of approaching and would completely give the women complete control. Why not figure out what women are attracted to instead and then contemplate on yourself and work from there to be that man that attracts the women you like? Both sides win.

    This is what George here was simply trying to do. But you’re too caught up on that “black square” and his anonymity, and his ideas of how to maintain eye contact (I still wish you responded to my question on what makes your assessment of eye contact any different from George’s?).

    Do you know me? You see my name, but do you know me? No you don’t. So why isn’t what I am saying just as irrelevant as George’s ideas when I am just as anonymous to you?

    Maybe you do have some great ideas and insights that even the manosphere would agree with. But instead of gaining that trust and friendship you simply coin them misogynists and ridiculing them on your blogs completely alienating yourself from them. In other words, it seems as if you want to have a monopoly in how men attract women and that’s exactly what the manosphere said would happen but does not want it to happen.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Susan, you called him a creep and you agreed with the host’s assessment on George.

      I did neither. I simply observed that George’s media moment was a FAIL. And that’s George’s own fault.

      But instead of gaining that trust and friendship you simply coin them misogynists and ridiculing them on your blogs completely alienating yourself from them.

      Ha! I offered trust and friendship and I got pumped and dumped by the manosphere!

      I might get that printed on a t-shirt.

      I no longer seek approval or affiliation of any kind with the manosphere, as it is rife with cads and Dark Triad types.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Well as someone who is anonymous and have been since discovering the manosphere, I don’t take issue with anonymity, but with the tone of the people who are trying to get their message across. Oftentimes the presentation is just as important as the content.

    Analogy time. My husband would say to his mom, it’s not what you’re saying, it’s how you’re saying it. She has this way of getting on his nerves by being very demanding and bitchy in tone. I would speak to him in the exact opposite way, and he would be much more receptive.

    All you people who are denigrating Susan for her work here don’t see the history, that she had been cordial to those who are cordial to her. But she has had to put up with a lot of personal insults from various members of the so-called manosphere. Frankly the reason I’m here is because there isn’t the same amount of nastiness here as many other places online.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    All right, now what about you trashing Good Luck Chuck because of his concern, presuming that if some woman accuses him of misogyny, it must be because he’s guilty?

    Here’s some mysogyny for ya- This is what women do when they get backed into a corner with their “logic”.

    She had no logical way respond to my point. Anything other than a redirect on her part would have exposed this entire article for the intellectually weak comment trap that it is.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      the intellectually weak comment trap that it is.

      The argument is not an intellectual one. It’s about marketing, and Game bloggers suck at it. Tant pis.

      As for comment traps, I wrote this post despite the fact that it was bound to attract you lot. I almost couldn’t bring myself to hit the Publish button knowing that Rollowers and other unpleasant spherians were bound to show up. (How do they know anyway? I deliberately didn’t link in hopes of keeping it hush hush. Is there really an army of Flying Monkeys?)

      This is more along the lines of something unpleasant that has to be done. Like emptying the litter box or taking out the garbage.

  • J

    I have a anti-semitic friend

    You have an anti-Semitic friend ?

  • JustJulia

    Susan, Goldman Sucks, Anacoana,

    Your posts directed at SunshineMary are a bit mean spirited. I used to read her blog although I disagree with much of her theology. I found it to be a fascinating window into Christian Patriarchy.

    Anyway, try to have some compassion for her. Something horrible may have happened to SunshineMary to leave her emotionally broken enough to believe (based on her blog posts) that she should obey her husband in all matters including meeting his sexual demands at all times; maintain a certain level of thinness and blondness to keep him from cheating again; and back up the misogyny preached on Dalrock’s blog.

    Susan,
    I’ve always enjoyed your blog b/c it’s so women-positive. Maybe there’s a way to counter SunshineMary’s misogynistic beliefs without insulting her personally.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    By the way, when reddit was still new and an upstart challenger to digg, I saw the argument between speaking to a niche audience vs appealing to the masses. As it turns out, most people like the same sort of thing anyway. Being good, high quality, useful, easy to digest, and friendly to newcomers makes you popular, which upset some of those who wanted reddit to remain exclusive and retain its nerd cred. Now out had long surpassed digg and become a phenomenon all its own. That would not have happened if the founders insisted on being niche.

  • Erasmus

    Clarence 287
    Child support laws are largely blind to gender and those that aren’t are on their way out. The dynamic you should be examining is which parent is the custodial parent and whether that parent is also the primary earner.

    I would request some clarification before addressing some of your other points.
    Regarding rape, most murders are committed by men. Would you also classify murder as a gendered crime? If so, then there are numerous other rules which you could but did not cite. If not, what is the justification for treating rape as a gendered crime?

    CrisisEraDynamo 414
    Please provide justification for your claim, “Family law is biased against fathers…”

  • Goldman Sucks

    JustJulia

    Susan, Goldman Sucks, Anacoana,

    “Your posts directed at SunshineMary are a bit mean spirited…..Anyway, try to have some compassion for her.”

    I do. Its obvious she is in a dysfunctional and troubled marriage and in no position to advise others and yet that is exactly what she does, in a very pompous way.

    “Something horrible may have happened to SunshineMary to leave her emotionally broken enough to believe (based on her blog posts) that she should obey her husband in all matters including meeting his sexual demands at all times; maintain a certain level of thinness and blondness to keep him from cheating again; and back up the misogyny preached on Dalrock’s blog.”

    Obviously. I would say having your husband cheat on you 30 times is horrible enough in and of itself. He’s got issues of his own, no matter how “egalitarian” (what SSM mistakenly calls “bossy”) his wife may have been or is now. I’d say 30 times cheating falls clearly into sex addiction category. And imagine the STDs!

    This is a man who clearly doesn’t care for the health and well-being of his wife and possibly even his own children. It also sounds like HE’S the “egalitarian/bossy” one.

  • kevin

    Susan, please post when you were threatened on the manosphere so we all can see it. I think your rationalization hamster is on steroids. Your blog reads as a guide for women to sucker unsuspecting men. It does a good service for women in that regard. Btw, if your a manly man, it wont matter if the women makes more money than you. The value of a good man is that he brings order, and that to a women is priceless. (regardless of whether or not she understands why she’s attracted to him) Take this from a minority, my parents are still married and in love after almost 50 years of marriage.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Susan, please post when you were threatened on the manosphere so we all can see it. I think your rationalization hamster is on steroids.

      I’ve already said the comment may still be at Dalrock’s for all to read. I will not publish that threat again here. I don’t think you understand – I spent most of a week not sleeping at all. The week of Christmas, which I was hosting for a large number of out of town family.

      Dalrock’s “hands off” policy when his commenters are certifiably insane and violent is extremely irresponsible. He’s a sadist and a misogynist, and he gets these unsuspecting unhinged men to do his dirty work for him.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Your blog reads as a guide for women to sucker unsuspecting men. ”

    Nonsense! Susan even goes so far as to tell women to prioritize husband hunting and baby making over career. She’s written post after post on how women can be more “feminine” and sweet and gooey and “give 100%” to their men and “allow them to lead”.

    This clearly is not a feminist blog.

  • Tomato

    Esau – “Yes, I can certainly sympathize from my experience. So much of appears in the ‘sphere, including HUS, parses down — if you’re honest about it — to the idea that “woman as large child” is the natural or correct ordering of the world.”

    The constant “hamster” terminology certainly doesn’t help matters.

  • http://theprivateman.wordpress.com The Private Man

    Damn, late to the party… again.

    The Manosphere is indeed an insurgency. It’s an unconventional insurgency in that those behind the keyboards are mostly anonymous. That means that the ideas presented are up for discussion, not the individuals.

    In the HuffPo video, George’s lack of a face means that he’s relatively immune to personal attacks based merely on his physical appearance. The host of the show went after his anonymity because he was denied the ability to get personal. George was mostly talking about ideas while the others were talking too much about personal experiences. That’s the great thing about the Manosphere, it’s far more about the ideas, not the individuals.

    “A blogger who hides behind an empty screen demonstrates that he does not have the courage of his convictions. He is not willing to be interviewed and state what he believes. He cannot speak truth to power. As Zepps mocks him, George comes across as weak and fearful, not strong or independent”

    Susan gets it wrong here. If the ideas are sound and truthful, it matters not a whit who speaks them so that anonymity is functionally irrelevant. This is a much more honest form of logic and reason. George’s written words on that blog are all the courage he needs because his words and ideas are speaking truth to power. It’s easy to dismiss an individual, it’s far more difficult to dismiss an idea, doubly so if that idea is truth.

    As for the mainstream media, it’s becoming increasingly irrelevant as the ‘Net absorbs more and more attention, especially male attention. Is the Manosphere a tiny part of the Interwebz? As self-identified, yes. However, if one looks at off-topic areas of popular forums where men gather – motorcycles, cars, body building, guns, etc. – it’s easy to find the “off topic” areas that receive huge traffic (teh menz) where Red Pill ideas are often presented and discussed. The comment areas in news stories where women, dating, and relationships are presented are full of Red Pill ideas.

    The reason I de-cloaked is that I’m intending to take Red Pill wisdom more mainstream with live classes/events to real people, men and women alike. My Private Man blog serves as a nice springboard and gives me the credibility (traffic, comments, and emails) to launch Red Pill Dating (the URL is easy to figure out). I won’t be teaching “Game” in the classic PUA sense. Rather, I want to help men and women to reach their relationship goals, whatever those goals might be. For the record, I requested to George that he refer me to HuffPo. I’m more than happy to have my ugly mug on video.

    Personal attacks are simply a way to cower behind piss-poor logic and faulty reasoning. George, through his anonymity, did a brilliant job of avoiding such personal attacks and his ideas had to be honestly argued. By the way, he’s been invited back. Never argue with success.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Privateman

      In the HuffPo video, George’s lack of a face means that he’s relatively immune to personal attacks based merely on his physical appearance.

      Interesting. It didn’t occur to me that George might be ugly. That hasn’t seemed to stop Roosh.

      That’s the great thing about the Manosphere, it’s far more about the ideas, not the individuals.

      Is that a joke? I challenge you to find one manosphere thread that doesn’t describe a terrible personal experience or vendetta against women. In fact, I’ll go one better than that. I challenge you to find one manosphere post that doesn’t include deti telling his sob story.

      If the ideas are sound and truthful, it matters not a whit who speaks them

      But it does matter whether they get spoken. George had to spend nearly all his time taking fire over his anonymity, and his inability to respond visually meant that he was unable to jump in as the two women did.

      I won’t be teaching “Game” in the classic PUA sense. Rather, I want to help men and women to reach their relationship goals, whatever those goals might be

      Based on the fact that you use the word relationship rather than the phrase “free pussy,” I’ll go out on a limb and say that’s a noble goal.

      By the way, he’s been invited back. Never argue with success.

      I will be very interested to see the follow up, and whether the focus remains on ridiculing Game.

  • Clarence

    Erasmus:
    Rape is already treated as a gendered crime by meaning of the very surveys and laws that define what rape is.
    You should be wondering why most state rape statutes seem to require penetration rather than merely sexual activity. I already gave you one answer: lots of the research that is conducted on rape is conducted by and through an explicitly feminist lens.
    Here’s a few legal papers on that very thing:
    http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/jhalley/cv/Rape.at.Rome.pdf
    http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/175/Gruber_Author%20Copy.pdf?sequence=1
    I might also refer to you Susan Brownmiller :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Our_Will:_Men,_Women,_and_Rape

    When a political movement organizes largely around certain views of a particular crime it is appropriate to take that influence into account. Technically, I don’t think rape is a gendered crime, but in the legal and political realms it very much is.

  • Cooper

    Charlie left Girls!!

    I wonder whether they’ll replace him or write him out..

    They must’ve not seen this coming as Season2 ended with him involved.

  • empathologism

    Frankly the reason I’m here is because there isn’t the same amount of nastiness here as many other places online.

    Ive net read here for months. This comment strikes me as absurd. Would it not be more correct to add “directed at me” to this?

    There is as much nastiness flying off the host here as I have seen on any of the Christian manosphere blogs. I do not populate the pure game blogs so I cannot compare, but to write this amidst the comments that surround it is gone to madness.

  • Clarence

    On the topic of Sunshine Mary :
    She is a Christian who actually takes her religion seriously and does what she is convinced God wants.
    I can respect that even though I am not a Christian and sometimes even flirt with atheism.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ JustJulia

    So let me get this straight: being sexually attractive to your husband is “misogyny?” Avoiding the use of no-fault divorce is “bad?” Bossing and nagging your husband is the model of a modern, 21st-century relationship?

    Sickening.

    SunshineMary, whatever her faults and whatever her past, at least tried to help Christian wives out with good, general advice, instead of teaching women to treat husbands’ sexual desires like some disease or mental disorder, use the family law system to inflict criminal-like penalties on him just because he displeased you or you had other plans, and treating him like some overgrown child. There is absolutely no need for Susan to “counter her misogynistic beliefs,” since she has withdrawn her blog from the internet due to someone outing her real name, possibly exposing her to serious social or even physical repercussions.

    To attack someone like that, all because their take on the husband-wife relationship isn’t the modern travesty promoted by the MSM. Somebody who at least tried to take the marriage vows seriously, rather than saying them without meaning them.* Somebody who understood that a wife must be attractive to her husband, just like a husband must be attractive to a wife. Somebody who knew that being some bossy harridan isn’t any way to have a marriage.

    It is not “misogyny” to actually value your husband as a Christian wife.

    But I’m sure you’re happy that her awful crimethink was silenced by someone trying to sic the dogs on her personally. After all, it’s the 21st century; this toxic culture has decided that there is no room for marriages where the husband actually gets rewarded for all the crap he has to go through to keep his family alive and comfortable.

    * For the record, I am not saying it is a wise idea to stand by your husband if he compulsively cheats (in fact, a divorce in that case is perfectly justified!) I cannot change her past. What I am saying is that you should take your vows seriously.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Good Luck Chuck

    Susan can’t understand that charges of misogyny are lobbed by people who merely disagree with you, and they can ruin your livelihood if they had a mind to.

  • JP

    “There is as much nastiness flying off the host here as I have seen on any of the Christian manosphere blogs. I do not populate the pure game blogs so I cannot compare, but to write this amidst the comments that surround it is gone to madness.”

    This place is a gentle, happy place, full of cooperation and joy compared to financial boards.

    I advise you to never post on a bear stock market board.

    Particularly during a bull market.

  • JustJulia

    Crisis era dynamo
    “So let me get this straight: being sexually attractive to your husband is “misogyny?” Avoiding the use of no-fault divorce is “bad?” Bossing and nagging your husband is the model of a modern, 21st-century relationship?

    Sickening.”

    You’re right. Being sexually attractive to your husband isn’t misogyny.
    But the following “teachings” are:

    1) Telling her blog readers that emotional and physical abuse isn’t a valid reason for divorce if you are a Christian. If I hadn’t left my first husband, he would have probably killed me by now.

    2) Telling readers that marital rape doesn’t exist because a husband essentially owns his wife’s body.

    3) Telling readers that it’s wrong for a woman to turn down her husband sexually and that she must act enthusiastic even if she’s not in the mood. While sex is an important part of any marriage, it should never be forced.

    4) Telling readers that the 19th amendment should have never been ratified b/c women are too emotionally unstable to vote responsibly.

    5) Calling women who have had sex before marriage sluts and calling women who are 4o and older and unmarried spinsters.

    6) Posting numerous times about how men are superior to women in every way (intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually).

    7) Posting that domestic violence claims are exaggerated and that men are just as likely to be victims as women.

    In my original post I stood up for Sunshine Mary b/c I thought she had been attacked unfairly on this blog. I think she has the right to post her opinions without being personally attacked, but I also reserve the right to disagree with those opinions.

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    Sure. But the bears tend to be right during bull market periods.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ JustJulia

    But I’m sure you’re happy that her awful crimethink was silenced by someone trying to sic the dogs on her personally.

    I reread your post and take this back. I was posting at the heat of the moment, very enraged.

    When it comes to SunshineMary, I get rather angry because here was a woman offering advice to other Christian wives as to how to have a proper, Biblical marriage, and much of the commentary flew in the face of this sinister feminist culture. I admired how she attacked the assumptions of modern marriage, ruffling feminist feathers along the way. No doubt, she was pissing off all the right people.

    Then I hear of how some twit outed her real name, no doubt to threaten her without making an actual threat.

    It drew my mind back to all the incidents I hear of on universities, where some mob of leftists shouts down a non-leftist speaker and vandalizes their displays. It reminded me of students who get disciplined by administrators looking to enforce ideological orthodoxy. It reminded me of people getting fired merely for saying something within earshot of some censorious busybody.

    All these censors support the right of a wife to levy harsh legal penalties on their husbands – innocent men – for any reason or none at all.

    All these censors demonize men’s sexual desire, calling it shallow and “testosterone poisoning.”

    All these censors crow about “male privilege” when ordinary men can’t find work.

    All these censors do their best to make school hell for boys.

    So when I see someone attack SunshineMary, I see it as being done in the spirit of husband-bashing and male-bashing. That’s what’s fueling my rather surly attitude on this thread.

    Maybe I’ve been intemperate. But whenever I see someone waving off the idea that innocent men can be punished, I cannot just say nothing, because too many people who share that philosophy shape our culture.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      When it comes to SunshineMary, I get rather angry because here was a woman offering advice to other Christian wives as to how to have a proper, Biblical marriage, and much of the commentary flew in the face of this sinister feminist culture.

      I have not read Sunshine Mary’s blog and have no beef with her personally. I do know the basic background facts. The idea that a proper, Biblical marriage includes 30 affairs by the husband is mind boggling. This line of thinking is disgusting.

      As the post states, and Roissy has said many times, women get the men they deserve. Sluts get with sluts. SSM appears to have married the worst sort of manwhore. There is nothing noble or Christian in remaining with a man who risks her health every time he steps out. Which is how often? Several times a year?

      This is a male who deserves to be bashed, divorced, and then stripped clean in divorce court.

      You’ll never see the end of male bashing by sane women as long as there are women who submit to philandering, lying cheats eagerly.

  • Anacaona

    You have an anti-Semitic friend
    USA invaded us twice the last time in ’65 that added to being close to some Cubans created a group of anti-USA(specially among intellectuals) and since USA supports Israel their default position is that Jewish are bad people. We only have two synagogues bad in DR and the Jewish keep it to themselves so all sorts of myths around them are created and no one stands by then. Heck I was looking to take some Jewish studies when I was getting my minor in Theology and after getting interrogated by a Rabbi like I was in a CIA interrogatory board (and I was a skinny 19 year old) I was given a book and not further contact. The Islamic people in my country mingle socially a lot more and some of them intermarry so its easier to support them and see the Israel as the gringos of Gaza if you know what I mean. Hence a lot people are anti-semitic. This particular friends supposedly visited a sinagogue and they told him that the black skin was a punishment from God due to some Jewish legend about one son of Noah being burned by the sun as a punishment. So he took it that Jewish are racists as well.
    Is idiotic I know but sadly we Dominicans are easily led from the pretty words of any foreigner. That is how our Tainos went extinct pretty much.

    Anyway, try to have some compassion for her. Something horrible may have happened to SunshineMary to leave her emotionally broken enough to believe (based on her blog posts) that she should obey her husband in all matters including meeting his sexual demands at all times; maintain a certain level of thinness and blondness to keep him from cheating again; and back up the misogyny preached on Dalrock’s blog.

    I don’t mind what SSM does or does not with her husband is the fact that she is misquoting the bible to justify his sinning and her enabling for it and is trying to led astray other women with it that I take issue with.
    Specially when it doesn’t even work he keeps sinning regardless how submissive she is. Is spiritually wrong and a failure in practical matters too. Pointing that out is not lack of compassion for her is just pointing out that the water is wet, YMMV.

    She is a Christian who actually takes her religion seriously and does what she is convinced God wants.
    I can respect that even though I am not a Christian and sometimes even flirt with atheism.

    I would be more sympathetic if she said that God told her in a dream that her crux in this world is to bear her husband infidelities for the rest of her life. I have no qualm with personal revelations. But quoting the bible sorry no. She is wrong and she shouldn’t try to decide that women should submit to unworthy husband that are soiling the institution of marriage and mocking God and his word in the process.
    That is how liberals ended up hating religion and calling women that believe stupid for trusting something that treats them women as inferior. An assessment that only works if you ignore the duties of husbands and men and how God punish male and female that sin equally, something SSM has forgotten completely, misguided believers shouldn’t be allowed to become the face of faith, IMO.

  • JustJulia

    CrisisEraDynamo

    It seems we both agree that SunshineMary and the manosphere bloggers have the right to post whatever they want to share with the world and that they shouldn’t have to fear retaliation from the thought police. No one’s First Amendment rights should be taken away because they are in the political-social-religious minority.

    I actually miss her blog. My sister is in a fundamentalist religion (sometimes referred to as Quiverful) and SunshineMary’s blog helped me to understand her worldview better, even though I still don’t agree with it.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ JustJulia

    Now that I’ve had time to calm down, let me address your points one-by-one. Apologies for the vicious tone of my last post.

    1) Telling her blog readers that emotional and physical abuse isn’t a valid reason for divorce if you are a Christian. If I hadn’t left my first husband, he would have probably killed me by now.

    Physical abuse is absolutely a good reason for divorce. “Emotional abuse” seems a bit trickier to define; I take it to mean constant put-downs and the like, but it can be too easily turned into “he dissatisfies me and is boring, so this feels like torture, so I’ll divorce him.”

    2) Telling readers that marital rape doesn’t exist because a husband essentially owns his wife’s body.

    However, the husband is compelled by law to provide for you even if you decide to divorce him. This is “marital robbery,” and it is at the root of much of the modern family court’s injustice. If a man loses his job, he goes to jail once the payments stop. Seen in this context, I can see why SunshineMary says marital rape doesn’t exist – because modern law says that the wife doesn’t have to fulfill her traditional duty of sex, but the husband does have to fulfill his traditional duty of providership.

    My own position is that there is such a thing as marital rape, but there also is such a thing as marital robbery. Both should be against the law.

    3) Telling readers that it’s wrong for a woman to turn down her husband sexually and that she must act enthusiastic even if she’s not in the mood. While sex is an important part of any marriage, it should never be forced.

    I actually agree with the “it should never be forced” part, as it gives both an incentive to stay sexually attractive. However, when the wife withholds sex, the husband cannot go outside of the relationship for sexual release unless he uses porn – and I’m 100% for porn use (though NOT live webcams) in a marriage for precisely this reason.

    4) Telling readers that the 19th amendment should have never been ratified b/c women are too emotionally unstable to vote responsibly.

    Haven’t really thought on this one much.

    5) Calling women who have had sex before marriage sluts and calling women who are 4o and older and unmarried spinsters.

    The fact is that women who repeatedly have sex before marriage end up marrying men that are reliable but cannot compare to their past partners, so they grow bored with them and divorce them. Also, sexually active women make prospective husbands jump through hoops sexually while giving it up to the men that really turn her on. There’s also the danger of false paternity, and a woman would be offended if her man suggested a paternity test.

    There is no problem with older, unmarried women; after all, no marriage, no divorce.

    6) Posting numerous times about how men are superior to women in every way (intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually).

    Men and women are not the same, and they are not interchangeable. Their attraction triggers and mental processes are quite different from one another. But difference does not imply any sort of across-the-board superiority for either sex.

    7) Posting that domestic violence claims are exaggerated and that men are just as likely to be victims as women.

    It is very easy for a woman to falsely accuse a man of domestic violence, thanks to mandatory arrest laws. Also, men are just as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women.

    I fully agree with your right to disagree.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I doubt this ends well.

    I have no issue with George’s anonymity. I use my real name and picture on other parts of the net, but have zero desire to do that in this sphere. Nothing to gain and everything to lose in polite society when you have non-PC views.

    I’m with Brendan & Jason. The whole point of the Manosphere & Game circles is to be an alternative to the MSM, not aspire to be a part of it.

    In order to gain acceptance in the MSM, they would have to lose their edge while feminizing and PRifying the message. At that point it’s a hollow shell of itself.

  • Passer_By

    “I miss Aldonza.
    Don’t we all! Ironically, she left because she could not bear the commentary of the men here. She found it openly misogynistic and plagued with negativity. She felt that way for a long time and disagreed with my willingness to entertain all points of view. Ultimately, she grew tired of debating “Roe for Men” and other MRA-friendly topics and said goodbye forever.”

    I assumed it was because her unrequited love for me made it too painful to comment here, knowing that I was taken and could never be hers.

  • Rich

    Susan – I’ve been visiting your site for a few years now and have yet to read anything from you encouraging young women to take care of their bodies through training (exercise) and proper nutrition. I believe that your female readers would benefit from positive encouragement (from you) to take good care of themselves. Don’t you think that combining your dating strategies with proper care of their bodies would benefit the young ladies who read your material tremendously?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Susan – I’ve been visiting your site for a few years now and have yet to read anything from you encouraging young women to take care of their bodies through training (exercise) and proper nutrition.

