Roosh V has Reduced Women to Sexual Commodities

Roosh V (Daryush Valizadeh) is a PUA (Pick Up Artist) who is the creator of the Neomasculinity brand; the closest thing to traditional patriarchy being advocated for by any big name in the MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) world. The idea of Neomasculinity was launched on March 4, 2015.

In the post introducing the term Neomasculinity Roosh V proclaimed:

“I would like to propose the term neomasculinity to precisely describe the developing ideology that has been refined here, on Return Of Kings, and on RVF from a primarily game foundation dating back 15 years with additional influence from non-game disciplines.”

So Roosh V is saying that neomasculinity comes from “a primarily game foundation.” “Game” is the foundation of what PUAs like Roosh advocate for and teach. The point of “game” is to be attractive to women and more particularly to be able to have sex with as many “high quality” (meaning physically attractive) women as possible. “Game” is a funny concept; it is usually presented as something that is amoral; a tool men can use to “get what they want” from women. Yes “game” can be thought of as self-improvement and a means for men to succeed better with women but usually the end goal of game is simply to “pump and dump” women; to have sex with women as soon as possible with the least investment or effort possible.

Roosh V later on May 6, 2015 spelled out in detail his ideas on neomasculinity; under the category of “Sexual Moderation” saying:

“Men have a biological need for sex that must be sated for them to function normally, but if that need is overshot, such as in the case of sleeping with women only for ego gratification, the man begins sacrificing more important needs for fleeting pleasure that will provide no lasting meaning. It is normal for a man to pursue sex because he wants sex, but pursuing sex because he wants to impress others, hit an artificial notch count of women, or alleviate personal insecurities will invariably result in self-harm and lost time.”

Now to characterize what Roosh V is saying here as so called “Sexual Moderation” is quite hilarious because what he is advocating for here is actually aggressive and mindless sexual promiscuity as he makes the claim that men pursuing sex simply because they want sex is “normal” and presumably acceptable while pursuing sex “because he wants to impress others, hit an artificial notch count of women, or alleviate personal insecurities” is where the problems begin. In other words pursuing sex simply to enjoy sex based on the sexual experience of sex is OK and even a “biological need” that is necessary to “function normally” while pursuing sex for social status or ego is wrong and will lead to “self-harm and lost time.”

Keep in mind here; Roosh V is talking about pursuing sex with random women he barely knows, women he will dump very quickly after having sex with them a few times.

“Sexual Moderation” according to this hyper-promiscuous definition; yes sex with multiple random women because it feels good but not to impress others or out of personal insecurities; is actually being presented as a value or component belief of the neomasculinity that Roosh is advocating for and teaching.

On June 10, 2015; after laying out in detail his ideas on neomasculinity on May 6, 2015 including the so called “Sexual Moderation” I went into above Roosh wrote the article with the accusatory headline “Women Have Reduced Themselves to Sexual Commodities.”

I strenuously object to the message of this article. It seems to encapsulate a kind of sociopathic / predatory attitude and behavior towards women; an attitude that sees women as simply objects of sexual gratification to be used and abused and discarded once the “sexual juice” has been extracted from them and then it’s on to the next woman. Then to top it all off the women themselves are blamed for the bad treatment inflicted upon them with the declaration that “Women Have Reduced Themselves to Sexual Commodities.” No, it is the Pick Up Artist, it is Roosh himself as a matter of his own free will who has chosen to reduce women to sexual commodities to be pumped and dumped.

I get the feeling that Roosh V sees himself as punishing women for their feminist sins by being a player rather than a family man; that his acts of sex are intended as punishment for the woman and pleasure for himself. That he is cleverly “beating the system” by getting for himself what he wants and making sure that the woman gets the bad end of the deal as punishment for her not being the traditional woman that she should be.

The opening paragraph of the article states:

“How we see women is not the same as how our grandfathers see women. They saw them as delicate creatures who could be a source of happiness, love, and, most importantly, children, but modern men are stuck with a different breed of women who care less about intimate relations and creating families than pursuing money, seeking validation and attention online, being trendy consumers, and satisfying their hedonistic needs with bad boys or clowns. A man who tries to emulate his grandfather by treating a modern woman with love or care is certain to get emotionally or financially destroyed.”

To this I would say that it is very important to see women as our grandfathers saw women; that if you want to have the virtues as a man that your grandfather had you need to see the masculine role as your grandfather saw the masculine role and you need to see women and treat women as your grandfather saw women and treated women. Roosh states that a man today who treats a “modern woman” with love or care will be “emotionally or financially destroyed.” This may be true. The solution then is to stay away from the dangerous “modern woman” and to pursue a relationship with a traditional woman instead. Stay away from modern women entirely; leave them in peace. Focus on only the high quality women you can safely successfully pursue a family with and then develop yourself into the kind of man such a traditional woman wants.

In Roosh’s article he draws out the analogy of women being oil wells and him as a man drilling for the oil the women as oil wells can give him. Some wells are more profitable than other wells. Some wells give high quality oil; some wells give lower quality oil. With some wells it is easy to extract the oil; with other wells it is harder to extract the oil. It is just an economic proposition. The goal of the man is to get the most high quality oil he can at the lowest cost; with the least amount of effort on his part.