      I have included that advice in posts on how to attract more men. And I frequently describe the female features that define fertility, i.e. female beauty. Mostly I am aware that women who don’t exercise or eat well are not lacking proper advice or information. There are many more blogs about diet and fitness than there are about relationships. My exhorting women to get fit and lose weight will have zero impact, as women hear these messages many times each day.

  • Passer_By

    @Rich

    That’s a pretty good point. It probably would have never occurred to women that men prefer women with good bodies. ;)

    But while we’re on the topic – do squats more than cardio (or at least as much). Pound those glutes ’till your butt’s like a bowling ball.

  • https://en.gravatar.com/sunshinemary sunshinemary

    Mrs. Walsh, I have left three comments here, all of which were very polite. You wrote that Dalrock allows his female commenters to be treated badly, but I can tell you that I have never been treated as badly for no reason whatsoever as you are allowing your commenters to treat me. They are not responding to anything I even wrote here.

    You wrote:

    Dalrock can stay out of the fray knowing full well that his disturbed commenters will always attack and report back.

    Do you not see the irony in that?

    Anacaona, you may say what you wish about me, but stop slandering my husband immediately. My husband is not cheating on me nor has he done so any time recently. I have not twisted any Scripture verses to justify continued sinning on his part for the simple reason that he is not sinning. He has long ago repented of those past sins. Stop bad mouthing him at once.

    CrisisEra, you are very kind to try to explain things to these silly girls as you are doing, but probably you are wasting your time. They don’t appear to wish to discuss anything rationally but rather to make baseless accusations against me. Why, I don’t know. I actually do not know any of these women and am startled to learn that they appear to have been regular readers of my old blog.

    However, to the commenter who accuses me of being a thin, blonde, Christian wife who is sexually available to her husband: I am guilty as charged. I’ll try to live with the shame.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @sunshinemary

      I can tell you that I have never been treated as badly for no reason whatsoever as you are allowing your commenters to treat me.

      You are being criticized for things you have chosen to share on your blog. That is fair game. As far as I can tell, no one has leaped to judgments about you unrelated to your own writings.

      Dalrock allows men to engage in spurious vicious attacks on women who are not bloggers, who have in some cases said very little before they’re verbally abused and sent packing. He also twists people’s words and intent very often, deliberately misrepresenting their positions. He did it with me, and I know he’s done it to other bloggers as well. They show up to discuss, explain or debate and he slams them with gratuitous hostility, then releases his rabid followers on them.

      That is not what is happening here.

      Anacaona, you may say what you wish about me, but stop slandering my husband immediately. My husband is not cheating on me nor has he done so any time recently.

      You do know that 30 extramarital affairs is extraordinary, right? Like, he’s in the top 1% of cheaters. I hope he does not cheat on you again.

      But I wonder what purpose sharing this story serves. If you want to serve as a cautionary tale about how not to marry an alpha, fine. But I get the sense that you are actually sharing advice on how a good marriage works. That is dubious at best, but caveat emptor to your readers.

      You embarrass yourself by calling the women here who are married to faithful and loyal men, Christian and otherwise, “silly girls.”

      I do apologize if you were offended, but we don’t take kindly to cheaters around here, and we certainly aren’t likely to take seriously any woman who stays with a compulsive philanderer. This gets back to the credibility issue – though I don’t deny you may have some credibility among women who have shared your experience.

  • Passer_By

    @sunshineofmylove
    “However, to the commenter who accuses me of being a thin, blonde, Christian wife who is sexually available to her husband: I am guilty as charged. I’ll try to live with the shame.”

    Pics or gtfo!!

  • J

    In the HuffPo video, George’s lack of a face means that he’s relatively immune to personal attacks based merely on his physical appearance. The host of the show went after his anonymity because he was denied the ability to get personal.

    His looks? It’s interesting you went there. Why are you making the assumption that he’s ugly? And what if he were? The brunette female writer who was interviewed was no movie star.

  • http://dannyfrom504.wordpress.com dannyfrom504

    Tia-

    i don’t think it’d be a good idea for me to talk to huff-po. i think my asshole switch would get tripped and completely validate their talking points as us being misogynistic.

    it would take SERIOUS restrain. i think TPM or Vox would be a better choice. remember, i do have PTSD. lol.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ SunshineMary

    I do what I can. I get that Susan suggests we should be less abrasive in our presentation, and I agree. However, many of these ideas run counter to the cultural norm, and you can be attacked as a misogynist simply because you hold the ideas at all, even if you’re not personally attacking anyone. She does not understand that much of the “debate” will be bad-faith accusations of misogyny to guilt you into shutting up, and also to harm your livelihood. Only women are allowed to go slightly outside the feminist norm, but even they mustn’t go too far (which explains why she hasn’t been destroyed by the media.)

    Remember that much of Red Pill knowledge exposes anti-male cultural trends, trends feminists try to deny the existence of in order to justify their male-bashing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      She does not understand that much of the “debate” will be bad-faith accusations of misogyny to guilt you into shutting up, and also to harm your livelihood.

      Do we know of a single case of this? Someone getting fired for anti-feminist views? I have never heard of it. In fact, I have never heard of anyone being fired for personal views of any kind. Can you provide examples please? I remain convinced this is paranoia.

  • Passer_By

    Joking aside, I’m going to have to pull out some manospherian terms and accuse some of the women here of solipsism and hamster wheeling.

    Women don’t get this because, by and large, they are allowed to voice any opinion without serious consequences. None of you would likely lose a job over anything on the internet. You could be a virulent feminist, a stepford wife, or something in between like Susan. You are largely immune to that sort of retaliation.

    But we just saw some poor sap, with a wife and 3 kids to support, lose his job for the unthinkable crime of (allegedly) making a dongle joke to his buddy within earshot of some busy body broad. Now, never mind the fact that the word “dongle” seems to have been coined for its dong-like features, and never mind that the advertisements for it are filled with double entendre. And never mind that one day later this supposedly offended woman was making big dick jokes on the internet on an unrelated topic. Calling this misogynistic is so far removed from reality it boggles the mind. A lame joke? No doubt. But not misogynistic. But that was the claim by feminists all over the Net. So, when Susan implies that this guy only need fear being toast for “actual” misogyny, she’s just being ridiculous.

    But, suppose what he says is misogynistic by some defintion. So what? Again, women can get a pass on any opinion, whether it be misandrist or misogynistic or whatever (but not racist, I suppose), and suffer no consequences. So he ought to be able to do the same, but we know he can’t. Most men could lose a job if they were the HUS proprieter. We’ve seen all kinds of accusations of misogyny against Susan for what she writes here. We certainly saw people go after Roissy at his supposed place of work, and we know they will do it to any male who says something that some feminist doesn’t like. But I have yet to see them successfully do it to a woman. Calling this merely “inconvenient” is a joke. I’m sure that guy’s wife and kids find it more than inconvenient.

    And it matters not that men have the levers of power in many cases. First, those men often now have power based on their appeal to women. But, whether or not that’s the case, they are all to happy to throw some guy under the bus to avoid the wrath of the shrieking harpies and manginas that comprise the government sponsored feminist leviathan.

    Calling a guy a coward for not wanting to deal with that is like calling some woman in Saudi Arabia a coward for anonymously blogging against Islam. (Ok, not quite like that, but you get the gist ;)

    I do agree, though, that a manospherian blogger shouldn’t go on TV or some other interview format without being willing to identify himself, since it will just lend itself to that sort of nonsense, regardless of the message. Just say no thanks, if you aren’t willing to be identified.

    Now, as to the hamsterwheeling, any woman who claims that women like bad boys because of their innate need to nurture and fix some guy is really hamsterwheeling. That’s just the forebrain rationalizing the desires of the hind brain so as to make them noble or altruistic.

  • Anacaona

    Anacaona, you may say what you wish about me, but stop slandering my husband immediately. My husband is not cheating on me nor has he done so any time recently. I have not twisted any Scripture verses to justify continued sinning on his part for the simple reason that he is not sinning. He has long ago repented of those past sins. Stop bad mouthing him at once.
    Fair enough. I will stop and I’m sorry for taking in present tense if he is not currently not sinning against marriage.

  • Passer_By

    “I apologize if my remark implied I thought George was a serial killer. That was not my intention. I only meant that a guy who holds eye contact for longer than is appropriate will get different results based on his SMV, as well as his level of comfort and ease in his own skin.”

    Ironically, the bona fide serial killers are probably the ones who pull it off best.

    “Is George an MRA? Why would he have to be anti-feminist to write about Game? I don’t understand.”

    We’ve been through this before. Game (uggh, I still don’t like the word) is inherently offensive to feminists because it is based upon facts, observations and/or assumptions that are antithetical to their world view.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Game (uggh, I still don’t like the word) is inherently offensive to feminists because it is based upon facts, observations and/or assumptions that are antithetical to their world view.

      Perhaps, but there really aren’t that many of them around, and last I heard no one else took them seriously anyway. Can Amanda Marcotte get you fired?

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Yup, that’s going to offend most people. That is not the kind of Game I endorse.

    And there’s no such thing as free pussy.

    So teaching a man to sexually attract women is offensive. Therefore, women are entitled to a relationship and providership. Got it.

    And there’s plenty of free pussy if you are attractive enough as a man. That’s why there’s a hookup culture at all.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      And there’s plenty of free pussy if you are attractive enough as a man. That’s why there’s a hookup culture at all.

      Sex is never free. It is never casual. Not even for men. Every sexual encounter you have changes you in some way. It may be an STD, one of your swimmers hitting their target, even revulsion at your partner when the act is done. It may be the way you feel when you bang chick #200 and realize there is no love in your life.

      Men who have a lot of casual sex become coarsened to sex, and do not understand what sex with love is. They also are more likely to cheat and get divorced if they do marry.

      Casual sex destroys people, it destroys their humanity. Most people can get away with a little, but not a lot. Sex always costs.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan

    I know emotions are running high here, but I avoided personally attacking you with my post on women being entitled to providership.

    I just want to know your position on casual sex.

  • Passer_By

    @Chris

    I took her meaning to be that a ONS is never “free” to both people in the long run – there is some cost somewhere, even if he isn’t bearing it.

  • Miguel Monsivais

    @Jimmy Hendricks I doubt this ends well.

    I have no issue with George’s anonymity. I use my real name and picture on other parts of the net, but have zero desire to do that in this sphere. Nothing to gain and everything to lose in polite society when you have non-PC views.

    I’m with Brendan & Jason. The whole point of the Manosphere & Game circles is to be an alternative to the MSM, not aspire to be a part of it.

    In order to gain acceptance in the MSM, they would have to lose their edge while feminizing and PRifying the message. At that point it’s a hollow shell of itself.

    These are my sentiments exactly. All this trying to make someone feel bad for remaining anonymous is nothing more than the usual feminine manipulation, so that when they do budge now they can ridicule them to the very core of their individuality.

    Susan Walsh here is being quite disingenuous for not admitting to these tactics. But again, why would she? She’s going to stick to her arguments not because they are correct but because she truly believes them, and also because she’d admit defeat if she does and women for whatever reason just want to be “equal to men” just because.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Miguel

      The problem appears to be a divide among men in the sphere about whether to court the MSM or not. Vox Day, Dalrock, and Roosh clearly all wish for it. Others here have said they think it’s a bad idea.

      My point is that if you’re going to do it, you’re going to have to do it, much, much better than George did. And you’re not going to be able to do it anonymously.

      It sounds like the consensus confirms this, and that the sphere will remain a largely fringe, underground community of anonymous bloggers and commenters.

  • Starviolet

    I agree that anonymous bloggers don’t come off as particularly credible. However, I’m not sure that the manosphere could be ever credible. They are listed as a hate group, and nut jobs who think that women shouldn’t vote, work, or have access to birth control roam freely and are even embraced. It’s like saying that the KKK would be more credible without the hoods. Most people will recognize crazy and reject it whether it is under the cloak of annominity or out in the open.

  • Jab

    Susan,

    Regarding anonymity: Please go re-read Vox’s post #81. If you still don’t understand, read it a few more times. As part of that, you might also try researching what actually happened in DongleGate, as your description of those events earlier in the thread is incorrect. Maybe Good Luck Chuck’s point will start to make some sense, then.

    Your post #175 is so far past “venomous” that I’d classify it as “vile”. #345 is completely beyond the pale. You might disagree with SSMs choices, but nothing she’s written should invoke that level of nastiness.
    (side note: you never actually answered her questions)
    (side note 2: the commenters have been just as vile. Yet, their comments remain.)

    I no longer seek approval or affiliation of any kind with the manosphere, as it is rife with cads and Dark Triad types.
    Hmm, I still see links to Vox, Danny, Dave from Hawaii, and Athol’s blogs on the sidebar.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Your post #175 is so far past “venomous” that I’d classify it as “vile”. #345 is completely beyond the pale. You might disagree with SSMs choices, but nothing she’s written should invoke that level of nastiness.

      Huh? 345 is laughing at a joke, right? Beyond the pale? It was funny.

      Seriously, SSM has told the world her husband has had 30 affairs. THIRTY AFFAIRS. If she doesn’t think she’s going to cause jaws to drop all over Christendom she’s sadly mistaken.

      I can imagine taking advice from someone in that position in a support group for wives of alphas, but come on. She has zero credibility re healthy relationships.

      I can only wonder what motivated her to come online and blog such a thing. People are motivated by the strangest things. I wish her no harm, but she’s asked for exactly the kind of feedback she’s getting. The only reason she didn’t get it on her own blog is because she catered to disgruntled Christian men who like her brand of submissiveness no matter what the male has done.

  • VD

    1) Telling her blog readers that emotional and physical abuse isn’t a valid reason for divorce if you are a Christian. If I hadn’t left my first husband, he would have probably killed me by now.

    It’s not. The only valid reason for divorce for the Christian is sexual immorality. To claim otherwise is provably false.

    2) Telling readers that marital rape doesn’t exist because a husband essentially owns his wife’s body.

    Marital rape doesn’t exist, not because of any essential ownership, but because consent has been given. One can no more give and withdraw consent within a marriage than one can lose and regain one’s virginity or join and quit the Army at will. If you are not giving consent by marrying someone, then your husband or wife has no more sexual claim on you than anyone else on the planet.

    3) Telling readers that it’s wrong for a woman to turn down her husband sexually and that she must act enthusiastic even if she’s not in the mood. While sex is an important part of any marriage, it should never be forced.

    It is wrong for either a man or a woman to turn down the spouse sexually. The only acceptable reason is for prayer, and then for a short time only. It is eminently clear that your morality, such as it is, is Churchian, it is neither Christian nor Biblical.

    4) Telling readers that the 19th amendment should have never been ratified b/c women are too emotionally unstable to vote responsibly.

    It is no more misogynous to oppose women voting than it is hating children or hating foreigners to assert they should not vote.

    5) Calling women who have had sex before marriage sluts and calling women who are 4o and older and unmarried spinsters.

    This is certainly impolite and perhaps even inaccurate. But not necessarily indicative of hate.

    6) Posting numerous times about how men are superior to women in every way (intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually).

    This is indicative of potential misogyny. It’s also stupid. Men are superior in many ways. And women are superior in many ways.

    7) Posting that domestic violence claims are exaggerated and that men are just as likely to be victims as women.

    This is not misogyny, these are simple and easily verified facts.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Susan, honestly I don’t see why you let these types of people stay at your blog. They will simply drag you down to their level and beat you with experience, and in the process cost you mainstream readers, like Tanya above, who don’t like the tone of the commentary.

  • Rich

    @Passer_By

    If every female in America was required to do some form of squats the country would be a better place.

  • Passer_By

    @hope

    I thought Tanya was offended by Susan’s comments, not those from “these types of people”. Caveat: I haven’t read most of the thread, so I don’t know what sorts evil lies within.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Tanya is obviously a plant from the Dark Side!

  • Jackie

    @Hope, Susan (482)

    I think Hope is very wise. If there was a cost/benefit analysis to these comments based on your mission statement, what would it look like?

  • Jackie

    PS: I didn’t mean your (Susan) specific comments, in re: Tanya, but rather the influx of these new commentators and their tone.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Passer_by, maybe I misread the comment.

    Grace “It’s not the tone of the commentary from the readers, it’s how vile Susan has become that is disturbing. I have no desire to become anything like her the older I get. If that’s what her advice results in then I’ll be staying far away!!!”

    I would be curious what specifically you find “vile” about her writing or why she struck you that way.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    And now Grace is here to pretend she’s a young woman. Note these supposed longtime readers are first-time commenters and totally unknown to me. It’s hilarious – like those Amazon reviews from authors’ friends and family.

    Mrs. Dalrock? Is that you?

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    You are being criticized for things you have chosen to share on your blog. That is fair game.

    I remember VD pointing out to Mike C how it is terrible etiquette to discuss a webhost’s relatives, even if the host brings up the relatives (I don’t remember for certain, but I think in that instance Mike C was discussing something about your son). You wholeheartedly agreed with VD.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @INTJ

      I remember VD pointing out to Mike C how it is terrible etiquette to discuss a webhost’s relatives, even if the host brings up the relatives (I don’t remember for certain, but I think in that instance Mike C was discussing something about your son). You wholeheartedly agreed with VD.

      There’s a difference. SSM’s marriage IS the blog. She openly shares the most personal details of their lives and then invites comments about her reports. No comparison. I have never written a post about a family member, nor invited comments on my relationships. I share personal details sometimes in the comments in the act of some pretty intimate conversations with people here. That’s part of the reason we’re a community – many of us share that, but it’s understood that it’s inappropriate to pass judgment on someone’s personal life.

      What Escoffier did, and he’s never really understood this, was not judge my son for having a low N, but accuse me of being ashamed of my son for having a low N. His comment was about me and my mothering, not actually about my son.

      And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall “agreeing wholeheartedly” with Vox’s comment, or even addressing it.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    That is not what is happening here.

    No that’s exactly what’s happening here, with the exception that here there are several commenters willing to defend SSM (whereas anyone unfortunate enough to get on the wrong side of Dalrock and his gang doesn’t have anyone on her side).

  • Mike C

    I remember VD pointing out to Mike C how it is terrible etiquette to discuss a webhost’s relatives, even if the host brings up the relatives (I don’t remember for certain, but I think in that instance Mike C was discussing something about your son). You wholeheartedly agreed with VD.

    INTJ,

    NO, that was not me, that was Escoffier…I knew better than to push the button that says DO NOT PUSH.

    As a side point, I’m beginning to believe I must have a much better memory than the average person, perhaps even smart people. I can’t tell you how many times now I’ve caught various people including Susan (who is smart) misremembering or not remembering something (like the deletion of Wudang’s comment). And then you misremembered this very recent thread. It really just surprises me how often people misremember stuff that it seems to me should be very easy to remember with crystal clarity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      I can’t tell you how many times now I’ve caught various people including Susan (who is smart) misremembering or not remembering something (like the deletion of Wudang’s comment).

      Haha, I daresay I have more HUS stuff to remember than you do. I work to retain all of it, you’re just focusing on storing ammunition for future debates.

      I’ve also disproved many of your claims about what was said by providing the quotes, but you rarely respond when corrected. Example: the recent statement you made saying that all but a “certain type of guy” would be interested in marrying while in college or soon after.

  • Mike C

    Although INTJ you do have a point about the double standard of what is “fair game”

  • Mike C

    @Hope, Susan (482)

    I think Hope is very wise. If there was a cost/benefit analysis to these comments based on your mission statement, what would it look like?

    Jackie, what was the cost/benefit to this post based on the mission statement? The fact of the matter is as I pointed out earlier this post has zero to do helping young women get relationships. Someone e-mailed me and I think accurately characterized this post as “flamebait”.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C.

      Someone e-mailed me and I think accurately characterized this post as “flamebait”.

      Oh you are a mischief maker. I love how you appeal to the authority of manospherians in hiding. Do you really think that’s impressive?

      I expected pushback, of course. Interestingly, not the kind that has occurred, though.

      Truthfully, I’m disgusted with the ineffectual marketing of a potentially powerful approach to interaction between the sexes in this SMP. Some of the young guys here are examples of how sorely good information is needed by young men.

      The branding is also just terrible. Selling “free pussy” is a fail. Unwittingly, Mystery created a huge industry of sharks and shady characters bilking unsuspecting guys. If Privateman is right, and George is anonymous because he’s ugly, I smell fraud.

      What’s really needed is something much more “Dale Carnegie-like.” Maybe Double Your Dating qualifies – I haven’t ever seen it, so I don’t know.

      But remember, this post is in direct response to explicit statements from manopshere bloggers that they want MSM coverage, and for the mansophere to get a lot of publicity. This post was me wearing my consultant hat – gratis advice to a flailing crew. If they don’t want publicity, then I guess they’ll need to find a way to corral renegades or at least get them to stop using the word “manopshere” on TV.

  • OffTheCuff

    PB, SSM is a total babe. You must have missed her pic.

    Ouch on the 30 affairs, but, hey… thats not much different than marrying a former manwhore. I respect Christians who repent, and walk the walk, regardless of how badly they screwed up, far more than the fakers, hypocrites, the not-so-repentant, and the cheap-grace types. It’s not for me, but I can respect it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ouch on the 30 affairs, but, hey… thats not much different than marrying a former manwhore.

      Are you freaking kidding? Do you see what you just did there? After all the conversations on price discrimination and men being owed the truth, you equate a conscious decision to marry a manwhore with being deceived 30 times after signing a marriage contract.

      He stole a great deal from his wife and his children. The odds of a man who has casual sex compulsively using condoms is extremely low – it’s all but certain he has repeated exposed his wife to disease. If they have children he has been an absent father. He has diverted resources away from the family for his own entertainment, and probably to spend on other women as well.

      As for SSM being attractive, that’s great for her, but it kind of disproves the theory that staying fit and pretty will keep your husband at home, don’t you think? This is not a woman who let herself go, it didn’t make a difference.

      Assuming SSM has been married ten years, we’re talking three affairs a year! I don’t know how long he’s been “sober” but it sounds like this is a husband who was constantly and continuously unfaithful. I don’t judge SSM for staying with him, but I do not find her a credible marriage adviser, especially if she’s making the claim that her extreme submissiveness is what keeps him at home. *Shudder*

  • INTJ

    @ Mike C

    Whoops sorry lol. Well, hopefully I got the part about it being Susan’s son right and get a 1/2. :D

    You definitely have a good memory. You have an uncanny ability to remember old posts with accuracy, beaten only by Megaman, and I suspect he has a compiled list of posts that to call up at will.

    I on the other hand, could objectively say I’m significantly smarter than average, but my long term memory is probably around average (could be worse than average). I have great short term memory (allowing me to commit larger chunks of information than the average person), but I can’t permanently remember large amounts of facts. Certainly, compared to the average student at a good college, I perform significantly worse at for example memorizing many formulas for a test where a crib sheet isn’t allowed. Instead, I get by by deriving the formulas as needed during the test.

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    PB, SSM is a total babe. You must have missed her pic.

    Damn I’ve got to see this.

  • modernguy

    The problem appears to be a divide among men in the sphere about whether to court the MSM or not. Vox Day, Dalrock, and Roosh clearly all wish for it. Others here have said they think it’s a bad idea.

    Why are you so insistent that the manosphere needs good PR? Are you going to cry if millions of men miss out on the message of game because it hasn’t been palatably marketed to them? You’re so desperately concerned about the manosphere’s image that you just have to come out and declare it’s proponents cowards because they won’t show their faces on TV. You are even more concerned with their image than they are. It’s ironic that you mention Roosh as wanting to push game into the mainstream. What about him? If one were to look at it from the imperatives of your point of view, he is doing a greater disservice to game PR than any amount of anonymous TV spots by game bloggers would. He is openly misogynistic (at least towards western women), and he presents his true identity for everyone to see. He is open about using game like a predator to seduce and manipulate women to his satisfy his needs. And yet men flock to his writing. By your logic he should castrate himself and do youtube shows from a room decorated with flowered vases and doilies.

    You need to understand this: men don’t care about the presentation if the product solves their problem.

    My point is that if you’re going to do it, you’re going to have to do it, much, much better than George did. And you’re not going to be able to do it anonymously.

    That’s not your point. There is no point here. You don’t like George because he’s advocated game tactics that are threatening to you. Unfortunately they work, and as long as they work men will be drawn to them.

    It sounds like the consensus confirms this, and that the sphere will remain a largely fringe, underground community of anonymous bloggers and commenters.

    Are we supposed to cry if that’s the case? The information is freely available to anyone who wants to look for it. If the ignorant masses choose to remain ignorant than so much the better for those in the know. They have the advantage. If you want to spread the word so badly go champion it on TV yourself.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @modernguy

      It’s ironic that you mention Roosh as wanting to push game into the mainstream. What about him? If one were to look at it from the imperatives of your point of view, he is doing a greater disservice to game PR than any amount of anonymous TV spots by game bloggers would. He is openly misogynistic (at least towards western women), and he presents his true identity for everyone to see. He is open about using game like a predator to seduce and manipulate women to his satisfy his needs.

      It’s true, Roosh is very bad for the kind of Game I endorse. That’s really the issue. I believe that Inner Game used to promote civilization is a good thing – I’m an evangelist of sorts for that.

      I believe that Free Pussy Game promoted by sociopaths is destructive of civilization and a very bad thing.

      George had an opportunity to promote Inner Game, which is where I thought he was headed. Then Zepps portrayed him as a loser huckster promoting Free Pussy Game.

      Unfortunately they work, and as long as they work men will be drawn to them.

      Hasn’t Roosh declared that he is very unlucky in his own city? And that a good year for him is 6 girls? This is a guy who does this as a full time career, and I think he struck out completely in several countries. What does that say for your average guy who’s gainfully employed? (Full disclosure: I do not read Roosh’s blog – I have seen these reports elsewhere, but quoting Roosh.)

      Furthermore, 90% of men who need Game and can potentially benefit from Game don’t want to become Roosh, and they don’t want Free Pussy. They want a girlfriend, or to find a wife. The “Dark Arts” kind of Game literally holds no appeal for them. I’ve seen estimates that up to 90% of men learning Game feel this way. And the stats in college show that 73% of male students want to get into a committed relationship.

      If you want to spread the word so badly go champion it on TV yourself.

      I think I might. It will be necessary to distinguish myself from the shady PUA types and those men who believe, as Rollo said: “There is no such thing as “dark” tactics. There is only what men want.” (paraphrased)

  • modernguy

    It sounds like the consensus confirms this, and that the sphere will remain a largely fringe, underground community of anonymous bloggers and commenters.

    And how many monthly readers does Alpha Game have now? Close to 300,000? How many does Roissy have? It’s only “fringe, underground” in the sense that it isn’t a regular debate topic on tv talk shows. Nor should we want it to be. That kind of endless babbling for babbling’s sake only dilutes the message and confuses the audience.

    There is no problem here. Guys who are open to solutions and looking for them are going to find them. The ones that aren’t are going to continue to suffer. Which is as it should be, you’re not going to spoon feed grown men like babies.

  • Mike C

    Story time, why I am totally desensitized to the word “misogyny”:

    I was at a friend’s house having dinner. After dinner, my good friend (the 6’7″ bodybuilder who lost 260 lbs) and I were chatting about work and stuff, while wives were talking. I noticed a pair of new tumblers in his cabinet, so he pulled out a bottle of small-batch local scotch and offered me a glass.

    For the record, our wives don’t like scotch.

    His wife got very offended, and proceeded to berate him in front of us. She called him rude, and a “misogynist” for not offering.

    And this right here is why sometimes “Dark” tactics are more than justified. This is straight up insufferable bitch behavior. This is a textbook example of where instilling dread is not only justified but perhaps necessary to put an end to this type of bad behavior. If this guy is a bodybuilder who lost 260 pounds I’m assuming his current SMV probably outranks her SMV. She needs to get the message it is time to shape up or ship out.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      And this right here is why sometimes “Dark” tactics are more than justified. This is straight up insufferable bitch behavior. This is a textbook example of where instilling dread is not only justified but perhaps necessary to put an end to this type of bad behavior. If this guy is a bodybuilder who lost 260 pounds I’m assuming his current SMV probably outranks her SMV. She needs to get the message it is time to shape up or ship out.

      Dark tactics are not at all necessary. If the wife is a bitch, how does flirting with other women improve her behavior? Wouldn’t it be much more straightforward, effective, and preserve anything good left in the relationship for him to say, “Shape up or ship out?”

      Dark tactics have several disadvantages:

      They are the lowest common denominator – tit for tat. Any remaining trust is destroyed. Two people behaving badly does not produce one couple behaving well.

      The message is muddled. His flirting with other women is unlikely to connect in her mind to her bad behavior at the dinner party the other night. It’s like making a mouse crazy running around a maze with no clear idea of the route or the benefit at the end. The incentive is hidden, and that’s ineffective.

      Once you go there, you can never come back. “Dark” tactics by both parties quickly become the norm. It sets up a permanent adversarial dynamic.

      For examples of how this plays out, see “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe?” and “The War of the Roses.”

      Instilling Dread is both unethical and ineffective. Seriously, terrible strategy.

  • Goldman Sucks

    Raincloud Mary also wrote that she sees all the women at her husband’s place of work as her “natural enemies.”

    Honey, you’ve got an enemy alright, but it ain’t no lady. Its your own damn husband.

    I mean, 30 times? THIRTY? Really? I can understand a 1 time mistake. Possibly even an affair. But 30?!?!?!

  • Goldman Sucks

    “SunshineMary, whatever her faults and whatever her past, at least tried to help Christian wives out with good, general advice, instead of teaching women to treat husbands’ sexual desires like some disease or mental disorder”

    Ironic isn’t it that her particular husband’s sexual desires are very likely to result in sexually transmitted diseases and mental disorders for his family.

    What to speak of the mental disorder known as sex addiction that he himself has in order to obsessively and compulsively cheat 30 times when he has children waiting on their daddy at home.

    Beyond disgusting.

  • OffTheCuff

    Mike, the thing is, she isn’t a world-class bitch. She’s a wonderful person, my kids’ godparents, I’ve known her since college. Still, the feminist inferiority complex leaks out in a spastic tic like that once in a while.

    My buddy looks extremely threatening due to his size, but, he’s a “big teddy bear” kind of man. I think he surely should put his foot down a bit to make her realize what’s what, but at the time, just telling him he’s not a bad person seemed more appropriate.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    For someone who claims to be concerned about the message being able to stand on its own you have to rely on an awful lot of weak feminist style debate tactics to avoid backing up your own positions.

    In the comments of this post alone you have resorted to attacking people’s looks, attacking relatives, accusations of misogyny (a catch-all term for anything that is critical of women, right or wrong), comment moderation/deletion, accusations of cowardice, oh yea…..and redirecting the argument when a logical response would have discredited your entire post.

    A couple of posters have chided you to respond to my earlier comment. You’ve had a day and a half to come up with a reasonable response. Care to take another stab at it?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      A couple of posters have chided you to respond to my earlier comment. You’ve had a day and a half to come up with a reasonable response. Care to take another stab at it?

      I thought I had. Refresh my memory.

  • Mike C

    Mike, the thing is, she isn’t a world-class bitch. She’s a wonderful person, my kids’ godparents, I’ve known her since college. Still, the feminist inferiority complex leaks out in a spastic tic like that once in a while.

    OTC, I’ll take your word for it that what you described is more one-off behavior than typical. Still, what you described is utterly unacceptable….at least it would be to me. Some years back, my fiancee pulled something maybe 1/5 as egregious in a restaurant lobby, and I basically said “don’t ever fucking do that again..ever” and it hasn’t happened since. This is where having the right LTR frame becomes critically important. There are women where maybe you get invested enough and have enough ties (like kids) where walking away isn’t practical or even desirable and the relationship could even be good if you can correct those behaviors.

    My buddy looks extremely threatening due to his size, but, he’s a “big teddy bear” kind of man. I think he surely should put his foot down a bit to make her realize what’s what, but at the time, just telling him he’s not a bad person seemed more appropriate.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “George’s lack of a face means that he’s relatively immune to personal attacks based merely on his physical appearance. ”

    Looks are at least 50% of “game”. Pix or GTFO!

    “Ultimately, she grew tired of debating “Roe for Men”

    Roe for Men happened a few hundred years before Roe for Women…..
    CONDOMS!!!

    Vasectomies work too. And now they can even be reversed at a later date so there really is NO EXCUSE.

  • INTJ

    According to Alexa stats (which are only very rough ballpark estimates), heartiste has a reach of about three-quarters of a million internet users. That compares to about a quarter million for HUS.

  • INTJ

    Also, as evidence of the underlying patterns behind game getting mainstream acceptance, I’d point out that “friend zone” is now an official word.

  • INTJ

    *Facepalm*

  • INTJ

    PJ droning on in one ear and Dustin starts blaring away in the other…

  • INTJ
  • Miguel Monsivais

    Dustin… shut up loser. You’re taking this way too seriously.

  • VD

    Lol. Rollo talks about flirting with girls at beer conventions, Vox talks about spitting in their face and displaying utter contempt towards them. But to Susan, Rollo is the really evil one.

    Let’s just be clear: I don’t do that sort of thing now. Nor do I recommend it. I was merely pointing it out as an example of what behavior attractive women are demonstrably willing to tolerate in sufficiently ALPHA men. And these days, I only display contempt when it is merited.

    I’m totally a tame Sigma these days. But the fact that my behavior is restrained and reformed doesn’t reduce my knowledge base.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Lol. Rollo talks about flirting with girls at beer conventions, Vox talks about spitting in their face and displaying utter contempt towards them. But to Susan, Rollo is the really evil one.

      Let’s just be clear: I don’t do that sort of thing now. Nor do I recommend it.

      And that right there is ample justification for treating VD and Rollo completely differently. I feel confident in saying that VD would never work to make Spacebunny feel insecure in his commitment to her and their family.

      Vox Day loves himself a great deal, some would say a bit too much. :)

      Rollo hates himself a great deal, some would say not nearly enough. :(

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Goldman Sucks

    So you do believe that males’ sexual desire should be treated like a disease and a mental disorder.

    @ Susan

    Regarding people who have lost their jobs for perceived misogyny:

    Lawrence Summers

    The guy Adria Richards shamed

    The point of such things is not that every guy will be targeted, it is to create a climate of fear so that feminism is never criticized. An online lynch mob can destroy your reputation.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Regarding people who have lost their jobs for perceived misogyny:

      Lawrence Summers

      The guy Adria Richards shamed

      Lawrence Summers resigned after a vote of “no confidence” by a large group of faculty. He could have continued there happily as a professor saying whatever he wanted. It was his ability to lead that particular group of liberal academics that was damaged by his statement. He understood that very well. He spoke the truth to a group of people that is well known for rejecting evidence that counters their feminist beliefs. And for the record, his audience contained radfem Gender Studies types – he was in the lion’s den. None of that would have happened in a corporate setting. I’m sure that every day hundreds of similar remarks are made in engineering and tech firms and no one blinks an eye. Perhaps everyone even nods in agreement.

      “The guy Adria Richards shamed” was not expressing his views on any issue related to feminism or misandry. He didn’t get fired for speaking his mind, he got fired for violating PsyCon’s standard of conduct. Don’t forget Richards got fired as well.

      If that’s all you got, that’s pretty weak.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan

    The idea that a proper, Biblical marriage includes 30 affairs by the husband is mind boggling. This line of thinking is disgusting.

    It’s pretty easy to make claims about her writing like that when she no longer has a blog.

    You’ll never see the end of male bashing by sane women as long as there are women who submit to philandering, lying cheats eagerly.

    That bolded part explains why betas become misogynistic. Also, why would a sane woman blame the men when the women are choosing these guys?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The idea that a proper, Biblical marriage includes 30 affairs by the husband is mind boggling. This line of thinking is disgusting.

      It’s pretty easy to make claims about her writing like that when she no longer has a blog.

      Just because her blog is down, doesn’t mean her words do not remain. Google never forgets.

      there are women who submit to philandering, lying cheats eagerly.

      That bolded part explains why betas become misogynistic

      I think it’s fair to say that women like SSM are 1 in a thousand. Misogynistic betas have retreated to an AWALT defense of their own lack of success.

  • Jason
    “Polite or a Christian submissive who has stood by a compulsively cheating husband?”

    That was just low.

    Susan, what’s going on? Such venom…this is not normal.

    That’s not venomous. Sunshine Mary can correct me if I’m wrong. I believe she has stated that her husband has cheated on her 30 times? And yet she is a submissive Christian wife. 195

    Technically Susan is correct. Adultery is one of the grounds still allowed by Jesus as a justification for divorce, as abuse would be also. Jesus was covering the two things asked of him, divorce for adultery, and divorce for “any reason” which covered things like burning dinner. Obviously “burning dinner” would be a trivial reason for divorce, while abuse and other alienation of affection actions (like adultery) would be sound reasons.

    Whilst someone who was sinned against once could forgive, I think 30 times would be pushing it (of course as a man I’d be headed for the door after the first time).

  • Tomato

    Threads like this make me so damn glad to not be a Christian.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Threads like this make me so damn glad to not be a Christian.

      Please know that NACALT! These people are way, way off the map. So far right on the long tail they’re practically invisible. Actually, that might just be wishful thinking. This kind of thing is probably common in some states.

  • Jason
    Now this doesn’t apply to taking someone out for a date, but to small other things.

    How does one cope with that feeling?

    The appetite for dominance varies a great deal among women. It’s about the match. If you feel that you need to treat a woman like a child, you’re not with the right woman.

    I’m assuming you have some baseline natural level of dominance, i.e. self-confidence and ability to lead, make decisions, etc. If you’re uncomfortable choosing a restaurant, on the other hand, you need to work through that because most women like that level of manliness and will penalize a guy who seems indecisive or weak.372

    The fiancée and I were on holiday, and in the course of a conversation while driving I growled to her, “call me daddy.” She laughed and laughed, and then patted my arm and said, “sometimes I hate you, and others you make me laugh.”

    She worries about so much, whereas I just don’t. I think she appreciates the lightness and joy I embrace life with.

  • OffTheCuff

    You’re reading too much into my comment. I meant she’s married to the same *type* of person in my mind, and that’s what “not much different”, not morally equating the behaviors.

    And by “ouch” that means, yes, that’s excessive and worse than I thought. (Sounds like run with sex addiction, and a good-looking man with game could do that in a year or two. Look at Han, imagine if he lost his faith while married, went nuts, and then regained it!)

    She obviously married some sort of high-alpha, and… thems the risks. I also just noted she’s hot, I make no claim about whether that guarantees fidelity. Obviously being hot is mandatory to *snag* an alpha, but not necessarily keep one caged. Might work for us doofy beta types, though.

    But “contract”? What contract? No-fault divorce. Fidelity not required, sad to say. Those days are over.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But “contract”? What contract? No-fault divorce. Fidelity not required, sad to say. Those days are over.

      The contract that two people speak to one another in a church. If you don’t promise to forsake all others, it’s all good.

      I recall a video of Eben Pagan’s (David DeAngelo) wedding made the rounds a year or two ago. The whole thing was loony, and his bride was dressed like a hooker, but the vows were the wildest. I think they were exuberantly shouting something about the marriage not allowing for any kind of blame or disapproval. Definitely not a recipe for long-term happiness. I wonder if they’re still married.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Technically Susan is correct. Adultery is one of the grounds still allowed by Jesus as a justification for divorce, as abuse would be also. Jesus was covering the two things asked of him, divorce for adultery, and divorce for “any reason” which covered things like burning dinner. Obviously “burning dinner” would be a trivial reason for divorce, while abuse and other alienation of affection actions (like adultery) would be sound reasons.

    Whilst someone who was sinned against once could forgive, I think 30 times would be pushing it (of course as a man I’d be headed for the door after the first time).

    It is strange behavior, and I have stated as much that such cheating is a very good reason to divorce. Yes, SunshineMary should have divorced, and most people wouldn’t have held it against her. But she didn’t and she instead reconciled; she unwisely took a huge gamble, a gamble she had a high chance of losing. Obviously, a woman is well-advised to divorce a man who cheats on her 30 times. That she instead chose to reconcile with him is a decision she already made, so what’s past is past and none of us can change that.

    However, I don’t recall her advising that cheating is okay for a husband. In fact, this post indicates the opposite (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but searching the Internet Archive can be difficult, and not all the comment threads were preserved. The one where her real name was revealed, for example, wasn’t preserved.)

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Again, really don’t want to be commenting on this post too much because tempers are so heated, but:

    After college, it took YEARS for me to find a decent job, and I only got because of connections. My father is still unemployed even with decades of experience. My company laid off someone on his 25th anniversary, and he’s got FIVE kids…while retaining people who do nothing but watch ESPN and their desks all day. Different department, but same company.

    You know how some temp agencies work just with college grads? My mother hires them, except they keep sending HER MBAs with years of experience. For temp positions.

    Exposing my identity and taking even the slight chance of me losing my job, even it is 1%, means my career is effectively over.

    Maybe Game does need an image make-over. Maybe Game does need someone that isn’t anonymous.

    That’s fine.

    I’m not a Messiah.

    I’m just a guy who likes to post about relationship issues sometimes.

    That does not make me a coward, and , Susan, the reason you are getting push-back on this post is because the “between the lines” statement, and even the comments in this post, is essentially condemning all us anonymous men as cowards.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ADBG

      That does not make me a coward, and , Susan, the reason you are getting push-back on this post is because the “between the lines” statement, and even the comments in this post, is essentially condemning all us anonymous men as cowards.

      Not at all! You’re not expected to stand up and sell Game. You haven’t adopted a goal of social change or even personal profit through the use of Game. This post is strictly addressed to “professionals” who want MSM attention and acceptance as a means of social change.

      I’ve realized in this thread that the real reason for the pushback is that men want to be free to use unethical tactics to get laid without judgment. They have a vested interest in this remaining secret because they are well aware that their willingness to engage in this behavior goes against the teachings of every great philosopher or religious leader that has ever lived. (With the exception of Machiavelli perhaps? That scoundrel.)

      They’re interested in Game for casual sex, not relationships. Luckily, they do not represent the desires of most men, as they are doing their best to destroy civilization by aspiring to sexual gluttony.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “If you want to spread the word so badly go champion it on TV yourself.

    I think I might. It will be necessary to distinguish myself from the shady PUA types and those men who believe, as Rollo said: “There is no such thing as “dark” tactics. There is only what men want.” (paraphrased)”

    TV as medium is dead, Susan.

    So, not a good idea.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I believe that Free Pussy Game promoted by sociopaths is destructive of civilization and a very bad thing.”

    Thats fine, but the fault lies both between parties making this voluntary transaction, not just the men.

    Actually, they are just responding to the incentives. Blame the people who erected the current legal and social landscape. We have great technology to kill people with guns, but lots of social and legal pressure not to. We have great technology to fuck, but no legal and nearly no social pressure not to.

    You’d think if something was destructive it would be illegal or socially sanctioned.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Actually, they are just responding to the incentives. Blame the people who erected the current legal and social landscape. We have great technology to kill people with guns, but lots of social and legal pressure not to. We have great technology to fuck, but no legal and nearly no social pressure not to.

      Responding to incentives is not an excuse for wrongful behavior. If we didn’t blame people for “responding to incentives” we’d have to condone rape, muggings, murders, and all other forms of mayhem that reflect the worst in humanity. I’m tired of hearing this excuse. Each of us has a responsibility to conduct our lives in a way that benefits more than ourselves. Humans evolved to cooperate and collaborate. Those men or women who refuse to do so will hopefully avoid reproducing, as the last thing the species needs is more of these “renegades.”

      You’d think if something was destructive it would be illegal or socially sanctioned.

      Like assault weapons. Go figure!

  • Jason

    Threads like this make me so damn glad to not be a Christian.

    You don’t know how happy that makes us.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ OTC

    You’d think if something was destructive it would be illegal or socially sanctioned.

    It is not acknowledged that fucking people is socially destructive. Individually stupid? Perhaps. Socially destructive? not quite yet.
    And even if destructive, a lot of people will get uncomfortable with shaming or, god forbid this, government regulation of sexual activities. Lots of bad taste in people’s mouths about that one.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Socially destructive? not quite yet.

      See OOW birth trends in the U.S.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    I don’t judge SSM for staying with him, but I do not find her a credible marriage adviser, especially if she’s making the claim that her extreme submissiveness is what keeps him at home. *Shudder*

    That’s what a good family court is for – putting pressure on adulterers.

    I don’t know about extreme submissiveness, and I can’t speak to SunshineMary’s situation, but a wife making things pleasant for her husband is a good thing to do. Also, if a wife dominates her husband, she will lose attraction for him, so I do believe that the husband should lead. As he leads, though, he’s responsible for keeping everyone safe and well provided for – a harrowing task not for the lazy.

    Here’s why I think that an “egalitarian” marriage means that the wife is in charge: both partners know that the traditional arrangement is for the man to lead. This will cause the man to be self-conscious about being too dominant, so he will cede most decisions to the wife. Since there are only two people in the marriage, the wife is in charge by default…and the husband becomes less attractive to her.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Crisis

      I have no problem with men leading or women making lives pleasant for their husbands by doing things that please them. I don’t even have a problem with women who want to get spanked for bad behavior, have their activities monitored, their internet time policed, etc. That’s a personal decision, and I don’t believe in questioning what goes on in someone else’s bedroom.

      I do have a problem with having one of these women tell me what makes a good marriage, or the idea that I can learn anything at all from them.

      Which is why I’ve never read her blog.

  • JP

    “Here’s why I think that an “egalitarian” marriage means that the wife is in charge: both partners know that the traditional arrangement is for the man to lead. This will cause the man to be self-conscious about being too dominant, so he will cede most decisions to the wife. Since there are only two people in the marriage, the wife is in charge by default…and the husband becomes less attractive to her.”

    This makes sense to me.

  • Gail

    First time leaving a comment.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you for addressing the anonymity in the “manosphere”.

    I rarely look at this blog, or The Badger Hut, or The Rational Male, but if I am understanding this correctly “Rollo” at least has a photo up, that he says is him, taken from the back, although he is anonymous.

    Dalrock (aka DickRock or DoucheRock), however, is totally anonymous. He doesn’t even have a contact button on his blog. He really, really doesn’t want to be *caught*. And never, anywhere on that blog, does he offer an explanation of how a “happily married father” becomes so completely obsessed with divorce. Answer: they do not.

    Re: Sunshine Mary. Thirty other partners after marriage is sex addiction territory.

  • Jason

    It is not acknowledged that fucking people is socially destructive. Individually stupid? Perhaps. Socially destructive? not quite yet.
    And even if destructive, a lot of people will get uncomfortable with shaming or, god forbid this, government regulation of sexual activities. Lots of bad taste in people’s mouths about that one.

    Brick on brick was this house built; belly on belly torn asunder.

    Summarian proverb from about 3000BC, at least according to Desmond Morris.

    Government regulation of sex is obviously impossible, but social mores have at least provided the illusion of regulation for hundreds of years.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan

    Dark tactics are not at all necessary.

    This illustrates the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Both gain if both sides cooperate, but one can gain even more by cheating the other person. If the other person finds out and both cheat each other trying to maximize their individual outcomes, both lose.

    Figuring out a good strategy here in real life is tricky.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Gail

    Welcome. Hold on to your hat. :)

    And never, anywhere on that blog, does he offer an explanation of how a “happily married father” becomes so completely obsessed with divorce. Answer: they do not.

    That’s simple: divorce is rampant, and fathers are often disadvantaged. He has skin in the game, as it can happen to him whenever his wife feels like it. He doesn’t need to do anything wrong; she just needs to get bored or dissatisfied with him to punish him as if he were a criminal.

    Why do you want him to reveal his identity? To make him easier to attack? To go after his job, just because you disagree with him? This post by Obsidian explains the issues well.

  • JustJulia

    “As for SSM being attractive, that’s great for her, but it kind of disproves the theory that staying fit and pretty will keep your husband at home, don’t you think? This is not a woman who let herself go, it didn’t make a difference. ”

    Susan,
    It did make a difference in her case. While she posted that it’s important for her to keep up her appearance b/c other women are attracted to her husband and frequently flirt with him, she never posted that he’s currently cheating on her.

    I got the impression that the cheating was in the past and that her marriage had done a 360 after they found religion and started following a Christian patriarchal model of dominant husband/submissive wife.

    I’m not saying women should feel compelled to stay with cheating husbands, but Sunshine Mary did make a case for how a marriage could survive even outrageous infidelity.

    If she is sexy and submissive and he is a super Alpha and they are happy with each other, who are we to judge them?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @JustJulia

      . While she posted that it’s important for her to keep up her appearance b/c other women are attracted to her husband and frequently flirt with him, she never posted that he’s currently cheating on her.

      You raise a good point. We don’t know if he is cheating, we don’t know if she knows he is cheating, and we don’t know if she reports truthfully on her blog. We know nothing about this person. We have only to look at the case of Manti Te’o, or how about the FBI agents that pose at 12 year old girls to lure pedophiles into traps after weeks or months of online conversation?

      I’ve actually heard speculation that some of these bloggers do not have the personal lives they claim to. I would never traffic in those rumors, nor do I care, but there is a great deal that doesn’t add up about the personal lives of some of these folks. I really am picturing Lex Luthor. Who knows. The point is that anonymity allows you to construct a completely false persona and set of field reports. I know for a fact that one blogger who has had very little success with women over time regularly posts pretending otherwise.

      That is why one cannot be credible and anonymous. There is no way to demonstrate the benefits of the product that are part of the sales pitch. Imagine a surgeon who distributed the following testimonials:

      “The new kidney Dr. Carter gave me is working wonders!”

      K, Peoria, IL

      “His scalpel was so sharp I never felt a thing!”

      J, Tallahassee, FL

      “His bedside manner definitely helped me heal faster!”

      P, Raymond, ME

      None of this matters unless you’re taking advice. Then the credibility is very, very important.

  • Maggie

    “What’s really needed is something much more “Dale Carnegie-like.” Maybe Double Your Dating qualifies – I haven’t ever seen it, so I don’t know. ”

    This is an excellent idea. There are so many self-help books out for woman on how to get a man but not much help for the average guy just looking for a good relationship. A lot of the manosphere advice is from men who fundamentally just don’t like or respect women and it just not going to work for your nice guy who just wants a girl friend.

  • JP

    “This illustrates the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Both gain if both sides cooperate, but one can gain even more by cheating the other person. If the other person finds out and both cheat each other trying to maximize their individual outcomes, both lose.”

    The Prisoner’s Dilemma is not a dilemma at all because it only applies to finite games.

    Life is an infinite game, where means ultimately are the ends.

    Dark Game fails because it leads into abyss.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    A lot of the manosphere advice is from men who fundamentally just don’t like or respect women and it just not going to work for your nice guy who just wants a girl friend.

    Feature, not bug.
    The guys who know best how to pick up women are the ones who do it a lot and those are also going to be the kind that are not able to form LTRs very easily.
    That will include lots of Dark Triad types.
    You cannot wish Roissy out of the manosphere anymore than you wish hypergamy out of women or prices out of capitalism.

  • Nordic

    “Sex is never free. It is never casual. Not even for men. Every sexual encounter you have changes you in some way. It may be an STD, one of your swimmers hitting their target, even revulsion at your partner when the act is done. It may be the way you feel when you bang chick #200 and realize there is no love in your life.

    Men who have a lot of casual sex become coarsened to sex, and do not understand what sex with love is. They also are more likely to cheat and get divorced if they do marry.

    Casual sex destroys people, it destroys their humanity. Most people can get away with a little, but not a lot. Sex always costs.”

    Susan, this sounds absolutely crazy to a European male. I am sure you had casual sex when you were young. Really? That has destroyed you, and you are now malfunctioning because of the sex? Thats not how sex works.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Nordic

      For more information on sex never being casual, see this video from Helen Fisher, the most respected “relationship scientist” in the world:

      Casual Sex Doesn’t Exist

      I don’t know at what point a history of promiscuity kicks in to make people unfit for relationships, but it’s very clear that it is linked to all manner of personality issues, mental health, and marital satisfaction.

      The research on the correlation between # of sexual partners and divorce, for example, is still very thin. I have no doubt it’s coming.

      People who share the view that sex can be purely recreational and meaningless are well matched for one another, though their divorce rate is very high. People who prefer sex in the context of emotional intimacy should test for this attitude and avoid dating anyone with a promiscuous past. People will have to define for themselves where to draw the line.

  • INTJ

    @ VD

    I’m totally a tame Sigma these days. But the fact that my behavior is restrained and reformed doesn’t reduce my knowledge base./blockquote>

    Or the preselection err. credibility it gets you from Susan.

    Susan seems to have a very soft side for the alpha bad boys who got reformed and became the ideal mix of alpha and beta. Granted, it’s just a correlation, not a causation, and it could be that the rhetorical style that made men such as you, HanSolo, and BB successful with women also make Susan be more amenable to your comments.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      it could be that the rhetorical style that made men such as you, HanSolo, and BB successful with women also make Susan be more amenable to your comments.

      Ding! Ding! Ding!

      It’s not just rhetorical style, either, it’s personal demeanor (though the two are related). The guys you mention always speak with respect and without ridicule.

      Less popular commenters use mockery, put downs, hyperbolic language, e.g. Absurd!, and generally approach the debate as warfare.

      cough cough

  • Clarence

    LOL.
    I love how Susan is in ‘dread’ of ‘dread’.

    Let me put it this way: whilst I would never use ‘dark game’ to attract someone, I’ll not hesitate to not only put my foot down in a fair or open manner but let a partner know that if she messes with my family or if she messes with my access to any children I will perform a scorched Earth policy to and she will get absolutely nothing out of me but lots of wasted time and money and hassle. If that makes her feel ‘dread’ then good. It might lead to one less family being destroyed or one less man being destroyed (me) over a woman’s subjective feelings.

    The current system is broken as it leads to nuclear (for a family) options for the mere making of a single complaint. As the current system often doesn’t even honor prenups there is no ‘bargaining within the shadow of the law” anymore.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      I love how Susan is in ‘dread’ of ‘dread’.

      Haha! I’m not actually. To wit:

      Let me put it this way: whilst I would never use ‘dark game’ to attract someone, I’ll not hesitate to not only put my foot down in a fair or open manner but let a partner know that if she messes with my family or if she messes with my access to any children I will perform a scorched Earth policy to and she will get absolutely nothing out of me but lots of wasted time and money and hassle. If that makes her feel ‘dread’ then good. It might lead to one less family being destroyed or one less man being destroyed (me) over a woman’s subjective feelings.

      100% fair and also strategically effective.

      It’s “instilling dread” using deception that I loathe (Dread is not the right word, I feel no sense of impending doom myself).

      Reading Roissy’s dread post one can see the tactics feature subterfuge, lying, and generally “inventing” competitors or options to unsettle the woman and make her feel insecure and jealous. Rollo has specifically stated that he reaps great benefits by preemptively striking to keep his wife jealous and afraid. He does this by regularly flirting with other women in front of her.

      Total cad behavior. Not OK. You’re talking about an honest statement about what you will and will not tolerate. Instead of making a woman feel a sense of amorphous anxiety, you are telling her exactly which behavior will please you and which will cause you to leave. That is a very good way to conduct a relationship, IMO.

  • CrisisEraDynamo
    there are women who submit to philandering, lying cheats eagerly.

    That bolded part explains why betas become misogynistic

    I think it’s fair to say that women like SSM are 1 in a thousand. Misogynistic betas have retreated to an AWALT defense of their own lack of success.

    I never said it was logical or reasonable, I said that such women exist, and this fuels betas’ frustration, especially after they have been told that women just want a nice guy. Dark Triad traits, though unethical and harmful to any chance of a relationship, do work in attracting women.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Dark Triad traits, though unethical and harmful to any chance of a relationship, do work in attracting women.

      Dark Triad traits, though unethical and harmful to any chance of a relationship, do work in attracting some women, usually sharing the same kinds of traits.

      FTFY

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ INTJ

    Susan seems to have a very soft side for the alpha bad boys who got reformed and became the ideal mix of alpha and beta. Granted, it’s just a correlation, not a causation, and it could be that the rhetorical style that made men such as you, HanSolo, and BB successful with women also make Susan be more amenable to your comments.

    Susan has a soft side for well-mannered benevolent Alpha types. Unsurprisingly, a lot of women do…
    The reformed part is not necessarily relevant. But if you are making a good-faith effort to improve yourself and are struggling, other people are going to sympathetic.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    The contract that two people speak to one another in a church. If you don’t promise to forsake all others, it’s all good.

    But those days are over. No-fault divorce means that neither side has to actually honor any marriage vows. The mainstream culture considers this “social progress” and therefore a good thing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But those days are over. No-fault divorce means that neither side has to actually honor any marriage vows.

      Even if the state doesn’t hold people to it, they can hold themselves to that standard. That’s what most people actually do, voluntarily.

      No-fault divorce does not mean cheating is OK. That’s a very slippery slope you’re on.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Once you go there, you can never come back. “Dark” tactics by both parties quickly become the norm. It sets up a permanent adversarial dynamic.

    You’d rather that men meekly stand by while females use adversarial tactics on us? No thanks.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You’d rather that men meekly stand by while females use adversarial tactics on us? No thanks.

      Of course not. Why are you spending your time with adversarial females?

  • Esau

    CED: “Here’s why I think that an “egalitarian” marriage means that the wife is in charge: both partners know that the traditional arrangement is for the man to lead. This will cause the man to be self-conscious about being too dominant, so he will cede most decisions to the wife. Since there are only two people in the marriage, the wife is in charge by default…and the husband becomes less attractive to her.”

    JP: This makes sense to me.

    To the contrary, I think it’s just silly. Take a look at the parts of this sentence (numbers added):

    (1) This will cause the man to be self-conscious about being too dominant, (2) so he will cede most decisions to the wife.

    Or, not. There is no reason that (2) needs follow from (1). It really depends on the people involved and what their “restoring force” is, vis:

    A lot of people here seem to have the idea, that an egalitarian or equalist relationship is kind of an impossible rarity, like balancing on knife edge; it’s an intrinsically unstable arrangement, and so has to flop one way or the other. The other metaphor is that it’s like a tug of war, where it’s very unlikely that the pulls will be perfectly balanced and so the rope will almost certainly go one way or the other after a while.

    Both of these metaphors can be apt descriptions, but only for certain combinations of people. To use a physics analogy (surprise!), the knife metaphor could describe the case where both people are pushing, saying “I want you to be in charge!”; each person’s stable ideal is to have the ball in the other’s court, and so both people can’t be happy at the same time. The tug of war metaphor is the reverse, with both people pulling, saying “I should be in charge!”.

    The stable case that everyone here seems to idealize, is the matched set: one person — usually imagined to be the woman — is pushing, saying “You be in charge” and the other, ie the man, is pulling, saying “Yes, I’ll be in charge.” The ball sits stably in his court, and they can both be happy.

    So far, so typical. But what I want to point out, is that there is another stable case where both people can be happy with the ball in the middle. The metaphor here is that the people’s “restoring forces” create a bowl shape, where the ball always tends to return to the center naturally. Within the analogy above, this happens when both people — it has to be true of both — are not motivated by questions of “who is in charge?” but by questions of “are you happy?” If both value the egalitarian ideal, then both will sense when the ball gets too far to one side and then strive to push/pull it back to the middle. The man will see the effect if he gets too bossy and his wife feels under-respected; or the woman will realize that she’s being bratty and it’s not fair to force her husband to have to discipline her like a large child. The balance happens naturally if (1) both value the setup of equal partners, and (2) both are paying attention to the other’s happiness and not just their own.

    As I said earlier, people who truly value the egalitarian relationship may be rare, and have difficulty finding each other. But when that happens it can work, and really be a beautiful creation.

  • INTJ

    @ CrisisEraDynamo

    This illustrates the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Both gain if both sides cooperate, but one can gain even more by cheating the other person. If the other person finds out and both cheat each other trying to maximize their individual outcomes, both lose.

    Figuring out a good strategy here in real life is tricky.

    No it isn’t. There is one strategy that beats all others for the Prisoner’s Dilemna game. Tit for tat. The very same strategy which Susan complained about.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      No it isn’t. There is one strategy that beats all others for the Prisoner’s Dilemna game. Tit for tat. The very same strategy which Susan complained about.

      Do you mean Dark Game? I think you might want to look at the Cost/Benefit analysis again. There are men who clearly benefit from it because they are not capable of LTRs in any case. They are “wired” for hit and run, or short-term encounters. They are “correct” to pursue life as a cad because that is their only hope of reproducing. If you are not “wired” in the same way, your C/B will look very different.

      If you have any interest in seeing your offspring grow up, Dark Game is the worst strategy you could employ.

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    The Prisoner’s Dilemma is not a dilemma at all because it only applies to finite games.

    Life is an infinite game, where means ultimately are the ends.

    Not really. Even for finitely iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma games, cooperation holds for most of the game (cause that’s what Tit for Tat results in).

  • INTJ

    @ ADBG

    Susan has a soft side for well-mannered benevolent Alpha types. Unsurprisingly, a lot of women do…
    The reformed part is not necessarily relevant. But if you are making a good-faith effort to improve yourself and are struggling, other people are going to sympathetic.

    Kinda sucks for us Betas who don’t need to make a good-faith effort to reform ourselves…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Kinda sucks for us Betas who don’t need to make a good-faith effort to reform ourselves…

      Oh please. I’m constantly criticized elsewhere for my beta soft spot, now I have to endure criticism from betas at HUS because I’m fond of the benevolent alpha types?

      I’m fond of all the commenters here who show good will and an interest in productive discussion. I am willing to give a big virtual hug to anyone who lays their weapons down when they enter HUS. Look on this thread – I have several detractors here, including Crisis and Clarence, and they’ve been nothing but fair and civil. Vox already explained why I don’t attack him – he doesn’t attack me. Yet you expect me to offer a warm welcome to people who are signing people up for the “I Hate Susan Walsh” club, people who are snide at the best of times, and alarmingly antisocial at the worst.

      Not gonna happen.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “The contract that two people speak to one another in a church. If you don’t promise to forsake all others, it’s all good.”

    I’m no lawyer, but that’s a promise, not a contract.

    Actually, I never thought of the wording of our vows like that, it was more like poetry and tradition and aspirations and goals, rather than some Legal Contract or Code of Behavior with a Zero Tolerance clause. We were marrying each other, all the legal shit is defined by the state, and everything else is up to us.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Actually, I never thought of the wording of our vows like that, it was more like poetry and tradition and aspirations and goals, rather than some Legal Contract or Code of Behavior with a Zero Tolerance clause. We were marrying each other, all the legal shit is defined by the state, and everything else is up to us.

      You’re right, the legal contract is the least important part. It’s the promise you made to one another, and what those words mean. They are like poetry, and they’re far more powerful than any state form you might sign. They’re also far more important.

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “Not really. Even for finitely iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma games, cooperation holds for most of the game (cause that’s what Tit for Tat results in).”

    My point was that it’s not really applicable to human reality.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Responding to incentives is not an excuse for wrongful behavior. If we didn’t blame people for “responding to incentives” we’d have to condone rape, muggings, murders, and all other forms of mayhem that reflect the worst in humanity. ”

    Those things are both illegal and socially penalized*. Unmarried sex is both legal and socially sanctioned. The incentives are *vastly* different. We can’t remove all the immeditate negative consequences for a socially destructive behavior, and then stand around and say “But please don’t do that!”

    * the word sanction apparently means both give approval, or penalize. I literally love English!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      We can’t remove all the immeditate negative consequences for a socially destructive behavior, and then stand around and say “But please don’t do that!”

      You shouldn’t have to. People should be able to regulate themselves. At the very least, they should try to stand on two legs and live a good and meaningful life, not rut like animals in the gutter.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    If we didn’t blame people for “responding to incentives” we’d have to condone rape, muggings, murders, and all other forms of mayhem that reflect the worst in humanity.

    If the “victims” actively rewarded rape and muggings (as women reward men who practice dark game), then the perpetrators would not be to blame for rape and murder. However, that is not the case, so fortunately, we don’t have to condone rape or muggings.

    If I’m tired of hearing this excuse. Each of us has a responsibility to conduct our lives in a way that benefits more than ourselves.

    Not in a society where bad behavior is rewarded: http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/a-conspiracy-of-saints-and-knaves/

    Humans evolved to cooperate and collaborate. Those men or women who refuse to do so will hopefully avoid reproducing, as the last thing the species needs is more of these “renegades.”

    They aren’t doing that yet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    Yes, I agree. Much more applicable are the group cooperation games in which saints, moralists, and knaves arise.

  • Maggie

    “You cannot wish Roissy out of the manosphere anymore than you wish hypergamy out of women or prices out of capitalism”

    I’ve never read Roosh, Roissey, etc. but I guess these sites are probably good for the man whose goal is to bed as many women as possible. I’m thinking about something more mainstream to help your average shy guy get a girlfriend.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’ve never read Roosh, Roissey, etc. but I guess these sites are probably good for the man whose goal is to bed as many women as possible. I’m thinking about something more mainstream to help your average shy guy get a girlfriend.

      Yeah, that’s my goal, sigh. Yet here we have the shy guys defending the Warlocks of the Game underworld. I guess they can let us know down the road how that pans out.

  • INTJ

    @ Esau

    As I said earlier, people who truly value the egalitarian relationship may be rare, and have difficulty finding each other.

    Any tips? Anything superficial that can be used as a heuristic to predict whether a girl values an egalitarian relationship?

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Less popular commenters use mockery, put downs, hyperbolic language, e.g. Absurd!, and generally approach the debate as warfare.

    Are you referring to Megaman?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Are you referring to Megaman?

      Would you describe him as popular?

  • Sassy6519

    I will say that this thread has been great to read through. It has the perfect mix of raw entertainment and thought provoking material. Carry on.

  • http://theprivateman.wordpress.com The Private Man

    Interesting. It didn’t occur to me that George might be ugly. That hasn’t seemed to stop Roosh.

    Try some online dating. Women are rather visual, too. Roosh has confidence, competence, Charisma, and leadership. In that list, appearance is only part of the charisma element. George’s lack of visual appearance made it extremely difficult for the host to attack him personally. Wind, sails, not happening… host annoyed.

    As for terrible experiences with women and how men write about them, so what? Such experiences happened and the men have documented them, sometimes bitterly. Other men have read the stories and discovered patterns of feminine behavior. Apparently, that’s threatening to many women. Feminine imperative at work, perhaps?

    There are indeed some folks peddling PUA “systems”. I voluntarily signed up to receive email-based marketing from a few of these guys (and women, too). The marketing lingo is too often hyperbole: “Watch this video and get laid tonight!”. Seriously, I read that in an email. But dig down into the actual material (I have) and much of it is still about men achieving their relationship goals.

    There will likely never be a spokesman for the Manosphere nor will there be a fancy marketing campaign. Men can be a skeptical bunch. A slick spokesman and marketing campaign means nothing if the ideas (product?) backing it aren’t fully formed and based on truth. With a Manosphere/Red Pill truth spokesman, opponents to those truths can focus on the person, not the message. Without a person to focus on, the truths must be addressed.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    I’ve never read Roosh, Roissey, etc. but I guess these sites are probably good for the man whose goal is to bed as many women as possible. I’m thinking about something more mainstream to help your average shy guy get a girlfriend.

    Excellent point.

  • VD

    Susan seems to have a very soft side for the alpha bad boys who got reformed and became the ideal mix of alpha and beta.

    Of course she does. She’s female. The fact that we happen to be Game bloggers and have some inkling of the processes that underlie intersexual relations doesn’t make us somehow magically resistant to their workings.

    Why do you expect fairness from her or anyone? Life isn’t fair. People aren’t fair. The universe isn’t fair. Even God isn’t fair. I recommend you always try to keep in mind that the more difficulties you surmount, the stronger you will become.

  • Goldman Sucks

    Roosh, while no Idris Elba, is still 3 points better looking than Roissy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Roosh, while no Idris Elba, is still 3 points better looking than Roissy.

      Disagree. We’ve been through this before. I’d give Roissy a hard 7, Roosh a hard 2.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    No-fault divorce does not mean cheating is OK. That’s a very slippery slope you’re on.

    Not saying that at all. I consider no-fault divorce to be bad, precisely because it enables spousal misbehavior. I did not say “there’s no-fault divorce now, therefore cheating is fine.” I have stated repeatedly that I do not consider cheating to be fine.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Crisis

      I have stated repeatedly that I do not consider cheating to be fine.

      You have, my apologies.

      Not saying that at all. I consider no-fault divorce to be bad, precisely because it enables spousal misbehavior.

      I understand that, but I’m saying that people should be held responsible for their behavior and not misbehave in the first place! I have seen frequent claims in the sphere that no-fault divorce means “all bets are off.” I disagree with that.

  • INTJ

    @ VD

    Of course she does. She’s female. The fact that we happen to be Game bloggers and have some inkling of the processes that underlie intersexual relations doesn’t make us somehow magically resistant to their workings.

    Why do you expect fairness from her or anyone? Life isn’t fair. People aren’t fair. The universe isn’t fair. Even God isn’t fair. I recommend you always try to keep in mind that the more difficulties you surmount, the stronger you will become.

    I don’t expect her to be fair. I merely expect her to be honest about her unfairness. Akin to how I’m willing to admit that if more female posters used their own pictures as avatars, I’d unfairly be more amenable to the views of better looking posters.

    I guess self-awareness is too much to ask from a woman?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I guess self-awareness is too much to ask from a woman?

      Are you really this socially retarded? Have you no idea what I consider unacceptable commentary? You belong at Rollos and Dalrock’s, not HUS.

  • JustJulia

    “That is why one cannot be credible and anonymous. There is no way to demonstrate the benefits of the product that are part of the sales pitch.”

    Fair enough. Maybe I’m a bit naive. I’ve only been visiting the blogosphere for a short time so I’m not familiar with some of the scandals that have occurred.

    But Sunshine Mary did seem very honest and believable. She used a lot of very personal anecdotes (including ones about her sex life) and even posted photos of her guns and lingerie. That’s not something you’d see on the typical anonymous blogger’s webpage. Rossie and Dalrock definitely wouldn’t go there.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      even posted photos of her guns and lingerie.

      Good lord, I wish you hadn’t told me that. So glad I missed it.

      Was she in the photo? Did it match other photos of the same woman? If not, that doesn’t mean a thing.

      Anyway, I’m not interested in the particulars of any individual blogger. I’m simply pointing out the issue with anonymity. Obviously, it’s for each reader to judge the veracity of those claims.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “So you do believe that males’ sexual desire should be treated like a disease and a mental disorder.”

    I was talking about Raincloud Mary’s serial-cheating-putting-his-wife-and-kids-health-at-risk-s0-called-”husband”.

    He is by no means representative of all men. Susan estimated he is in the 1% league of sexually addicted manwhoring cheating dregs of society.

    “Also, why would a sane woman blame the men when the women are choosing these guys?”

    We did blame her. Then you came along and white-knighted her.

  • Tomato

    “I guess self-awareness is too much to ask from a woman?”

    That’s uncalled for.

  • JP

    “I consider no-fault divorce to be bad, precisely because it enables spousal misbehavior.”

    I consider no-fault divorce to be bad because I consider it to be bad as a fundamental first principle of the human condition.

  • Goldman Sucks

    Susan, you are aware aren’t you that much of Roissy and Roosh’s writings are stretching-the-truth-bravado if not entirely made up to cajole and entertain readers. Roosh so much as admitted this on his blog when he announced he is retiring from pick-up.

    Roissy has no pictures or video evidence of him even being with a member of the opposite sex (ok there was one where he and a few other guys were sitting with a female blogger) and we’ve yet to see any photo or video evidence of Roosh with a female. There’s a few of him from a long time ago in South America where he is sitting with a mixed gender group of people and all the female in the group are turning AWAY from Roosh.

    I wouldn’t doubt if for the majority of the time he was supposed to be writing from various countries he was really writing from his dad and step-mom’s basement.

    As far as the “game” blogs closing shop due to embarrasement and other reasons, I’ve noticed it over the past couple of years, but the latest dirty dozen to bow out is talked about here;

    http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/another-day-another-manosphere-blog-dies/

    A few of them have claimed they wasted years of their lives in the cult and that none of it works unless you have the looks to accompany it. Also, that random women know right away whether they’re attracted to you or not and therefore “game” only works on those who are already attracted. It won’t work if she’s not already attracted. And that’s where looks comes in.

    The sage wisdom of Pix or GTFO holds into eternity.

    Salud the ancients.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Roosh, while no Idris Elba, is still 3 points better looking than Roissy.”

    Susan, “Disagree. We’ve been through this before. I’d give Roissy a hard 7, Roosh a hard 2.”

    Ha. I give Roosh a soft 5 and Roissy a soft 2.

    Would not bang either one.

  • Clarence

    Hmm.
    Susan, am I really a ‘detractor’ when I got my butt reamed for a good 2 or 3 days at Dalrocks (and for about a week at various other manosphere blogs such as the comments at Hawaiian Libertarians. Oh, you’d have thought from the rhetoric that I was the biggest ‘mangina WhiteKnight’ in the ‘mansophere’ for a singular defense of a woman) just for basically stating that you weren’t a moral relativist and had been a good ally and were a decent person at least to your hubby? I mean the whole argument between you and Dalrock started over a rather minor disagreement (in the scheme of things) as to why women file for divorce. You basically claiming ‘frivorces’ are rare, he claiming they are rather common. I happen to agree far more with him (and I think the various studies he links to proved it) than with you, yet it was YOU I defended when a whole bunch of idiots who apparently never read this blog started talking about how you must disrespect your hubby, totally want to pull the wool over men’s eyes, taking statements out of context, etc. It was ridiculous, and not an example of good or fair argumentation. Yes, I disagree with you sometimes, but that doesn’t make me a detractor. I don’t recall ever going someplace and ‘dissing’ you. I might have agreed with a ‘hamster’ comment about you once or twice in a particular case, but I’m not even sure if I’ve done that to tell the truth.

    “Yet you expect me to offer a warm welcome to people who are signing people up for the “I Hate Susan Walsh” club, people who are snide at the best of times, and alarmingly antisocial at the worst.”

    I have to agree. They weren’t treating you like a person who might honestly be mistaken or honestly believe what she said. Nope, the character attacks started almost immediately. It was surreal.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      Susan, am I really a ‘detractor’

      I didn’t mean it as an accusation. I actually don’t know. I do appreciate your efforts at fairness, and I believe I said that to you at the time. I recall promising to write a post about frivolous divorce (The Eat Pray Love Divorce Trend), and you were helpful in providing background info. and links.

      I do recall, also, though, comments by you at Dalrock’s along the lines of “It’s a shame what happened to that blog, I no longer like HUS.” Forgive me if I am mistaken. That’s perfectly fair – again, not an accusation. I’m well aware I have detractors on intellectual or moral grounds and I have no problem with that as long as they engage in civil discourse. Which you always do, at least with me.

      You basically claiming ‘frivorces’ are rare, he claiming they are rather common.

      I didn’t say they were rare, I said the “meme is overblown in the manosphere.” To read Dalrock, you’d never know that college educated couples divorce at the rate of 17%, would you? At the time I suspected it was exaggerated, now I know it is.

      But let’s not fight about that, there’s no percentage in it.

      Apologies if I offended you. You are one of the most rational and reasonable MRAs in the sphere. (Others include Keoni, Brendan, Just1X, Social Pathologist, Capt. Capitalism, for starters.)

  • RT

    as Rollo said: “There is no such thing as “dark” tactics. There is only what men want.” (paraphrased)

    Incorrect and as per your M.O. out of context to mischaracterize what you have no valid counterpoint to. Since my truths get censored here I doubt you’ll allow this, but here’s the quote from the article you’ve had year old mad-on for:

    Myth of the Dark Arts

    According to common definition, the Dark Triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, all of which are interpersonally aversive. Depending upon context, that may be a convenient assessment of a sociopathic personality, but it is hardly an accurate assessment of Game as a whole. In its desperation to come to terms with a more widespread acceptance of Game, the feminine imperative had to make some effort to disuade the common man (see Beta) from embracing the means to his release from the feminine Matrix. Associating Game with Dark Triad personality traits makes this qualification process much easier, since the feminine imperative owns the defining authority of what is social and what is anti-social.

    The problem then becomes one of defining what acceptable use of Game is social and anti-social. Predictably Game-accepting women will want to cast Game into terms that suit them individually and accommodating for their own personal conditions as well as the priorities of their particular phase of life. However, because of women’s diverse conditions, there is a lot of disagreement among Game-accepting women about what contextually constitutes appropriate use. Thus, a pick-and-pull form of rationalization about aspects of Game gets thrown about in their internal debates.

    [...] There are no “Dark Arts”, this is simply one last desperate effort of the feminine imperative to drag you back into the Matrix. There is only Game and the degree to which you accept it and are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define. If that context is under the auspices of a mutually beneficial, mutually loving, mutually respecting LTR monogamy of YOUR choosing, know that it’s the fundaments of Game that are at the root of its success or failure. If that context is in terms of spinning multiple plates, liberating the affections of women from other men, and enjoying a love life based on your personal satisfactions, also understand that it lives and dies based on your understanding the fundaments of Game.

    http://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/the-bitter-taste-of-the-red-pill/

    The problem you have Susan is that any aspect of Game to you is automatically labeled “Dark” or “Misogynistic” because it removes control from women and puts control into men.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      My statement:

      as Rollo said: “There is no such thing as “dark” tactics. There is only what men want.” (paraphrased)

      Rollo’s actual statement:

      There are no “Dark Arts”, this is simply one last desperate effort of the feminine imperative to drag you back into the Matrix. There is only Game and the degree to which you accept it and are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define.

      There is no daylight between these two statements wrt intent and ethics.

  • Goldman Sucks

    Regarding No Fault Divorce.

    There are plenty of people who have never been legally married at all but who have lived together as couples and raised children and kept their families in tact with no separation their entire lives.

    We need less government involvement in human relations, not more.

    Gay marriage legalization will open up legal polygyny, polyandry and a whole multitude of different marriage “lifestyles” to be legalized.

    That’s one way to get to freedom. The other way is to take the government out of relationships altogether.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Gay marriage legalization will open up legal polygyny, polyandry and a whole multitude of different marriage “lifestyles” to be legalized.

      You say that as if it’s a good thing. How about the Jeremy Irons dustup?

  • Clarence

    Hmm.
    Susan, I really struggle with this. I normally don’t think of other males in terms of attractiveness, being that I am of the straight variety, but I’ve always thought Roosh was on the low end of ‘average’ not an outlier. A two would basically be “The Hunchback”, and I think a one would cause most women to want to throw up in their mouths. Scuse me for thinking Roosh isn’t as bad as either one. Try to disconnect what you know of his character and life and look at him again. Are you really saying he’s worse off (in terms of looks) than a mad scientists assistant such as Eegore?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      A two would basically be “The Hunchback”, and I think a one would cause most women to want to throw up in their mouths. Scuse me for thinking Roosh isn’t as bad as either one.

      I guess my scale is a bit different. He’s definitely not a monster. His looks also vary depending on his grooming. The first time I ever saw him was in a video tour of his parents’ basement, where he lived on an old dirty mattress next to a wall with a hole in it. He was filthy, with long hair and a lopsided smirk. I found him truly repulsive – as repulsive as the Hunchback. Since then I’ve seen him in a pic or two with short hair and looking generally less skeezy.

      My guess is that according to your scale I’d put him at a 4 on his best day. Definitely below average. Sorry, I can’t go any higher than that.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “You shouldn’t have to. People should be able to regulate themselves.”

    Yeah. Should.

    “You know, I don’t get why people don’t understand calculus… it’s just so easy!” So goes the argument, I think Vox, posted a while back. (I will attempt to reiterate the argument for my own edification, not because I can say it any better. Trying to type quick so this is off the top of my head and unedit)

    Just because some have that level of self-control, doesn’t mean that everyone does. Social consequences are the strongest form of regulating behavior. Legal ones are good, but only seem to as a useful backstop to bolster them, and preventing the worst excesses.

    The typical person needs both those consequences, regardless of what they “should” do. To make a useful society, we need rules that apply to the typical, not the exceptional.

    You seem to think everyone should understand calculus.

    There was an NPR report yesterday about a man talking with drug dealers. He asked a roomful of them: “which of you were afraid of police officers as a kid?” A hand or two was raised. Then: “which of you were are afraid of your mother?” Nearly all.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Susan, I really struggle with this. I normally don’t think of other males in terms of attractiveness, being that I am of the straight variety, but I’ve always thought Roosh was on the low end of ‘average’ not an outlier.”

    Roosh has some good genes from his ethnicity (they tend to be a good looking stock) but he does not know how to accentuate it. He is average looking but sometimes he does look downright ugly in photos. He need a hardcore professional makeover.

    Roissy on the other hand looks like the Geico gekko and he will age very hard and very early, as people from his ethnic stock are wont to do.

  • JP

    ““You know, I don’t get why people don’t understand calculus… it’s just so easy!” So goes the argument, I think Vox, posted a while back. (I will attempt to reiterate the argument for my own edification, not because I can say it any better. Trying to type quick so this is off the top of my head and unedit)”

    That was Vox, who I think was referring to his father, at which point I made some comment to which he responded at which point I pointed out that Vox was adorable.

    And I want to reiterate that Vox is adorable.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      And I want to reiterate that Vox is adorable.

      LMAO! I wonder how he’ll respond to that.

  • Mike C

    I’ve also disproved many of your claims about what was said by providing the quotes, but you rarely respond when corrected.

    Eh. I rarely respond because I’ve finally learned getting in a protracted back and forth with you it pointless so I make my point, let you have your say/rebuttal and leave it there.

    It looks like you deleted my comment comparing your views and comments directed at Vox and Rollo, and also my post linking back to a previous post. Why? Was it a case where you couldn’t “disprove” it so it was easier simply to delete it?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Was it a case where you couldn’t “disprove” it so it was easier simply to delete it?

      No it was a case of you being an asshole.

      As usual, and as expected, I’m getting a flurry of emails (and a few comments in the thread) complaining about the tone of male commenters here. (There were also two comments from fake female readers about my tone.) Rudeness and general assholery has been evident, though not true of all. I’m trying to delete the worst of them. That has the advantage of clearing the thread for productive discussion, and also removes the “bait” that brings characters like that Dustin misfit around.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Gay marriage legalization will open up legal polygyny, polyandry and a whole multitude of different marriage “lifestyles” to be legalized.”

    “You say that as if it’s a good thing. How about the Jeremy Irons dustup?”

    Never heard of him.

    But I DO think open and honest plural marriages are far morally superior to cheating. Cheating involves deception and the betrayal of trust. In open or plural marriages it is all laid on the table and negotiated and agreed upon by both or all parties.

    If one wants to be in an exclusively monogamous marriage they can. All they have to do is find someone else who wants that with them. And as monogamy is the norm and ideal, there are and will always be plenty of people who want that.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    “Also, why would a sane woman blame the men when the women are choosing these guys?”

    We did blame her. Then you came along and white-knighted her.

    You’re right; I did white-knight her, but not for her sticking by a husband who cheated. Note that earlier in the thread I described her act of forgiveness as a “gamble” and said that divorcing someone who cheated 30 times is entirely justifiable.

    It seemed like SunshineMary’s detractors had trouble with the idea that a wife should be pleasant to her husband (which is what SunshineMary taught), a message opposite to what modern 21st-century culture teaches (that a husband is merely an accessory to be discarded at the wife’s convenience, and that his sexual urges are a disease.) The fact that she was silenced by someone seeking to intimidate her only got me more riled up. There’s a post explaining my position on Page 3 of this thread, in response to a poster named JustJulia.

    That’s why I made a conscious choice to white-knight her (she is the only woman I’ve ever white-knighted for on an Internet thread.) She claims to have reconciled with her husband, and she says that her husband no longer cheats, so I consider it water under the bridge.

  • JP

    “But I DO think open and honest plural marriages are far morally superior to cheating. Cheating involves deception and the betrayal of trust. In open or plural marriages it is all laid on the table and negotiated and agreed upon by both or all parties.”

    Maybe they’re less evil, but they’re still evil.

  • INTJ

    Roosh is very physically fit and doesn’t have any skin condition or severe facial deformities. If he’s a 2, then the almost one third of American women in their 20s who’re all obese are all 1s.

    http://cdn.rooshv.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/poznan.jpg

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      doesn’t have any skin condition or severe facial deformities.

      This is hilarious. INTJs SMV ratings scale! To each his own, I think he looks like an angry terrorist. To say he’s not my type is a massive understatement. I respect the right of others to judge independently.

      There is no absolute SMV, and I certainly don’t intend to be limited by “facial deformities.” What does that even mean? Joaquin Pheonix is sexy as hell with his cleft palate scar.

      Is a face with ugly features considered deformed? Or does there have to have been some mishap other than genetic?

  • Mike C

    No it was a case of you being an asshole.

    I call BS, you simply didn’t like where I shined the spotlight. To summarize that entire post, the point was your “issue” with Rollo is entirely a personal disagreement because the totality of his views matched up against Vox’s views are very similar. The only reason you constantly harp on Rollo’s “dark, sociopathic” tactics is because he mocks you whereas Vox affords you some respect. That is the point. There is nothing “assholish” about that…it is simply factual truth.

    As usual, and as expected, I’m getting a flurry of emails (and a few comments in the thread) complaining about the tone of male commenters here.

    Eh. If you stuck to analyzing Girls episodes and posting about Summer girl game, you wouldn’t have to worry about getting a flurry of e-mails about the “tone of male commenters”. Again, there is plenty of material for you to cover if you are genuine about your mission to help young women find relationships. When you chose to post this, you invited upon yourself everything and anything that followed.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      To summarize that entire post, the point was your “issue” with Rollo is entirely a personal disagreement because the totality of his views matched up against Vox’s views are very similar. The only reason you constantly harp on Rollo’s “dark, sociopathic” tactics is because he mocks you whereas Vox affords you some respect. That is the point. There is nothing “assholish” about that…it is simply factual truth.

      You are wrong. Vox Day and Rollo are 180 degrees apart re the use of Dark tactics in Game. You obviously do not know much about Vox if you believe otherwise. He’s said in this very thread that he does not recommend what Rollo recommends.

      I am not affected in any way by Rollo’s calling me Aunt Giggles. I think it’s lame, and he looks like a tool every time he does it. Readers of his have commented on it. He’s a playground bully, and he can’t help but show that side of himself. I can ignore him for months on end, which I’ve done, but he “just can’t quit Susan.” There is no dialog, I have no wish to even acknowledge his existence. He is supremely inconsequential.

      If you stuck to analyzing Girls episodes and posting about Summer girl game, you wouldn’t have to worry

      Yes, you’d like it if HUS was nothing but humorous tidbits, wouldn’t you? You can’t stand the fact that a woman has bigger balls than your Dark Hero.

      Helping young women find relationships means helping young women find worthy men and avoid immoral ones. This post may do more to aid my mission than my last ten combined. Based on what’s been shared by men here, women would do well to immediately DQ any guy who shows a knowledge of Game, as it most likely signals the desire for “free pussy,” not meaningful relationships. Perhaps I’ll write a tutorial on what tactics to watch out for, like “agree and amplify.”

      By the way, a woman wrote to me yesterday to tell me that her bf was hounding her about her past. He demanded to know if she had ever been with a varsity athlete in college. She replied, “Yeah, I once ran a train on the football team!”

      Now that’s how it’s done.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Yet you expect me to offer a warm welcome to people who are signing people up for the “I Hate Susan Walsh” club, people who are snide at the best of times, and alarmingly antisocial at the worst.

    I expect you to treat Mike C much better than you currently do. He is very polite and respectful to you, and yet you constantly lump him in with all the hateful manosphere crowd.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I expect you to treat Mike C much better than you currently do. He is very polite and respectful to you, and yet you constantly lump him in with all the hateful manosphere crowd.

      Your expectations are of no consequence to me. You’re really better matched to other blogs.

      With your difficulty in reading social cues and emotion, you are unable to detect the undercurrents of Mike C’s commentary. In fact, I suspect that Mike C is unable to detect the undercurrents of Mike C’s commentary.

  • Serenity NOW (insanity later)

    Dear Sue,

    I think your own take on how game could be applied for men who are decent who just want to find a girlfriend or wife is a good, noble cause.

    The amoral aspects of game are so repugnant though that I think most people just cringe at some of the ideas that some of these blokes are selling.

    I won’t mention the blog but one PUA said that he believes most women are dishonest about their STD status and therefore why should he be (and, he openly admitted he has already contracted some STDs from his foraying into ‘poon hunting’)? Is that not a scorched earth tactic (or maybe ‘scorched genitalia’ tactic) to pick-up if ever there was one?

    Some STDs can be life-altering forever and some of these guys are so immature and misinformed that they really think that any of that matters.

    Scary.

  • Tomato

    There’s a difference between being pleasant to your husband and being a doormat. Who in the Sphere would encourage a husband to stick with his wife after she cheated on him numerous times?

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Goldman Sucks

    The problem with plural marriage is the same problem with the modern SMP: a handful of socially powerful men get most of the women due to hypergamy. At least in the current SMP, a man can get a wife at all. In one with plural marriages, the average man doesn’t stand a chance. He will have zero wives, not six.

  • Mike C

    I expect you to treat Mike C much better than you currently do. He is very polite and respectful to you, and yet you constantly lump him in with all the hateful manosphere crowd.

    INTJ,

    Ha. Two things there. First, there is the history. Susan actually deleted the comment where I simply pointed you to a past post of hers citing me. I have no idea why she deleted that one unless she is embarassed about old posts. But I’m pretty sure she perceives me as a Judas of sorts. That is why I get the treatment I do.

    Secondly, I am annoying in the sense that I am like a lawyer picking apart an argument and someone’s words like a vulture picks apart a carcass. That may not always be enjoyable for the person on the other end especially if there are holes in their arguments.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      But I’m pretty sure she perceives me as a Judas of sorts. That is why I get the treatment I do.

      No, it’s not that. I once asked you if you were on the spectrum because you often get “stuck.” I find that you do not absorb new information very well. I don’t know whether this is a conscious choice or a question of ability. You show up with your feet firmly planted in every debate and you don’t budge 1/4 inch. You just keep lobbing the same grenades, over and over and over again. In years of your commenting here you’ve allowed that I’ve “changed your mind” a couple of times, and in both cases the evidence was overwhelming and not remotely suitable for debate.

      It’s tedious. You complain that my views have changed, and that may be true, but it’s because I have read more, learned more, researched more, observed IRL more, and talked to many more people in the last three years. I realized that I had accepted some manosphere claims, e.g. 80/20 apex fallacy, without questioning because they made sense superficially. Further investigation proved many of these memes unfounded, or at best, severely distorted by emotional responses on the part of males.

      I am open to being convinced on any topic you could name. But if you can’t bring anything new, just the same anecdotes about your player cubicle buddy or your days as a bouncer, you’re holding a weak hand.

      Secondly, I am annoying in the sense that I am like a lawyer picking apart an argument and someone’s words like a vulture picks apart a carcass.

      You’re funny. You’re very invested in your level of intelligence. I don’t doubt your intelligence for a moment. Your problem is that while you are very good at picking apart words and even parsing them to death, you’re woefully lacking in the ability to place statements in an emotional context, understand the point of view of the person you are debating, accomodate even the slightest shift in topic, or adjust your thinking to incorporate new information.

      I’ve got my own weaknesses, for sure. I’m sure I drive you crazy for being the opposite of all the things I just complained about. Our particular personality matchup is no bueno.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    My statement:

    as Rollo said: “There is no such thing as “dark” tactics. There is only what men want.” (paraphrased)

    Rollo’s actual statement:

    There are no “Dark Arts”, this is simply one last desperate effort of the feminine imperative to drag you back into the Matrix. There is only Game and the degree to which you accept it and are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define.

    There is no daylight between these two statements wrt intent and ethics.

    Your paraphrasing (“what men want“) refers to intent. Rollo’s statement (“are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define”) refers to personal ethics (i.e. what the man considers ethical or acceptable). There is a world of difference between the two.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Your paraphrasing (“what men want“) refers to intent. Rollo’s statement (“are comfortable in using it in the context that YOU define”) refers to personal ethics (i.e. what the man considers ethical or acceptable). There is a world of difference between the two.

      No there isn’t, because Rollo makes morality relative. “If YOU define it as OK, then it is.” Moral relativism is a refuge of immoral people.

  • OffTheCuff

    There’s always taste. Any one person can find someone a 2 (wait – I thought we weren’t gonna use numbers??) but what matters to *them* is their average score.

    So some thinks I’m a 2. Big deal.

    No way Roosh is a global “2″.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      No way Roosh is a global “2″.

      He’s a full time PUA and he couldn’t even get a date in the whole country of Iceland. Men don’t know what women find attractive in terms of looks, apparently. My focus groups thought he was “throw up in your mouth” unattractive when they saw that video.

      But who cares whether Roosh is ugly or not?

  • Crimson & Clover

    The scary thing about what quite a few PUAs seem to espouse is complete moral depravity and spreading STDs as if they are just part of the ‘game’ which is pretty damned creepy.

    If PUA tactics were only for a few shy guys to gain access to women they would otherwise be too afraid to approach, that would be one thing. But, most of the PUA stuff out there seems to be about notch counting and ONLY notch counting rather than trying to find a quality partner/lover/friend.

  • Sassy6519

    The problem with plural marriage is the same problem with the modern SMP: a handful of socially powerful men get most of the women due to hypergamy. At least in the current SMP, a man can get a wife at all. In one with plural marriages, the average man doesn’t stand a chance. He will have zero wives, not six.

    Good point. If plural marriage ever became legal and mainstream, I’d bet that most women would still be vying for the relatively better men. Their chances of marrying a high SMV man would increase as well. It would be like a sanctioned “carousel”. Interesting. The “haves” would get even more and the “have nots” would receive even less.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I understand that, but I’m saying that people should be held responsible for their behavior and not misbehave in the first place! I have seen frequent claims in the sphere that no-fault divorce means “all bets are off.” I disagree with that.”

    Oh Susan… Welcome to MY world. A world full of people with the potential to be great, and the ambition to get on reality TV. If I could force people to behave to my standard of “should” this would be a peaceful and efficiently running world.

    But thankfully for everyone (including myself) I can’t force people to behave as they should. At best most people behave just enough to not get in trouble, which is to say fear of jail keeps most of the folks around me in line. Nowhere in that is real morality or anything about ethical behavior.

    I’ve been told many times to deal in reality since I tend to get hung up on “should” a lot. S take it from me, you will lose this battle. Reality ALWAYS trumps “should”, and no it isn’t fair.

  • Anacaona

    Within the analogy above, this happens when both people — it has to be true of both — are not motivated by questions of “who is in charge?” but by questions of “are you happy?” If both value the egalitarian ideal, then both will sense when the ball gets too far to one side and then strive to push/pull it back to the middle. The man will see the effect if he gets too bossy and his wife feels under-respected; or the woman will realize that she’s being bratty and it’s not fair to force her husband to have to discipline her like a large child. The balance happens naturally if (1) both value the setup of equal partners, and (2) both are paying attention to the other’s happiness and not just their own.
    Cosign this. As hard it is to believe some women want their husbands to be happy too. The ideal of a marriage is that both sides win not seeking winning and “getting things my way” just because.

    I never said it was logical or reasonable, I said that such women exist, and this fuels betas’ frustration, especially after they have been told that women just want a nice guy.
    Haven’t we had this conversation before? If a woman says she wants a nice guy and keeps trying getting with assholes she falls into the ‘bitches be crazy’ category and you should not waste a minute more thinking on her. Those women are also minority they just usually the hot crazy type and many men tolerate the crazy for the sake of the hot. Don’t do that. It will only make you miserable and bitter, YMMV.

    Any tips? Anything superficial that can be used as a heuristic to predict whether a girl values an egalitarian relationship?
    Sadly this is one of the things that you need to filter for after asking out a woman and spending some time talking to her. As rule of thumb the more shallow, materialistic and bitchy the more likely she will need a man “to put her on her place’ run in the other direction and never look back. Keep asking out women that at least look like nice girls, bitches usually try to look ‘shiny’ because they have nothing to offer but their looks. Also if she demands a fancy dinner in a first date, don’t go that is a huge red flag right there. I mean is a bit of common sense if she barely knows you and start demand things from you, flirts with other men she is very likely bad news. Just ignore how hot she is and concentrate on her behavior. I know that for most men women look crazy but there are flavors of crazy you shouldn’t even look at, YMMV.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    There’s a difference between being pleasant to your husband and being a doormat. Who in the Sphere would encourage a husband to stick with his wife after she cheated on him numerous times?

    Even taking the reconciliation into account, I see your point. You’re saying that she allowed herself to simply be dominated after her husband cheated on her 30 times. Now I see why Susan reacted so harshly to her at first.

    She made an unwise and ludicrous choice to reconcile, and it may be that she was intimidated into submission instead of choosing it.

    However, her teachings, which align with the idea that a dominant wife loses attraction for her husband, are still sound so I still can’t bring myself to condemn her. She’s no saint, and the circumstances under which she became so submissive are very unfortunate, but the sphere still lost something valuable when someone who didn’t agree with her bullied her into silence.

    I don’t take too kindly to censors, especially when they’re trying to defend a toxic relationship culture (though I don’t consider policing one’s own comment thread to be “censorship,” though.)

  • Goldman Sucks

    That’s a good picture of Roosh, INTJ. I think he looks decent but again, doesn’t know how to accentuate his ethnic features which is something everyone needs to learn how to do – increase their exotic factor, because exotic is hot.

    As his ethnicity is world renown for its good looks, in his own ethnic gatherings I’m sure he comes in at below average but in the mix that is the US, its possible he might come in at slightly above average.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    “I don’t consider policing one’s own comment thread to be “censorship,” though.”

    I agree. Very rarely do people post nasty stuff on my blog, but when they do, you can be sure I’m removing it. :P

  • Mike C

    You are wrong. Vox Day and Rollo are 180 degrees apart re the use of Dark tactics in Game. You obviously do not know much about Vox if you believe otherwise. He’s said in this very thread that he does not recommend what Rollo recommends.

    VD, IN HIS OWN WORDS

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/04/04/politics-and-feminism/game-and-cowering-bad-boys/comment-page-3/#comment-197794

    “It’s no secret that I like and respect Rollo and Dalrock too, ***or that more of my views are in line with theirs than hers.****

    Really, to continue this line of argument that there is some major difference between what Rollo is saying and what VD is saying is farcical.

    If you stuck to analyzing Girls episodes and posting about Summer girl game, you wouldn’t have to worry

    Yes, you’d like it if HUS was nothing but humorous tidbits, wouldn’t you? You can’t stand the fact that a woman has bigger balls than your Dark Hero.

    LOL

    By the way, a woman wrote to me yesterday to tell me that her bf was hounding her about her past. He demanded to know if she had ever been with a varsity athlete in college. She replied, “Yeah, I once ran a train on the football team!”

    Now that’s how it’s done.

    Definitely a great line, and a perfect agree and amplify. If the guy has any sense though, that answer immediately gets her moved to Ladder 2. He should keep banging her but immediately disqualify her as longer-term material.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “It’s no secret that I like and respect Rollo and Dalrock too, ***or that more of my views are in line with theirs than hers.****

      Really, to continue this line of argument that there is some major difference between what Rollo is saying and what VD is saying is farcical.

      His views re feminism, yes. And surely on female nature. Not his views on Dark Game. I have this conversation in an email with Vox, and I won’t share it here, but you are way off base. His morality does not permit dark tactics.

      By the way, characterizing someone’s argument as “farcical” is an example of your tendency to hyperbolic put-downs. Definitely one of your more unpleasant habits.

  • Mike C

    With your difficulty in reading social cues and emotion, you are unable to detect the undercurrents of Mike C’s commentary. In fact, I suspect that Mike C is unable to detect the undercurrents of Mike C’s commentary.

    Ha. If there is an “undercurrent” to any of my commentary, you can probably bet it isn’t unintentional. I understand the various “games” people play probably 100x better than you think I do.

  • Goldman Sucks

    CrisisEraDynamo, “It seemed like SunshineMary’s detractors had trouble with the idea that a wife should be pleasant to her husband”

    That’s because you are new here. Nobody who participates here thinks that spouses should be unpleasant to each other. Perhaps you’re spending too much time on other blogs that promote “instilling dread” as a valid method of “long term relationship game”.

    JP, “Maybe they’re less evil, but they’re still evil.”

    What exactly is “evil” about open and honest plural marriages?

  • Mike C

    By the way, a woman wrote to me yesterday to tell me that her bf was hounding her about her past. He demanded to know if she had ever been with a varsity athlete in college. She replied, “Yeah, I once ran a train on the football team!”

    Now that’s how it’s done.

    To put a finer point on it, when a guy uses Agree and Amplify it is most often the perfect textbook response to a shit test. However, when a woman uses it like in the example you mention here, it is because she has something to hide. I’ve got zero problem with a woman responding with an Agree and Amplify like this, but my advice to any guy would be any woman who uses it goes into the slut pile.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      To put a finer point on it, when a guy uses Agree and Amplify it is most often the perfect textbook response to a shit test. However, when a woman uses it like in the example you mention here, it is because she has something to hide.

      Wrong. He knows her number. He was fishing for information on anyone she may have made out with. Total shit test. In fact, the woman graduated from college a virgin and has never kissed an athlete.

  • GT66

    Susan Walsh: “@Clarence

    Women are not uniltarally disadvantaged compared to men

    I agree. In fact, I’ve stated that in this climate men are disadvantaged compared to women. We need men to stand up and point this out in a myriad of ways – but without the kind of anti-female ranting present on many of these blogs. That’s the real reason these men are anonymous. It’s not that they would risk their livelihoods by supporting divorce reform or observing that men are not thriving in our society. It’s that they know their constant mocking and belittling of the female sex is more than an opposition to feminism. They’re as bad as Amanda Marcotte. She couldn’t hold her job because of her views – the Edwards campaign fired her. Not because she was a feminist, but because she is a racist. ”

    Susan, here is a quote made by a woman in 1904 – ninety-nine years ago. Things have gotten no better and men maintain their anonymity for very REAL reasons. Women are extremely cunning at playing victim and evoking sympathy. Any man speaking contrary to a woman’s perceived interest no matter how effeminately he dresses up his words stands to have a woman assume victim status with the sole purpose of sending in the torches and pitchforks crowds to vanquish her “foe” or, more specifically, to silence any dissent or threat to her getting her way.

    “1904 – Anonymous Gentlewoman (USA)

    As society is made, it is almost impossible for a man to go the right way about his relations with woman. The system prescribes a certain attitude. It is the attitude of crawl, salaam, obsequiousness and second fiddle. If you depart from it by a hair’s breadth your woman become suspicious of you. If you advise other men to depart from it you get a bad name. Women stand up for women’s rights and are made the subject of applause, bouquets and illuminated addresses. The man who dares come out strong for men’s rights does not breathe. Men do not want him. They are like canaries in cages, afraid to go out lest the cat get them. Peace at any price is man’s rule of life. Abroad he will swagger and bluster, and bully. “Nemo me impune lacessit!” he roars. At home his watchword is ‘‘Blessed are the meek.” Abroad he frowns and breathes fire; at home he is plain, unvarnished “him.” Abroad he struts, at home he slinks. Abroad he is very wise, at home he is a little child.— Gentlewoman.” “

  • J

    @Susan

    Interesting. It didn’t occur to me that George might be ugly. That hasn’t seemed to stop Roosh.

    The fear is that George fits the stereotype of a ‘spherian as a guy who can’t get laid blogging from his mom’s basement or a George Soldini.

    The idea that a proper, Biblical marriage includes 30 affairs by the husband is mind boggling. This line of thinking is disgusting.

    SSM has stated that Old Testament patriarch’s polygygny is an example of how to understand the male nature. How’s that for Biblical?

    @INTJ

    I remember VD pointing out to Mike C how it is terrible etiquette to discuss a webhost’s relatives, even if the host brings up the relatives (I don’t remember for certain, but I think in that instance Mike C was discussing something about your son). You wholeheartedly agreed with VD.

    I don’t think what is going here is meant as a slam on the husband as much as it’s criticsm for SSM’s putting her marriage out there as an example of a good, Biblical marriage.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan

    DQ anyone with a knowledge of Game? In other words, avoid the “jerks.”

    The problem is that the nice guys will still bore them, and the nice guys still won’t get a lot of sex from the girl he’s having a “meaningful relationship” with. If he doesn’t turn her on, he gets friendzoned, and the relationship becomes purely extractive, with the guy not getting sex, which is what he values. If he didn’t value sex, the relationship would be platonic, not romantic.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to be the female equivalent of the male pump-and-dump strategy.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan

    A hasty correction:

    I mean that avoiding those with a knowledge of Game may be unwise, since the alternative won’t be arousing to the woman. I didn’t mean to imply that jerks are good relationship material.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Crisis

      I mean that avoiding those with a knowledge of Game may be unwise, since the alternative won’t be arousing to the woman. I didn’t mean to imply that jerks are good relationship material.

      There are many men with no knowledge of Game arousing women as we speak. I understand what you’re saying, but the problem is that it’s of critical importance to women to understand the intentions of men. Delaying sex is the best single strategy, but women use a variety of methods. (Obviously, I am describing LTR-oriented women, not women seeking casual sex.)

      Today, under the general assumption that “chicks dig jerks,” many men adopt a Pretend Asshole strategy. A young man of my acquaintance whom I like very much did this recently. A group of young people was talking about craving late night food, including the girl he liked. As they discussed where to go, he turned to her and said, “You look like you eat a lot of fried food, how about Tasty Burger?” She said, “That is so mean!” At which point, he laughed and sheepishly said, “I know, is it working?”

      A guy like that is easy to see right through. But what about the guy whose like the smooth moves? He’s a master at push-pull, the more subtle neg, he creates the impression that he has more options than he really does? He’s all about coming across as cocky funny, or always “agreeing and amplifying.” He’s out with her and instead of genuinely enjoying their conversation, he’s thinking “always be eye fucking.” Or worse, the guy who is spinning plates and having sex with women he doesn’t even like just to achieve “outcome independence” with the woman he really wants? I’d suggest those guys are risky for a relationship. They may not be, but sex is very costly for a woman. For this reason, I long ago recommended to readers that they DQ Pretend Assholes. They may miss out on a good guy, but that’s better than winding up with a bad one. I illustrate it here:

      as

  • Sassy6519

    Men don’t know what women find attractive in terms of looks, apparently.

    For the most part, I would say yes.

  • INTJ

    @ Mike C

    Ha. If there is an “undercurrent” to any of my commentary, you can probably bet it isn’t unintentional. I understand the various “games” people play probably 100x better than you think I do.

    Exactly. As I see it, the “undercurrent” in your commentary is that you patiently plow ahead through all the rhetorical and emotional games that people play, and use extremely sharp dialectic to pick apart their arguments.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      As I see it, the “undercurrent” in your commentary is that you patiently plow ahead through all the rhetorical and emotional games that people play, and use extremely sharp dialectic to pick apart their arguments.

      Sure you see it the same way, you’re just like him. The rest of us have bloody foreheads from banging them against the wall.

  • Mike C

    No, it’s not that. I once asked you if you were on the spectrum because you often get “stuck.” I find that you do not absorb new information very well. I don’t know whether this is a conscious choice or a question of ability.

    Well…just because YOU present some “new information” doesn’t mean I have to “absorb” it unquestioningly. You are not Moses coming down from Mount Sinai with God’s 10 commandments. For my part, I find you are excessively predisposed to credentialism and tend to “run with” new information simply because someone has PhD attached to the theory. I’m more skeptical of that sort of thing simply because I know how horribly wrong credentialed academics can get things such as Ben Bernanke saying in 2006 that high home prices were economically justified. At the end of the day, when it is all said and done, I am always going to be skeptical of “new information” that completely contradicts my own observable reality and/or things I directly hear from people. That is probably because I am an ISTJ, particularly the S part.

    You’re funny. You’re very invested in your level of intelligence.

    Too funny is right. You are absolutely correct that I take pride in my intelligence. Of course, this is absolutely true of you as well. You are gargantuanly invested in your identification as a “smart girl”. This is clearly evident in a great number of threads where you push back super hard on any criticisms of smart girls or their potential issues as mates. And I have no doubt your intelligence either. For the record, I scored a 680 on the GMAT, and I passed the test for MENSA and was a member but I suspect I just barely made the 98% percentile. I’ll say this…I doubt many can match my combination of brain AND brawn :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      I bested you on the GMAT, but who’s keeping score?

      I think we need to recognize Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences model here. I believe you lack emotional intelligence. And you definitely do not have the rhetoric gene.

      Again, I’m not saying I’m perfect, I’m saying that my deficits and yours are a bad mix.

      It’s my blog and I don’t suffer rudeness gladly. It’s not fun. And “fun” is one of my primary incentives for writing.

      Maybe you need a Journal of Best Practices. Things not to say on HUS. I’ve made concrete suggestions before, would it help if I collected them and summarized them for you?

  • INTJ

    @ J

    I don’t think what is going here is meant as a slam on the husband as much as it’s criticsm for SSM’s putting her marriage out there as an example of a good, Biblical marriage.

    Except she never did that. She put forward her view of a good, Biblical marriage. She also put forward her own marriage, which was (or at least had been) a WIP, and quite clearly didn’t meet her criteria of the ideal marriage.

    The problem is that some people are unable to separate the message from the messenger, and they started attacking SunshineMary based on her own marriage.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @INTJ

      Except she never did that. She put forward her view of a good, Biblical marriage. She also put forward her own marriage, which was (or at least had been) a WIP, and quite clearly didn’t meet her criteria of the ideal marriage.

      Wait, are you saying you were a regular reader of SSM’s Christian Submissive Wife blog?

  • Anacaona

    It seemed like SunshineMary’s detractors had trouble with the idea that a wife should be pleasant to her husband (which is what SunshineMary taught), a message opposite to what modern 21st-century culture teaches (that a husband is merely an accessory to be discarded at the wife’s convenience, and that his sexual urges are a disease.)
    I took issue with her because she is misquoting the bible as justification for her personal choices. You should read Hope’s blog she is pleasant and sexually available to her non-cheating husband and we welcome her advice and insights here with praise and joy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You should read Hope’s blog she is pleasant and sexually available to her non-cheating husband and we welcome her advice and insights here with praise and joy.

      Amen! The only people who should take advice from SSM are those who want exactly what she has. Mostly, her fans are men who want a woman as submissive and forgiving as she is. This group and HUS readers are a null set.

  • INTJ

    @ Mike C

    That is probably because I am an ISTJ, particularly the S part.

    Actually it’s the combination of S and J, which creates an auxiliary Si function. In contrast to for example ISTPs, who have an auxiliary Se function. The Se function likes to seek out and learn new “facts”, whereas the Si function is much more picky and skeptical, only absorbing “facts” that are credible (and not in the credentialism sense :D).

    Us INTJs are quite similar, except that we operate more in terms of “ideas” than “facts”.

  • http://www.rosehope.com/ Hope

    Roosh is not ugly. He just gives off a certain “vibe” which involves those microexpressions, and they say something unattractive on a subconscious level. He kind of makes me feel uncomfortable to look at him talk.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TsuBBaKtHU

    I watch a lot of videos related to the other “game” — video games. Compare and contrast that with this kid, for example. The comparison is fair because he also has a bit of a following, the vast majority of whom are male.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdTac75hnXg

    What do the other ladies think? I may be biased here because I have a fondness for gamer guys. :P

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Anacaona

    You should read Hope’s blog she is pleasant and sexually available to her non-cheating husband and we welcome her advice and insights here with praise and joy.

    Thanks. Will do.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “He demanded to know if she had ever been with a varsity athlete in college. She replied, “Yeah, I once ran a train on the football team!””

    No this is rude and ignorant.
    I hadn’t had a haircut for a while and got one yesterday.

    My wife made a joke about a dating a new guy and I didn’t catch it. I was furious even after she explained it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      No this is rude and ignorant.

      No, he was rude and ignorant for quizzing his gf of several months on who she kissed five years ago. Ultimately, she answered his question and told him that his grilling her in that distrustful way made him seem weak and unattractive. He said he understood and apologized. (He had been stalking her facebook and worked himself into a frenzy, entirely of his imagining.)

  • J

    Honey, you’ve got an enemy alright, but it ain’t no lady. Its your own damn husband.

    Damn skippy. I just don’t understand how a woman can blame a man’s chronic cheating on other women; the common denominator is always her man. Who can live like that? I mean you can diet till you turn blue and bleach your hair till it falls out of your dead, but for whom? For some guy who cheats?

    I suppose it’s easier to keep the man and blame other people than it is to build a new life, but I doubt that I could stay with a cheater.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I just don’t understand how a woman can blame a man’s chronic cheating on other women; the common denominator is always her man.

      Seriously. Absolving him of responsibility because women flirt with him? I’ve seen incredibly handsome men shut down attention from other women in two seconds flat. Also, a man doesn’t get from being flirted with to banging without putting some effort in. The most successful womanizers get shot down. If he had 30 affairs, he probably tried for 100. Or 300.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Men don’t know what women find attractive in terms of looks, apparently. My focus groups thought he was “throw up in your mouth” unattractive when they saw that video.

    That’s fine. But then women should stop telling us that physical fitness is very important for male attractiveness too. Because apparently it isn’t.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      That’s fine. But then women should stop telling us that physical fitness is very important for male attractiveness too. Because apparently it isn’t.

      It is, but it can’t compensate totally for other disadvantages. That’s like saying thinness is important to men, so you should go for the next butterface or snaggletooth that looks your way. Sorry, but both sexes want it all, and in theoretical conversations about what’s hot, that’s what they’ll ask for.

  • Sassy6519

    I guess the “Agree and Amplify” technique is okay for men to use, but not okay for women to use. Interesting.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Susan

    Not at all! You’re not expected to stand up and sell Game. You haven’t adopted a goal of social change or even personal profit through the use of Game. This post is strictly addressed to “professionals” who want MSM attention and acceptance as a means of social change.

    I’ve realized in this thread that the real reason for the pushback is that men want to be free to use unethical tactics to get laid without judgment. They have a vested interest in this remaining secret because they are well aware that their willingness to engage in this behavior goes against the teachings of every great philosopher or religious leader that has ever lived. (With the exception of Machiavelli perhaps? That scoundrel.)

    They’re interested in Game for casual sex, not relationships. Luckily, they do not represent the desires of most men, as they are doing their best to destroy civilization by aspiring to sexual gluttony.

    Quite true, I just comment on blogs. I don’t bother selling game. Well, actually, I tell my guy friends about it sometimes. Women often follow the dynamic that Vox described, one woman getting the whole group up into a rile and no one bothers to call her out for her bad behavior.
    I can even do this at work, sometimes, discreetly, and comfortably, because HR isn’t THAT concerned.
    Then again I am not the face of a social movement ;)
    If I actually WERE the face of Game, I’d be inviting a fire-storm. It wouldn’t be just ONE angry woman once in a while. It’d be an army of pissed off rad-fems.
    I can’t blame guys that much for not wanting to chance that…

    But, yeah, guys do need to be aware that they can’t just rely on “the truth,” and that if they want to be “mainstream,” THEY need to adapt, not the MSM. MSM doesn’t operate based on truth.

    Plus, you know, a lot of these guys too get toxic and too dark for anything that could be MSM.

    Guys are going to respond negatively to anything that sounds even close to resembling calling us cowards, though. There’s a lot more than just “being dark.”

    Or maybe that’s just me, I don’t know. I know you aren’t trying to personally insult me, I can process that, but the shield goes up any time something looks like a threat…

    Brief side-bit on Dark Game. Recently I had dinner with an old college friend and we had a night out. We were close in college. GF was informed about this ahead of time, I do not like the idea of concealing “one-on-one” meetings with other girls.
    The sex was a lot more intense when she next came down.
    But there were a lot of nervous probing comments/questions for a while after that.
    Inspiring emotional uncertainty, means inspiring emotional uncertainty. Not a good idea.
    Note, this was not an intentional action on my part. Purely accidental.
    I do not like the idea of guys trying to intentionally do this. It is definitely playing with fire, at best.

    @ INTJ

    Kinda sucks for us Betas who don’t need to make a good-faith effort to reform ourselves…

    EVERYONE needs to make an effort to reform themselves. Ain’t a single one of that’s perfect.
    Cooper gets doted on as much as Han. Well maybe not quite as much, but he still does.
    Part of it is that he doesn’t usually come off as being dick, though ;)

    Regarding attractiveness, especially Re: Roosh, I am going to quote Hope here:

    Roosh is not ugly. He just gives off a certain “vibe” which involves those microexpressions, and they say something unattractive on a subconscious level. He kind of makes me feel uncomfortable to look at him talk.

    I get the same impression. I could sort of see why people might find him attractive, but at the same time, I get the vibe “run away fast, this guy wants to eat your eyeballs and play trombone with your bowel.”
    I like reading the dude’s blog, but it’s a tough time looking at his picture.
    No worries, I literally have a smile only a mother could love, so we all got our own shit to work through.

  • INTJ

    @ Sassy

    I guess the “Agree and Amplify” technique is okay for men to use, but not okay for women to use. Interesting.

    Nope. It’s just that “agree and amplify” works when men use it, whereas the jury’s still out as to whether it works when women use it (I doubt it works any better than playing “hard to get”).

  • Sassy6519

    @ INTJ

    Nope. It’s just that “agree and amplify” works when men use it, whereas the jury’s still out as to whether it works when women use it (I doubt it works any better than playing “hard to get”).

    What do you think the reasons are for this?

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Nope. It’s just that “agree and amplify” works when men use it, whereas the jury’s still out as to whether it works when women use it (I doubt it works any better than playing “hard to get”).

    Seconded. It’s about attraction triggers in women.

  • Mike C

    Nope. It’s just that “agree and amplify” works when men use it, whereas the jury’s still out as to whether it works when women use it (I doubt it works any better than playing “hard to get”).

    What do you think the reasons are for this?

    Sassy, this is an easy one. Men and women put different values on “agreeableness”. A man using agree and amplify to pass a shit test is showing some dominance or at the least that he isn’t going to supplicate for approval. In contrast, most men are not looking for a woman to pass a shit test. Most men are going to be more attracted or respond more positively to a woman who shows at least a hint of “going along” rather then further testing.

  • Anacaona

    My wife made a joke about a dating a new guy and I didn’t catch it. I was furious even after she explained it.

    You know this is not good for your marriage right? A lame joke from a woman you love and trust shouldn’t make you furious.

    I get the vibe “run away fast, this guy wants to eat your eyeballs and play trombone with your bowel.”

    One has to wonder what sort of women he is pulling if he has the ‘serial killer’ vibe. No marriage material to say the least.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    What do you think the reasons are for this?

    Agree and Amplify has the subtext of the other person being ridiculous. My suggestion is that calling your boyfriend ridiculous is not going to help you, whereas reminding your girlfriend that she is sometimes prone to being irrational is not always going to be a losing strategy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Agree and Amplify has the subtext of the other person being ridiculous. My suggestion is that calling your boyfriend ridiculous is not going to help you, whereas reminding your girlfriend that she is sometimes prone to being irrational is not always going to be a losing strategy.

      Both men and women have the capacity to be ridiculous. Neither one likes to be told they are ridiculous. Men are also very capable of irrational behavior, especially in the area of jealousy.

      If the girl had hastened to reassure her bf that none of her makeouts were with athletes – a ridiculous question on his part – she would have signaled that she was prepared to tolerate irrational jealousy from him. By standing up to him and not dignifying his paranoia with a response, she actually reassured him. He realized that he did know her after all, and that he had been completely off base.

      Personally, I think A&A is cheesy. It’s got a smarmy vibe. Maybe I feel that way because Roissy says point blank you are to use it to evade detection or for hiding your real intentions. If a woman asks a man a serious question that is not ridiculous, i.e. are you having sex with anyone else right now? And he says, “Of course! The women are lined up round the block, haven’t you noticed?” She should run like hell.

      Never, ever let a guy dodge with A&A when it’s information you need.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Mike C,

    Do you think Agree and Amplify is ONLY useful for shit-tests, or can it be used as part of a broader strategy to address a girl’s emotional…uhhh…insecurities?

    If the first I agree with you.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Mike C

    Sassy, this is an easy one. Men and women put different values on “agreeableness”. A man using agree and amplify to pass a shit test is showing some dominance or at the least that he isn’t going to supplicate for approval. In contrast, most men are not looking for a woman to pass a shit test. Most men are going to be more attracted or respond more positively to a woman who shows at least a hint of “going along” rather then further testing.

    Hmmm. Interesting.

    @ ADBG

    Agree and Amplify has the subtext of the other person being ridiculous. My suggestion is that calling your boyfriend ridiculous is not going to help you, whereas reminding your girlfriend that she is sometimes prone to being irrational is not always going to be a losing strategy.

    What if the boyfriend is being ridiculous? Does his behavior also not merit similar treatment?

    I’ve got something to say about this “Agree and Amplify” tangent, but I want to mull it over a bit more before presenting it.

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    “You know this is not good for your marriage right? A lame joke from a woman you love and trust shouldn’t make you furious.”

    I do not find infidelity an even remotely funny topic. Joking about it is inappropriate.
    I have dumped a past girlfriend for something similar.

    Also, my furious is probably not how you would define serious.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I do not find infidelity an even remotely funny topic. Joking about it is inappropriate.

      Because she thought you looked like a new guy, you felt threatened that she might cheat?

      I thought people like variety – a new look can introduce a bit of spice to the dynamic, in my experience.

  • Lokland

    And be serious I mean furious :P

  • Lokland

    And by be I mean by

  • J

    Roissy on the other hand looks like the Geico gekko and he will age very hard and very early, as people from his ethnic stock are wont to do.

    Actually Roissy is half-Italian. Meds tends to age better than N. Europeans.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    What if the boyfriend is being ridiculous? Does his behavior also not merit similar treatment?

    It’s not a question of “merit” but of “what works.” You’re trying to make a relationship work, not punishing a partner.

  • Clarence

    “Agree and amplify” can be pretty darn humorous, and can sometimes defuse fights before they start.
    I don’t know who Susan is tying it into “dark game”. Indeed, very few “game” concepts (even negs can be playful and teasing, but at least they are misused enough that I can understand the classification) neatly fit into that category.
    It often depends on how they are used and the context in which they are used.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “Agree and amplify” can be pretty darn humorous, and can sometimes defuse fights before they start.
      I don’t know who Susan is tying it into “dark game”.

      I wasn’t! I reported a successful use of it by a female reader. Mike C said he throw her onto the slut ladder for it.

  • VD

    And I want to reiterate that Vox is adorable.

    I am adorable Ice… man.

    Really, to continue this line of argument that there is some major difference between what Rollo is saying and what VD is saying is farcical.

    Mike, Susan is correct in that you’re stuck on your particular interpretation instead of stopping to consider that it is not the only one. Allow me to clarify. I agree with Rollo that Dark tactics work. I know they do. I’ve used them. In this, to the extent that Susan argues or once argued that Dark tactics do not work, I don’t agree with her. However, I do not ADVOCATE the use of Dark tactics because they are contra the spirit of Christianity.

    Given my background I could, without too much trouble, instill Dread in my wife. I do not choose to do so. I would not recommend it to any man except as an emergency measure in the last extremis, assuming he even thinks it is worth it. Being Game aware, I understand that eschewing the use of Dread weakens my hand, but then, so does my choice not to neg her or intentionally attempt to reduce her self-confidence.

    You see, although I am aware of the reality of the concepts of Game, I am also aware that women, like men, can surmount their instinctive behavior. Perhaps I’m wrong to trust in my wife’s ability or even interest in surmounting them. But, being a libertarian, I prefer to take that risk than keep her on a tightly controlled emotional leash. I don’t fault those who choose otherwise, particularly in this legal climate. But I don’t advocate that choice.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @VD

      Thank you for clarifying your position. I did not feel it was appropriate to discuss your Christianity or put words in your mouth. I trust this will settle any remaining confusion.

      FTR, I do think many Dark tactics work, mostly in the short-term. I have no doubt that a man can fill his wife with anxiety and dread by flirting with other women in front of her, or cheating on her, etc. I also agree that she may work to rid herself of this terrible feeling by fighting for her relationship as hard as she can. I think this takes a terrible toll on the relationship, mostly in the form of the destruction of trust. It is not a winning strategy for marriage, or at least the kind of marriage that allows one to relax from time to time. I think of this as a Scheherazade strategy.

      I also think that it’s one thing to allow your wife to observe that other women find you attractive. That will keep her on her toes without anxiety if you do not encourage them. It’s another thing to be the smarmy guy at the party with his hand on every attractive woman’s lower back. I’ve been present in many conversations with other women where we pity the woman married to “that guy.” He shames her by flirting, further destroying trust.

      The attractive man does not have to initiate flirting. Those of us married to attractive men know exactly how other women see him. If a man does do this, it reeks of trying too hard and putting down his wife. It’s the middle-aged married version of “creepy vibe.”

  • Clarence

    Mike C:
    If she winked or laughed when she made the ‘train’ comment I would hardly penalize her. A sense of humor is a good thing.

    Indeed, this is one of those things that, if it matters to you, you will need to do more than just ask her as she is likely to either be offended or lie. Best to look for other ‘tells’.
    As for me, personally?
    If she has no diseases and hasn’t made a habit of drunken casual sex, then I could care less, if she’s had 1 or 20. Now anything over 40 on the other hand, but she’s probably doing tons of anonymous drunken sex if she’s had that many.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If she has no diseases and hasn’t made a habit of drunken casual sex, then I could care less, if she’s had 1 or 20.

      LOL, this is going to send Mike C. into paroxysms of indignation.

  • Clarence

    Susan, could you answer a question please?
    Do you consider Dalrock a coward because he blogs anonymously or because you don’t like what he lets his com mentors do or both?

    My understanding is that you are only against anonymity if someone is trying to go mainstream and, in addition, are involved in blogging where they use their own purported success (game would be a good example) to give people advice. In other words, they have more legitimacy if people can verify their claims and since their claims are personal in nature, they have to put their persona out there.
    Am I correct or not?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      Do you consider Dalrock a coward because he blogs anonymously or because you don’t like what he lets his com mentors do or both?

      Actually, I don’t consider Dalrock a Game blogger. I can’t envision him ever promoting Game in the MSM. I see him as an MRA, and I honestly can’t imagine why he feels the need to be anonymous. Clearly Ross Douthat didn’t find his data controversial. I’d say it was so that he could let his commenters run wild, but he couldn’t have known he would attract those types in such numbers. The fact that he is anonymous does mean, though, that he can never be a Warren Farrell or a Paul Elam. Perhaps that’s the way he wants it.

      I also don’t find his actions wrt his commenters cowardly. I find him very strategic. He is a sadist, but he lets them do the dirtiest work. For example, he recently wrote about a woman who wrote online that she had lied about her number to her OB/GYN. He portrayed her as a typical female representative of women today. In fact, she is basically a sex worker. She has written extensively about her own sexual experimentations, including all manner of group sex. She has a sex blog. She also writes erotica. She also has been involved in lobbying for privileges for sex workers. Not surprisingly, she is a radfem as well. Yet Dalrock shook his fatherly head and bemoaned the behavior of carousel riders today. It was lazy, stupid and wrong. Yet sure enough, his commenters were immediately foaming at the mouth, shaking their tiny virtual fists in the air.

      In other words, they have more legitimacy if people can verify their claims and since their claims are personal in nature, they have to put their persona out there.

      FTR, I don’t care if people blog anonymously or not. My main point is that you can’t market a product from a blank screen, and you can’t be a talking head in the dark. Game will never go mainstream via anonymous bloggers. If getting Game into the MSM in a positive light is not a goal, it doesn’t matter. (Though personally I would like to see that happen.)

      I also think people can judge for themselves whom to take advice from. I always carefully consider the qualifications of the advisor, and whether they have successfully implemented their own advice. For example, most dating advice columns in newspapers are written by single women in their 30s! Yes, they’re dating, but obviously, not very well. Why listen to them? I wouldn’t take advice from a penniless financial advisor, either.

      I also think it’s important to consider whether the “best case scenario” offered by an advisor is something that you want. If you want Roissy’s life, mimic Roissy. If you want Athol’s life, mimic Athol. That seems obvious to me.

      But again – I think this is in the realm of “to each his own.”

  • Jason

    But Sunshine Mary did seem very honest and believable. She used a lot of very personal anecdotes (including ones about her sex life) and even posted photos of her guns and lingerie. That’s not something you’d see on the typical anonymous blogger’s webpage. Rossie and Dalrock definitely wouldn’t go there.599

    Seriously? You want to see Rossie or Dalrock in lingerie with a gun?

    You’re braver than I am.

  • Clarence

    *Imagines Spacebunny and Susan each pinching one of Vox’s ” adoreable “cheeks*
    (Dies of laughter)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      *Imagines Spacebunny and Susan each pinching one of Vox’s ” adoreable “cheeks*
      (Dies of laughter)

      Actually, Vox’s photo has a definitely boyish, impish quality buried beneath all the toughness. I’d pinch that cheek.

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    It’s not a question of “merit” but of “what works.” You’re trying to make a relationship work, not punishing a partner.

    So using Agree and Amplify to “remind your girlfriend that she is sometimes prone to being irrational” is not punishing her, but using Agree and Amplify to “remind a boyfriend that he is sometimes prone to being ridiculous” is punishing him?

    How is insinuating that someone is irrational not somehow punishing them? I guess you could attempt to argue that women handle being mocked better than men do, and any form of mockery directed towards men is asking for trouble. If that is the case, it would be a step in the direction of better understanding men.

    @ Clarence

    If she winked or laughed when she made the ‘train’ comment I would hardly penalize her. A sense of humor is a good thing.

    I thought that most, if not all, forms of Agree and Amplify rely on some form of humor. Examples below.

    Man: Were you involved with a lot of the men in the athletics department at your school?

    Woman: Oh yeah. The entire football team ran a train on me once. (Wink)

    or

    Woman: Do you think that woman is prettier than me?

    Man: Oh yeah. I mean, check out the legs on that one. (Wink)

    So, what I’m understanding is that the version with the woman using the “Agree and Amplify” technique is somehow worse than the version with the man using it. Even if both people were only joking, the female usage is considered inappropriate.

    Interesting.

  • CrisisEraDynamo
  • Clarence

    Sassy:
    Well, I’m inclined to go with this oldie but goodie:
    Her: “Do these jeans make me look fat?”
    Me: “It’s not the jeans, dear” *sticks out tongue or winks*

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Well, I’m inclined to go with this oldie but goodie:
      Her: “Do these jeans make me look fat?”
      Me: “It’s not the jeans, dear” *sticks out tongue or winks*

      Ha! That’s a neg!

  • Lokland

    @Sassy

    “So, what I’m understanding is that the version with the woman using the “Agree and Amplify” technique is somehow worse than the version with the man using it. Even if both people were only joking, the female usage is considered inappropriate.”

    Based on subject matter.
    Sluts can only be funny when your not dating them.

    So for example, if I were freaking out about my tie not being perfectly straight and my wife A&A’d it. That’d be both hilarious and relieving.

    Trying to humourize being a slut (or infidelity) is like me using the N word in a joke.

    Just not possible.
    At least for me.

  • J

    It seemed like SunshineMary’s detractors had trouble with the idea that a wife should be pleasant to her husband

    You have to be kidding! All the female regulars here who responded to SSM are happily married women.

  • Mireille

    @ INTJ
    “Nope. It’s just that “agree and amplify” works when men use it, whereas the jury’s still out as to whether it works when women use it (I doubt it works any better than playing “hard to get”).”

    News Flash!

    The jury is out and it is totally fine for women to use A & A. It gets the message straight to the point. Can’t stand that BS. So men don’t shit test? It is only women who do? You’ve got to be kidding me!!!!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Sassy

    I guess you could attempt to argue that women handle being mocked better than men do, and any form of mockery directed towards men is asking for trouble. If that is the case, it would be a step in the direction of better understanding men

    Yeah, that’s what I was trying to get it. I don’t necessarily know if this is true, and it probably depends on the circumstances and the guy in question, too. I wouldn’t mind if the GF pointed out that I get angry while I am driving, unless I am angry at HER, too.

    Sexual insecurity…eeeeeep. Maybe that won’t work so well.

    Again, I am just feeling in the dark. I have no stats to back this up.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Lokland

    Based on subject matter.
    Sluts can only be funny when your not dating them.

    So for example, if I were freaking out about my tie not being perfectly straight and my wife A&A’d it. That’d be both hilarious and relieving.

    Trying to humourize being a slut (or infidelity) is like me using the N word in a joke.

    Just not possible.
    At least for me.

    I understand that. My next question is do you think there is anything wrong with men using “Agree and Amplify” the following way?

    Woman: Do you think that woman is prettier than me?

    Man: Oh yeah. I mean, check out the legs on that one. (Wink)

  • Underdog

    Agree and amplify signals a dominant personality. Men are more attractive when their personality is dominant. Women are more attractive when their personality is submissive/vulnerable. This is basic stuff.

    Telling women to DQ men who agree and amplify is like telling men to DQ women who cook and clean.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Agree and amplify signals a dominant personality.

      I disagree. I think it signals a sneaky fucker.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Sassy

    I understand that. My next question is do you think there is anything wrong with men using “Agree and Amplify” the following way?

    Woman: Do you think that woman is prettier than me?

    Man: Oh yeah. I mean, check out the legs on that one. (Wink)

    To be honest? It strikes me uncomfortably. But there are a lot of things that STRUCK me uncomfortably that were totally wrong. A&Aing a shit-test can work and 18 year old ADBG would have never done that.

    If my GF asked me this, A&A might pop into my head. TBH, part of me is laughing and wants to pout and ask her why she is checking out other girls. that might be too beta a response or whatever but for some reason that’s striking me as hilarious right now.

    But GF has never asked me this, so…

  • Sassy6519

    Telling women to DQ men who agree and amplify is like telling men to DQ women who cook and clean.

    I don’t think anyone has stated that women should DQ guys who use the “Agree and Amplify” technique. I’m sure there are women out there who already DQ guys for this, regardless of whether or not anyone on here promotes it. I’m certainly not promoting it. I’m okay with a guy using it on me under certain circumstances and in a certain style. Other uses of Agree and amplify, however, would make me wary of a guy and dump him. Lord knows I dump guys pretty easily anyway.

  • Sassy6519

    One example of Agree and Amplify from my own life pertains to the recent ex-bf. One day, he and I were out running errands around town. At one point, I complimented him on how hot I found his hazel eyes and his tattooed body. He smirked at me and said, “Babe, you only like me for my looks”. My response to him was, “Of course. Your job is to sit there and look pretty (cheeky grin)”. That comment led to him giving me a firm slap on the ass as we walked into a Chipotle for lunch.

    Good times indeed. :D

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sassy

      My response to him was, “Of course. Your job is to sit there and look pretty (cheeky grin)”.

      I love it. And he clearly did too.

      A&A is a form of teasing. If the subject matter is lighthearted, it’s fun. No foul. If you use it to be dodgy, it’s not fun, at least for your partner.
      I also think there’s a lot of variability among people regarding liking to be teased. I love it, I grew up with it. I also do it a lot, and I’ve always had chemistry and success with men who respond the way your bf did. I think it’s tied into one’s sense of humor, and especially the ability to laugh at oneself.

      Some people do not enjoy being teased at all, and that would include A&A.

      I do not think this is a sex difference.

  • Lokland

    @Sassy

    Depends on the woman in question.
    For example, my wife–> no. She doesn’t usually ask and the times she has asked an AA response has not worked to dispel anxiety. She in this regard prefers straight comfort traits and responds well to them.

    Three positive AA examples.

    1. On our second date we were making out on my bed/couch and I slipped her bra off with the 1 finger twist flawlessly at an extremely awkward angle (left handed, backwards and with her lying on it). Thats when she asked me if I was a player.

    ‘Only on F and Sat the rest of the week I’m a genius (or something stupid).’ (This was a Tuesday.)

    2. One time we ran into my ex, she asked me questions about how much I loved her and whatnot

    ‘I loved her sooooooooooo, so, so, sooooooooooo much. She was practically my second Mom.’

    3. Does this make my ass look fat (or for her, do you like this dress on me) is typically met well with me sitting in my chair going,

    ‘I can’t tell, spin for me…again, slower…still can’t tell the dress is in the way, you’re going to have to take it off and try again.’

    (Full cred, swiped this one off the manosphere..thinking MMSL but not sure.)

    ——

    What constitutes acceptable AA is dependent upon the person and has to be calibrated as such.
    Thats what gets left out of these discussions, calibration is always key.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      What constitutes acceptable AA is dependent upon the person and has to be calibrated as such.
      Thats what gets left out of these discussions, calibration is always key.

      Sorry, I see Lokland beat me to it. Agree 100%. I love your #3 by the way. Very sexy.

  • Good Luck Chuck

    I thought I had. Refresh my memory.
    One more time:

    I said- I own a business that is partially web based. I have a website with a message board and I also post on message boards that are owned by clients. All under my real name.

    If I were to use my real identity in the manosphere all it would take is for one person to stumble across a comment that *might” be able to be misconstrued as misogynistic or distasteful and my ass is toast. Not only could it damage my reputation and cost me sales, but it could very well RUIN my business.

    I’m not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.

    You replied- *Might?* How about if it is misogynistic and your ass deserves to be toast?

    It is very easy for a female with a watered down red pill message to sit back and criticize men in the manosphere for choosing to remain anonymous.

    You call men cowards for not risking their livelihood and reputation to support their convictions, then as soon as someone asks you to back up your words you resort to redirection and obfuscation, or in Rollo and Mike C’s case outright censorship (in the name of “preserving the tone” of your blog) to avoid having to justify your own.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Good Luck Chuck

      You are not debating in good faith.

      I’m confused. Were you planning on marketing Game in the MSM? I thought you were suggesting you would be a fine spokesperson despite being anonymous. I have never suggested that people should refrain from being anonymous as commenters. The post specifically addresses the marketing of the manosphere in the MSM. George described the manosphere as a group of men working together. It was not an auspicious introduction.

      However, as to representing yourself differently online and IRL, that’s living a lie.

      If being a misogynist could ruin your business, don’t be a misogynist. See how that works?

      You need to consider why it would ruin your business. Perhaps because you spew hate filled diatribes against women like so many men in the sphere? (Note: I have no idea what you say or where.)

      If you have views that are valid, good and right, you should be prepared to defend them in the public square.

      If one of those views is erroneously misconstrued it should be easy enough to correct the misimpression.

  • Clarence

    I see “Sassy” lives up to her name
    I like that.
    Now your goal is not ever to go from sassy to ‘bit***’ :)

  • Sassy6519

    @ Lokland

    What constitutes acceptable AA is dependent upon the person and has to be calibrated as such.
    Thats what gets left out of these discussions, calibration is always key.

    I agree.

  • Jason

    3. Does this make my ass look fat (or for her, do you like this dress on me) is typically met well with me sitting in my chair going,

    ‘I can’t tell, spin for me…again, slower…still can’t tell the dress is in the way, you’re going to have to take it off and try again.’

    (Full cred, swiped this one off the manosphere..thinking MMSL but not sure.)700

    Sounds like an Athol comment. Alternatively.

    “Do these jeans make me look fat?”
    “In the interests of scientific investigation, you’ll have to take them off so I can check.”

    My sister in law giggled when I mentioned that response.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “Do these jeans make me look fat?”
      “In the interests of scientific investigation, you’ll have to take them off so I can check.”

      My sister in law giggled when I mentioned that response.

      That is good. I think I could use this too.

      “How do you like these new jeans on me?”

      “I think I like them better off of you.”

  • Anacaona

    What constitutes acceptable AA is dependent upon the person and has to be calibrated as such.

    I agree I often joke that I’m having an affair with hubby and knowing how much I hate cheating with a fire of two thousand suns he takes is a funny. I also tell him I used to be a man also impossible. Hence why not level of game triumphs getting to know the person. ;)

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ J

    It seemed like SunshineMary’s detractors had trouble with the idea that a wife should be pleasant to her husband

    You have to be kidding! All the female regulars here who responded to SSM are happily married women.

    Remember, I was largely reacting to the fact that she was intimidated into silence for her beliefs, so I emotionally reacted, seeing you all as happy that she got bullied, hence the insinuations and accusations. Acts of censorship (but not policing one’s own comment thread – it’s their property) get me riled up.

    If I had falsely accused wives here of henpecking their husbands, I apologize.

  • Tomato

    I agree that it’s totally wrong to threaten or dox someone to silence them. I think it is up to each individual to decide whether to reveal their identity online. I must admit that I respect people more if they identify themselves than if they don’t, if only because it’s so easy to troll anonymously, but I completely understand the many reasons why people wish to remain anonymous. Hell, I do it myself!

  • Cadders

    I haven’t read all the comments so maybe this has already been covered. But maybe you are missing the point.

    What if Game doesn’t actually need leaders to promote it?

    What if it’s most potent form of transmission is simply through men, either one on one or in groups, through whatever medium, talking to each other? Because this is how I witness it spreading – particularly amongst my son’s peers (around 19, 20 years old). They all (obviously) crave sex with women, and when one or two of them are unduly successful due to Game, word quickly gets around. No ‘Game Leaders’ required.

    And interestingly, amongst younger men, Game often does not stand alone as a discreet subject. It frequently seems intertwined with discussions around lifestyle, career and money – which is not surprising really. As a man, once you start to understand Game it is not long before you realise all the obligations and expectations that your forefathers had to bear no longer apply when sex can be got for free.

    Raising awareness of Game cannot occur without similarly raising awareness amongst young men of the options that are now open to them. Options that increasingly do not include ‘married with children’.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      What if Game doesn’t actually need leaders to promote it?

      That is a question for the Game bloggers who wish to achieve MSM exposure.

      They all (obviously) crave sex with women, and when one or two of them are unduly successful due to Game, word quickly gets around. No ‘Game Leaders’ required.

      Indeed, no PUAs required, no Game blogs required!

      Raising awareness of Game cannot occur without similarly raising awareness amongst young men of the options that are now open to them. Options that increasingly do not include ‘married with children’.

      In the U.S., more young men want to marry than women. And most want children. In fact, more men cite children as an important life goal than marriage.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan

    I mean that avoiding those with a knowledge of Game may be unwise, since the alternative won’t be arousing to the woman. I didn’t mean to imply that jerks are good relationship material.

    There are many men with no knowledge of Game arousing women as we speak.

    Yes. They’re called naturals.

    The reason I say this is because many good guys are not taught how to arouse women at all; in fact, they’re taught to repress their masculinity and sexuality lest they become “misogynist” or “sexist,” and that to be a good guy is to not sexually assess a woman at all. This is summed up in “Be nice, be yourself.”

    He winds up in the friendzone.

    Thus, only the poorly socialized jerks (who either never learned to repress their masculinity or actively resist the socialization) and the most powerful men (social power arouses women) get the affections of women.

    Hence, there is “Game.” It teaches good guys how to be masculine and sexually appealing. The problem is that it comes to be associated with jerks because only the marginal men and the disagreeable men are masculine and sexual anymore, so we associate masculinity with being a jerk.

    But what about the guy whose like the smooth moves? He’s a master at push-pull, the more subtle neg, he creates the impression that he has more options than he really does? He’s all about coming across as cocky funny, or always “agreeing and amplifying.” He’s out with her and instead of genuinely enjoying their conversation, he’s thinking “always be eye fucking.” Or worse, the guy who is spinning plates and having sex with women he doesn’t even like just to achieve “outcome independence” with the woman he really wants? I’d suggest those guys are risky for a relationship. They may not be, but sex is very costly for a woman. For this reason, I long ago recommended to readers that they DQ Pretend Assholes.

    It makes sense that you want to keep women from falling into extractive relationships where the man only takes what he wants. But just the same, the woman can extract from the man (the friendzone) and the man will have no idea how to entice his woman into sex. Attraction isn’t random; Game teaches men how to hit those triggers so that the woman would actually want to have sex with him.

    To deny Game is to leave men in the dark with regard to arousing women, just like it was before Game.

  • Anacaona

    Remember, I was largely reacting to the fact that she was intimidated into silence for her beliefs, so I emotionally reacted, seeing you all as happy that she got bullied, hence the insinuations and accusations. Acts of censorship (but not policing one’s own comment thread – it’s their property) get me riled up.

    I’m actually sorry she got outed against her will. I wouldn’t wish that on anybody. But she deserves all the criticism she got for using her marriage as example.

  • http://en.gravatar.com/marellus Marellus

    “Of course. Your job is to sit there and look pretty (cheeky grin)”. That comment led to him giving me a firm slap on the ass as we walked into a Chipotle for lunch.

    Good times indeed. :D

    Spanking : The emotive science … that rigorous art. And, oh yes, the women love it … especially when I use my hat …

    @Mike C.

    You’re the Haile Selassie of a commenters.

  • Clarence

    Well, Susan, please don’t forget my question. :)

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Because she thought you looked like a new guy, you felt threatened that she might cheat?”

    No. Word for word she said ‘Ohh I have a new boyfriend.’ Looking back on it it wasn’t actually that bad and it was early the coffee had not yet started flowing.

    I took it literally not connecting it to the haircut.

    “I thought people like variety – a new look can introduce a bit of spice to the dynamic, in my experience.”

    I was actually returning to my old look. The other was specifically for a ceremony I needed to participate in.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I took it literally not connecting it to the haircut.

      Oh, OK. Then that was your misunderstanding, Mrs. Lokland is innocent!

  • Lokland

    “Seriously. Absolving him of responsibility because women flirt with him? I’ve seen incredibly handsome men shut down attention from other women in two seconds flat.”

    I’ve always found the notion that this man is bad yet the woman who sleep with him (who are typically also married) are not in anyway responsible.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “By standing up to him and not dignifying his paranoia with a response, she actually reassured him. He realized that he did know her after all, and that he had been completely off base.”

    There are two ways he could have taken this;

    1. As she intended a reassurance that he did know her.
    2. A deflection to hide the truth.

    You stated it was the first but we could easily envision a scenario where it was the second.

    You’ve also added more back story (not fair btw, its like trying to nail down a shadow) which means that he very likely would never have been satisfied with the truth and continually kept looking.

    What she has done now may be at best a temporary patch on his own insecurity.

    ——-

    That is the best analysis I can give with as little of my own bias on the subject which is that if she jokes about being a slut she’s a slut.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      1. As she intended a reassurance that he did know her.
      2. A deflection to hide the truth.

      You stated it was the first but we could easily envision a scenario where it was the second.

      But they have been together a few months and she says she is 100% focused on him and has given him no cause for concern.

      He is a bit insecure, I’d say.

      Re the backstory, sorry to add along the way. I don’t always know when I share a tidbit where it’s headed, and of course I don’t always know many details.

  • Lokland

    @Jason

    ““Do these jeans make me look fat?”
    “In the interests of scientific investigation, you’ll have to take them off so I can check.”””

    Ohh, I like that, thank you.

  • J

    so I emotionally reacted, seeing you all as happy that she got bullied, hence the insinuations and accusations. Acts of censorship (but not policing one’s own comment thread – it’s their property) get me riled up.

    Meh. I’ve been treated far worse on the interwebz than anyone treated SSM here today. And I’ve generally been told to “man up” about it. And besides, it was just us “silly geese;” no need to take us serioulsy. ;-)

  • Lokland

    Question for the Americans.

    How much would getting your hand sutured cost in the states?
    How would you pay, cash or insurance then reimbursement?

    Also, how long would you wait?

  • J

    I’ve always found the notion that this man is bad yet the woman who sleep with him (who are typically also married) are not in anyway responsible.

    Obviously, it doesn’t make them good women, Lok, but if a man has a pattern of this behavior, HE is the problem–at least as far as his family is concerned. It’s silly for SSM to blame all these women or see them as her “natural enemies” when her husband is the part of the pattern she is stuck with. What is she gonna do? Go around to every woman in the world and tell her stay away from her husband? Lose five more pounds? Touch up those dark roots again? A woman who loves and respects a woman doesn’t cheat. Appparently, she didn’t have that till they “found Jesus.” I hope she has that now, but if I were her, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “We can’t remove all the immeditate negative consequences for a socially destructive behavior, and then stand around and say “But please don’t do that!”

    Susan responds, “You shouldn’t have to. People should be able to regulate themselves. At the very least, they should try to stand on two legs and live a good and meaningful life, not rut like animals in the gutter.”

    – It always amazes me how people crave to be controlled by government, religion, corporations, a billion and one organizations or structures with rules to restrict our freedom, rather than just take personal responsibility for one’s own life choices.

    We’re always looking for that “one great leader” rather than lead our selves.

    “Honey, you’ve got an enemy alright, but it ain’t no lady. Its your own damn husband.”

    J, “Damn skippy. I just don’t understand how a woman can blame a man’s chronic cheating on other women; the common denominator is always her man. Who can live like that? I mean you can diet till you turn blue and bleach your hair till it falls out of your dead, but for whom? For some guy who cheats?

    I suppose it’s easier to keep the man and blame other people than it is to build a new life, but I doubt that I could stay with a cheater.”

    – If I were to find myself in such a situation, being that I also don’t believe in breaking a family with children up, I would remain in the marriage as a united front for the sake of the children, while dating other men and simultaneously maintaining a good working relationship, even a friendship of sorts, with my “husband”.

    We’d work out a schedule for polyamory; 2 alternating Saturdays every month, with 2 entire weekends per month dedicated strictly to family outings.

    Under no circumstances would I have sex with a man who had so little impulse control because I put my health and the health of any future offspring first before anything or anyone else.

  • Lokland

    “A woman who loves and respects a woman doesn’t cheat.”

    Pics or it didn’t happen.

  • Anacaona

    What is she gonna do? Go around to every woman in the world and tell her stay away from her husband?

    Bad memories. Not me personally but I know some Dominican women that upon tracking down their husband/man new squeeze threaten her with violence, stalk her or worst BEG for them to let of their man for the sake of their kids/marriage/health/whatever. *shrugs*
    It works a couple of times though if the main woman makes a scandal in the new woman’s workplace or in front of her family she likely let’s go but then the husband will get a new one or beat the crap out of her for interfering… Had I mentioned that I fucking hate cheating?

  • J

    – If I were to find myself in such a situation, being that I also don’t believe in breaking a family with children up, I would remain in the marriage as a united front for the sake of the children, while dating other men and simultaneously maintaining a good working relationship, even a friendship of sorts, with my “husband”.

    Yeah, I’m not sure if bringing yet another party into this rather complicated situation makes things any better. Sooner or later, you’d develop feelings form one of the other men or they for you. Trouble would ensue. I do understand the desire to maintain a united front for the sake of the children though.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Raising awareness of Game cannot occur without similarly raising awareness amongst young men of the options that are now open to them. Options that increasingly do not include ‘married with children’.

    In the U.S., more young men want to marry than women. And most want children. In fact, more men cite children as an important life goal than marriage.

    Not me. I know what can happen to me financially if I marry.

  • J

    Lok, DH and I have been together over a quarter of a century and neither of us has ever cheated.

  • Adam

    “I disagree [that AA signals a dominant personality]. I think it signals a sneaky fucker.”

    then

    “I love it. And he clearly did too. A&A is a form of teasing.”

    LMAO. Wow.

  • J

    It works a couple of times though if the main woman makes a scandal in the new woman’s workplace or in front of her family she likely let’s go but then the husband will get a new one or beat the crap out of her for interfering…

    Yeah, so what’s the point of doing going after the other woman? To drag the husband back home to pull the same shit next week? I just don’t get it.

  • http://bastiatblogger.blogspot.com Bastiat Blogger

    Re: Dread. There have been studies re: female competitive instincts which suggest that women will compete more effectively and enthusiastically if they know who they are competing against, and the number of other competitors in the contest is reasonably small.

    If the alleged competitors are more mysterious and their number seems to be fairly large, apparently this can trigger a very different reaction, a kind of distancing and disassociation from the contest.

    I can unfortunately attest to running into just this reaction in recent weeks. Rather than triggering a desire for my girlfriend to become territorial and make sure that I was feeling validated and sexually exhausted, the sense of
    open-ended competition with an unknown number of possible rivals caused her to feel extreme stress, some kind of pride reaction, and then withdraw
    from the relationship.

    A tactical lesson might be that an attractive female wingman, neighbor, or co-worker who is known to your GF or wife would probably be a more effective implement to trigger positive competitive adaptation than would a more generic group of mysterious female admirers. Either way, the guy probably needs to look like he’s the object rather than the initiator, or the ire may be directed at him.

  • Clarence

    Susan:
    I really appreciate your replies and esp your rather long reply to my question, BUT you didn’t really answer the question. Maybe I should have asked it better: Do you consider Dalrock a coward and if so, why?
    I do think you consider him a sadist.
    Anyway, I won’t ask again. Answer if you want to or don’t. I will say that what I DID take out of your answer was that whatever you consider you think about Dalrock it’s not because he’s anonymous. Am I correct about that?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Clarence

      Do you consider Dalrock a coward and if so, why?

      I don’t know if he is a coward or not. It’s hard to say because I don’t know what he would be afraid of. MRA stuff is different than Game because it’s not a tool that often results in immoral or unethical behavior. It’s a strictly political movement.

      If I were an MRA and wished Dalrock to uncloak himself and contribute to the cause in a meaningful way, I would probably think he was a coward. But I really don’t know anything about those guys, how they operate, etc. Nor do I think an MRA would have reason to fear for his job. AFAIK, Dalrock has not written the kinds of toxic diatribes Rollo is known for.

      I will say that what I DID take out of your answer was that whatever you consider you think about Dalrock it’s not because he’s anonymous. Am I correct about that?

      Yes, I do not feel qualified to judge Dalrock’s motives wrt remaining anonymous. There is nothing extreme about his blog, in my view, other than his commenters. And as I said, that seems an unlikely motive for anonymity. Beats me.

  • Lokland

    @J

    “Lok, DH and I have been together over a quarter of a century and neither of us has ever cheated.”

    I don’t recall suggesting otherwise. Go re-read what I quoted carefully :P

    As for my critical analysis. Blaming the guy in that situation though feel good for the wife is not nearly as useful as shaming the woman. Simply from a practical perspective stopping some of those women from cheating will have a larger effect than some of those men.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Did I miss something? Did SSM’s husband cheat with 30 married women?

  • Lokland

    “Oh, OK. Then that was your misunderstanding, Mrs. Lokland is innocent!”

    Aye, I’ve actually apologized now.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “If I were to find myself in such a situation, being that I also don’t believe in breaking a family with children up, I would remain in the marriage as a united front for the sake of the children, while dating other men and simultaneously maintaining a good working relationship, even a friendship of sorts, with my “husband”.

    J, “Yeah, I’m not sure if bringing yet another party into this rather complicated situation makes things any better. Sooner or later, you’d develop feelings form one of the other men or they for you. Trouble would ensue. I do understand the desire to maintain a united front for the sake of the children though.”

    Trouble doesn’t have to ensue. There are couples with children who are doing just this. However the one couple I’m picturing in my mind did not transition into an open marriage from a cheating marriage. They were both faithful and discussed opening up their marriage for 2 years with each other BEFORE either of them dated someone else.

    I think it works best when they go into it from the get-go with the agreement and understanding rather than one cheating and oops! got caught so let’s transition to a 2-way open marriage now.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “But they have been together a few months and she says she is 100% focused on him and has given him no cause for concern.”

    Yes but men and women have a key difference in when and how they deploy their lying tactics.

    Men only need do it once for a short time frame. This means women only need delay sex long enough to ensure he is in it for the R.

    Women need to lie for the entirety of the relationship but especially up the and shortly after having children (if they are going to attempt to) which probably spawns the trust but verify meme.

    We as sexes merely need to approach trusting our partners in different ways based on different threats.

    So, for her (and you) that couple months might be great, he definitely appears to be in it. For him it is still that unsure need to check and verify time.
    (notice that as a general rule the male ILU comes after the female one.)

    “He is a bit insecure, I’d say.”

    Ohh most definitely. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate his fears (though your backstory does) nor do I think it should disqualify him for a relationship.

    Think about it like this, would you rather your son have been discriminating or slutty with who he gave his commitment to?

    “Re the backstory, sorry to add along the way. I don’t always know when I share a tidbit where it’s headed, and of course I don’t always know many details.”

    I understand.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lokland

      Think about it like this, would you rather your son have been discriminating or slutty with who he gave his commitment to?

      I have no problem with this guy DQing her for making out with athletes if that’s important to him. In which case he probably should have asked before they made it official.

      She said they are in love – I think she felt it was out of the blue and it hurt her feelings.

      Trust is a tricky thing, especially when new. I think lots of new couples navigate these bumps in the road. I told her that what he’s feeling is very normal, and that most guys would wonder, though most might not say so. I advised her to do everything in her power to communicate that she is invested in him, and only him. If he doesn’t settle into it within a few months, I think she’s got a problem. But I doubt that’s going to happen. It’s a good sign that they talked it through afterwards and she was able to reassure him.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “As for my critical analysis. Blaming the guy in that situation though feel good for the wife is not nearly as useful as shaming the woman. Simply from a practical perspective stopping some of those women from cheating will have a larger effect than some of those men.”

    Baloney!

    It takes two to tango, not one. Women may turn down a wannabe cheater’s advances but he still advanced. Whether it was continuous flirting, a pinch on the ass, petitioning for dates, whatever. These are not things wives want their husbands doing. Its also why I took issue with the suggestion of the Girl Game Spring Challenge to smile and make prolonged eye contact with random men in public. They said the challenge is open to married people as well. Would YOU want your wife going about town smiling and sustaining eye contact with random men?

    I’m not Christian but IIRC their folklore has it that their main prophet said something like even the THOUGHT of being with another woman is tantamount to ADULTERY.

    That may be extreme, however FLIRTING is definitely problematic and anything beyond that, such as asking other women out is WRONG and deserving of SHAME.

  • Lokland

    @PJ

    Shut up PJ.

    ———

    “That may be extreme, however FLIRTING is definitely problematic and anything beyond that, such as asking other women out is WRONG and deserving of SHAME.”

    Of course. I agree, so much so that I’m willing to move to a country where infidelity will land me in prison.

    But from an actual effect POV its almost always more effective to shame women than men because
    a) men are more resistant to shaming
    b) in matters of infidelity the men who cheat do it more often than the women who cheat
    c) most men could not cheat with many women making shaming them moot even if they attempted it the effect would be confined to within their own marriage.

    Similar idea to the woman are the gatekeepers to sex idea. They are also more of the gatekeeper to fidelity in relationships (overall) than men.

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    @ Susan

    I counter your assertion of “it’s just the sluts and the cads getting together with each other” with this.

  • INTJ

    @ PJ

    Roissy on the other hand looks like the Geico gekko and he will age very hard and very early, as people from his ethnic stock are wont to do.

    Funny you say that. Roosh reminds me of the Geico caveman. So I guess we can call them the Geico duo.

  • Clarence

    J and Goldman:
    What I think you are both overlooking is that it’s possible SSM feels she was somewhat responsible for her husband’s cheating as well. I wouldn’t know as I’m not familiar with her whole story, but I do know that happy men rarely cheat. That doesn’t always mean its the wife’s fault if he’s unhappy of course, but it sometimes does. IF SSM felt she was partly responsible for his unhappiness that might explain one of the reasons she seems to have forgiven him.

    Who knows? Point is they are happy now.

  • Goldman Sucks

    If you have to stand as “gatekeeper” to a prospective spouse’s fidelity, DON’T MARRY THEM.

    “I have no problem with this guy DQing her for making out with athletes if that’s important to him. In which case he probably should have asked before they made it official. ”

    Guys, lay all your insecurities out on the table BEFORE we fall in love with you, mmmmkay?

    Regarding DULLCOCK:

    Said it before, am saying it again. He wrote an entire blog article about a young woman in his church that had two suitors; a nice guy beta whom she was not interested in and a bad boy alpha whom she was.

    What was that so called “alpha” doing that made him so “bad”? Turned down college and career track to take a year off and go and live in…. get this…. drum roll….. A CHRISTIAN COMMUNE!!!!

    Yep, that qualifies as “bad boy” in Dullcock’s world.

    SMH.

  • Goldman Sucks

    My preferred go-to game technique is D & A: Disqualify and Amplify.

    I also like T & A.
    That’s Testicles and Ass for the uninitiated ;)

  • Anacaona

    Yeah, so what’s the point of doing going after the other woman? To drag the husband back home to pull the same shit next week? I just don’t get it.
    Hera strategy and it worked about as good Zeus kept cheating on her, of course those myths were written by men so me thinks that this was their dream a woman that will never leave them and blame other women while the cheat to their hearts content…

    But from an actual effect POV its almost always more effective to shame women than men because
    a) men are more resistant to shaming
    b) in matters of infidelity the men who cheat do it more often than the women who cheat
    c) most men could not cheat with many women making shaming them moot even if they attempted it the effect would be confined to within their own marriage.

    Wrong. Shaming works between the same herd.
    If you steal the man from another woman belonging to a different herd she shaming you will have no effect because her sisters will cheer for her. That is why sluts tend to have few female friends they are loners so they can poach with little consequences for themselves, also why very few women are introverted statistically speaking is very likely the women that couldn’t join the herd complex social life were suspected as possible poachers and easily didn’t got their help to find suitable mates and reproduce.
    Unless there is shame inside the herd or dire consequences (let’s say a war breaks because of the poaching) she will not feel intimidated or humiliated but triumphant and probably gain more status and influence in her own herd.
    Shaming your husband with real consequences is more effective because he is closer and you can always lose the advantages of the pairing if his particular group find an unattached male a disadvantage also if her male relatives are willing to withdraw support or beat the crap out of him, YMMV.

  • Goldman Sucks

    Maybe the best strategy is to tell the cheating man’s children and let his own children shame him. Crying with tears in their eyes, “Daddy, why don’t you love us?”

  • Mike C

    Mike C,

    Do you think Agree and Amplify is ONLY useful for shit-tests, or can it be used as part of a broader strategy to address a girl’s emotional…uhhh…insecurities?

    ADBG, can you rephrase this question? I’m not clear exactly on what you are asking.

    In any case, I think you nailed it here:

    Agree and Amplify has the subtext of the other person being ridiculous. My suggestion is that calling your boyfriend ridiculous is not going to help you, whereas reminding your girlfriend that she is sometimes prone to being irrational is not always going to be a losing strategy.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    It is, but it can’t compensate totally for other disadvantages. That’s like saying thinness is important to men, so you should go for the next butterface or snaggletooth that looks your way. Sorry, but both sexes want it all, and in theoretical conversations about what’s hot, that’s what they’ll ask for.

    A butterface or snaggletooth is not going to be a lowly 2/10 if she is physically fit. She’ll definitely be more attractive than the all the obese women. That’s the simple fact.

    So, I think I’m quite correct in saying that women care a hell of a lot less about physical fitness than men do.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So, I think I’m quite correct in saying that women care a hell of a lot less about physical fitness than men do.

      I can’t speak for men, but lots of women are not looking for muscle-bound guys. In fact, those hipsters you loathe so much do okay with skinny limbs and jutting hipbones. Personally, I’ve always liked the runner physique on men. Other women may like stockier guys. I think I can safely say that women are not attracted to overweight men, with few exceptions.

      Overall, I think women appreciate a body that looks healthy and strong – tastes vary quite a bit wrt size, muscularity, etc.

  • Mike C

    VD,

    Thank you for your response.

    Mike, Susan is correct in that you’re stuck on your particular interpretation instead of stopping to consider that it is not the only one. Allow me to clarify. I agree with Rollo that Dark tactics work. I know they do. I’ve used them. In this, to the extent that Susan argues or once argued that Dark tactics do not work, I don’t agree with her. However, I do not ADVOCATE the use of Dark tactics because they are contra the spirit of Christianity.

    I’m pretty sure you are an objective reader of a person’s actual text not distorted by the prism of one’s personal views towards the person, so I would ask you do you really believe that Rollo ADVOCATES the repeated and widespread use of Dark tactics. If one reads his blog, he will repeatedly mention his writings are purely analytical and observational, not moral or ethical. He is describing what works and why. I don’t have the time or inclination to go hunting on his blog for the pertinent quotes, but I think it is incorrect to draw a distinction between what he is saying and what you say based simply on advocacy. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to have you correct me on this with rational dialectic.

    I would not recommend it to any man except as an emergency measure in the last extremis, assuming he even thinks it is worth it.

    I would tend to agree. If a man has chosen wisely, the most extreme tactics shouldn’t be necessary. In many cases, walking away might be the best choice. But if for whatever reason, walking away isn’t a realistic possibility than the only choice might be to “break the stallion” so to speak.

    But, being a libertarian, I prefer to take that risk than keep her on a tightly controlled emotional leash. I don’t fault those who choose otherwise, particularly in this legal climate. But I don’t advocate that choice.

    This is a very fair and reasonable position. The million dollar question is if and when an “emotional leash” is necessary and to what extent. The risks are very high for a man who finds himself in a suboptimal arrangement especially if children are in the picture. What I have zero respect for though is people who seem oblivious and totally unsympathetic to the challenges men face and what risk mitigation measures may have to be taken under certain circumstances.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “I have no problem with this guy DQing her for making out with athletes if that’s important to him. In which case he probably should have asked before they made it official. ”

    Susan, Dullcock is the father of a pre-pubescent girl. Even I think its not in her best interest that her father out himself to a group of men who think the age of consent should be 12 and females hit their wall at 20.

    Hear what I’m sayin’?

  • Tomato

    Is the assumption that all 30 or so women knew that they were sleeping with a married man? If they were deceived into assuming that the man was single, why should they be blamed?

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Do you think Agree and Amplify is ONLY useful for shit-tests, or can it be used as part of a broader strategy to address a girl’s emotional…uhhh…insecurities?”

    “Agree and Amplify has the subtext of the other person being ridiculous. My suggestion is that calling your boyfriend ridiculous is not going to help you, whereas reminding your girlfriend that she is sometimes prone to being irrational is not always going to be a losing strategy.”

    Agree and Amplify

    Him: My penis is small.
    Her: You’re tellin’ me! I can’t even feel it.

    Disagree and Amplify

    Him: My penis is small.
    Her: No its not. Its at least in the average of the sizes that’ve come before you. While no woman would mistake you for Mandingo, you’ve got absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

  • Mike C

    @Mike C

    I bested you on the GMAT, but who’s keeping score?

    Just curious, what did you get?

    I think we need to recognize Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences model here. I believe you lack emotional intelligence.

    I was curious, so I read this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

    If I had to guess, I’m probably average on the metrics described. For example, I’m actually pretty good at recognizing the emotional states of other people but not very good at influencing them probably partially because I just don’t give a f. I’m probably just OK at controlling my emotions except for anger which can flare out from time to time. Hope was correct about my temper. But this is probably the flip side of the coin of being a strong-willed high T male.

    And you definitely do not have the rhetoric gene.

    Probably not. Truthfully, I find it a low level of communication. It is a tool for influencing the stupid unwashed masses so I resent someone using it on me or having to use it myself. I prefer logical, rational, dialectic point/counterpoint. Of course, I fully understand that rhetoric is 1000x more effective on the less intelligent who are not as capable of logical critical thinking.

    Maybe you need a Journal of Best Practices. Things not to say on HUS. I’ve made concrete suggestions before, would it help if I collected them and summarized them for you?

    No, save your time. No need for that. I already self-censor myself enough based on your desire and request. I have zero intention of engaging in any further level of self-censorship. I suspect I know how this will all eventually play out. I noted that in this thread you took the arbitrary deletion of my comments to a new level both in magnitude and scope. I suspect that will continue. Eventually, that will annoy me enough that I will stop commenting entirely which is your desired result anyways. I’ve had more then a few people e-mail me the last day or so basically calling me an idiot for continuing to make arguments here. They are probably correct. As a side point, I’d note to you not to mistake “civility”/”tone” here for what people really think. You’d be surprised at the who and what of what is said in e-mails. Me, I’ve got zero problem with being totally candid in my opinions in comments.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C

      Just curious, what did you get?

      It’s been rescaled but I was 99th pc, or the equivalent of 760. (At the time it was 720.)

      I’ve had more then a few people e-mail me the last day or so basically calling me an idiot for continuing to make arguments here. They are probably correct. As a side point, I’d note to you not to mistake “civility”/”tone” here for what people really think. You’d be surprised at the who and what of what is said in e-mails.

      Couldn’t care less. When will you figure out that I don’t care what Badger thinks? I can safely say that there is no one you email with whose opinion I seek or respect. They’re all disgruntleds.

      For example, I’m actually pretty good at recognizing the emotional states of other people

      Perhaps from a distance, and in a judgmental way. I do not see evidence that you are able to put yourself in another person’s shoes, especially in the sense of having any empathy for someone without a penis.

      It is a tool for influencing the stupid unwashed masses so I resent someone using it on me or having to use it myself.

      It’s the art of persuasion. Without it your chances of having your ideas accepted are low. Think of a world with no sales, no marketing, no GAME. Game is rhetoric! Dialecticism is for chumps! Seriously, there has got to be a very strong correlation between naturals and the use of rhetoric.

      I noted that in this thread you took the arbitrary deletion of my comments to a new level both in magnitude and scope.

      It wasn’t arbitrary at all, and I don’t think it was anything new. You accuse me of stuff, you act rude and nasty, you’re going to get deleted.

      Eventually, that will annoy me enough that I will stop commenting entirely which is your desired result anyways.

      What I desire is for you to stop busting my ladyballs every chance you get by telling me what to write and for whom. If you don’t like a post, sit it out. You are not on the Board of Directors. You don’t have a say. And if you can’t stop referencing manosphere bloggers you know I disrespect, then go away.

  • Mireille

    Why are we even entertaining the possibility that wives should be responsible for dissuading other women from flirting or sleeping with their husbands. Are the men children who “just can’t help themselves”?
    Marriage is a contract and each partner is obligated towards the other. The person that has to respond for his action is my spouse; he is the one who swore to forsake all others and so on. He is the one responsible, and he is the one who will endure the consequences of a broken vow. No women in her right mind should go around blaming other women for her husband’s cheating. You either make your peace with it or you walk out.
    To add to the humiliation of being cheated on, you’d have to forsake all dignity by stalking and harassing these other women? No way.

    Shame works on every one, men and women. Men are shamed by the justice system during divorce and I believe this is one of their number 1 reason to avoid marriage and call women selfish. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. So they understand it very well once you take it to the next level. However, if you want to be the conciliating spouse and suffer in silence, he will only repent until the next pair of legs crosses his path.

    At some point you have to be honest with your self and your husband/wife. Just tell them that you are not able to make them happy the way you thought you could, and that you’re sorry it didn’t work out. You can then either quit or play couple until the kids are older and you can divorce.

  • G

    I’ve read many of the comments here, but not all of them.
    Forgive me if I’ve retreaded on covered territory.

    YES, some women DO outgrow, or figure out that they attract bad boys.
    YES, some women figure out that, when we are strong, and go for stronger men, we have historically let the “bad-boy” gamers walk all over us.
    Through being stomped on by the bad-boy gamers, many of us have learned our lessons, and still find Alpha males that are DECENT.
    You can go on all the the alpha websites mentioned here, Roissy, AlphaGame, Athol, etc, and you will find a mix of posters that appear to be horrific examples of scum of the earth playboys I wouldn’t look twice at today; to men who just want to be the alpha in the relationship.
    As an powerful woman in the workplace, I do indeed have a difficult time finding a strong enough alpha at home that is not intimidated by my success, or that doesn’t manipulate me at home in order to game his way to the top. When he games his way to the top, my protective alpha comes out and the fight is ON!!
    When he is the protective alpha, I can switch from work-to-home, and become the submissive at home in order to play this role that works for us.
    But, rest assured, if an alpha-gamer wants to start manipulating me, abusing me in any way, I have the strength and the means to walk away and absolutely will!! I have enough history with bad-boys to know that this is NOT what I want!

  • Goldman Sucks

    “Why are we even entertaining the possibility that wives should be responsible for dissuading other women from flirting or sleeping with their husbands. Are the men children who “just can’t help themselves”?”

    These are usually the same types who want the official legal system to govern marriage.

  • Goldman Sucks

    “You can go on all the the alpha websites mentioned here, Roissy, AlphaGame, Athol, etc”

    Alpha? Have you SEEN Athol and Jennifer?

  • Mireille

    I have to say PJ/Golman Sucks is hilarious tonight!

    I know a lot of women from my mother generation who took the road of letting the children shame the father; it worked for a while. However, refraining from cheating doesn’t always translate into working on your marriage. If you refuse to re-create what is missing in your marriage, and prefer to find it brand new outside, you’re just buying time. The men mostly were expecting the wives to do what they wanted or they’d walk. Super dread. In the end, one of them, my godmother had so much stress that she basically withdrew and checked out.

  • Goldman Sucks

    G, “Through being stomped on by the bad-boy gamers, many of us have learned our lessons, and still find Alpha males that are DECENT.”

    Not here you don’t. Cue all the male commenters who will try to rip your statement to shreds insisting that decent alphas with options never marry women who have learned lessons from a host of previous stomping bad boy boyfriends.

  • INTJ

    According to ETS’ “GRE Comparison Tool for Business Schools”, my GRE score yields a predicted GMAT total score of 740 (with a predicted score range of 670-800).

  • Goldman Sucks

    “The men mostly were expecting the wives to do what they wanted or they’d walk. ”

    Let ‘em walk!
    Good riddance.

    The moral and just thing to do is to sit down with your wife BEFORE you ever cheat and explain to her that though you have not been unfaithful, you would like her to consider the possibility of a 2-way open marriage in which she will be your main woman and you her main man, the family will remain in tact, but both of you are free to date others as long as it doesn’t interfere with family life.

    Only the lowest coward of a scum-man would not do this but choose to deceive his wife by slithering around like a snake behind her back instead.