As Roosh states in the second and third paragraphs of his article:

“So what’s left for us? How should we deal with the strong and independent modern woman? We should view them as oil wells that can provide a commodity that healthy men need to function properly: sex. Now that the emotional and familial purpose of male-female interactions are being eliminated, thanks to a woman’s demand for “independence,” a modern man should focus on extracting as many instances of sex from individual women as he can until the well becomes dry. Modern women are too broken, unreliable, and narcissistic to be [able to] give men anything reliable besides fornication, so this is what you must aim for if you want to get something out of the current oil boom. Any other strategy will result in disappointment and failure.

It’s first important to realize that not all oil wells are equal. Some are easy to find while others require delicate GPS sensors. Some oil wells are on land and therefore easily accessible to eager miners while other wells are hidden under the sea. Some wells are easy to drill while others require advanced machinery and engineering to reach. Some wells have oil that requires little processing while others may be too expensive to mine in current market conditions. And finally, some mines have plentiful reserves that last for long periods of time while others get tapped out quickly.”

This is a brilliant analogy Roosh is laying out here but it is also a sinister one. Very revealing of a kind of sociopathic / predatory mindset of a PUA on the prowl. What I find most disturbing is that this women as oil wells to pump oil / sex out of analogy can be presented in another way. A woman can be seen as an oil well whose value as a wife is based on the amount of oil she has in her reservoir at the time she meets her husband / at the time her husband to be falls in love with her and forms a desire to marry her. In this way of looking at things every time a woman has sex with a new man her oil reservoir is depleted a little bit due to the extraction of her oil the new sex partner took away from her / extracted from her for himself. In this way the PUA “drilling for oil” is depleting the marital value of his “conquest” every time he “scores” or “gets lucky” so the PUA is parasitically partially depleting a whole bunch of “oil wells” / women of their marital value to the men they will ultimately end up marrying.

Roosh V should understand this dynamic full well. As Roosh himself explained in his post where he explained his idea of neomasculinity in detail (in the “Sexual Moderation” section):

“The sexual activity of women must be even more closely monitored than men. Repeated studies shows that a marriage is more likely to fail based on higher number of sexual partners a woman—but not a man—had before marrying (1, 2, 3, 4), a fact that should be obvious to any man who has experienced the highly impulsive and shallow behavior of easy women. The results of these studies clearly show that a marriage is at high risk of failure if a woman had more than two sexual partners before marrying. (An additional study showed that promiscuous women are more likely to abuse substances, regardless of her age.)”

Now isn’t it simply a matter of logic that when a man and woman have sex outside of marriage that both the man and the woman are adding one to the number of sexual partners they will have had before marrying?

Applying this oil well analogy to real life Roosh provides an anecdote:

“Not long ago I dated a Polish girl who was 14 years younger than me. She was pleasant enough but I could tell she’s in the middle of her carousel ride and so not appropriate for a serious relationship. I did just enough work to keep her interested so that when I needed sex, she gave it to me, and as long as I was interested in our arrangement, I continued tapping her well to my sexual satisfaction. But I would be foolhardy to try to build a home with her since she is not made of the same stuff as her mother and grandmothers, and so I will not treat her as if she’s something she’s not. She’s an oil well, and I will use my drill to gain as much black liquid as I can until the well taps out, and then be forced to move on to another.”

What can I say about this? Roosh should LEAVE HER ALONE! Leave the Polish girl alone! If Roosh doesn’t see this young woman; Roosh being 35 years old and the Polish girl being 21 years old I would guess in this story; if Roosh doesn’t see this woman as potential marriage material then he has no business having sex with her whatsoever. He has no business emotionally damaging her by adding to her pre-marital sexual partner count which will make it more difficult for her to strongly bond with the man who will ultimately become her husband and he has no business stringing her along wasting her time making it more difficult for her to find a husband while she is still young and in her prime.

Roosh may be right that in general modern women or feminist women do not make for good marriage partners. That is a legitimate point of view, a view that in general I share. What that means is that one should stay away from such women and not romantically or sexually interact with such women. It does not mean at all that one is entitled to prey upon or exploit or take advantage of or fool and manipulate such women for selfish gain. That is totally wrong headed and sociopathic. Leave the feminist women to the feminist men. The feminist man wants these women if you as a traditionalist man don’t and you have no right at all to “spoil the goods” for the men who really and truly love and want and value the women that in your eyes are not good enough for you or compatible with what you are looking for in a woman.

Sex is a serious thing, a psychologically important thing. You shouldn’t be physically affectionate with a woman unless you have a serious interest in marrying her and a realistic potential of marrying her and you shouldn’t “have sex” with a woman unless she is your beloved wife; the woman you have committed yourself to ‘till death do you part. What Roosh V is advocating for and teaching in regards to sexual practice and sexual ethics is completely morally degenerate and anti-traditional and it is socially destructive in terms of the need to put together a social system that works in enabling its young people to establish healthy and strong marriages while they are still young.


About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Men's Duties and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Roosh V has Reduced Women to Sexual Commodities

  1. Well said. I love your kindness and respect for women, even the feminists and the fallen. You are right, just because such women exist, does not mean they exist for men to exploit. Being a man is about leading, not preying on the weak and broken.

    Something you might find interesting about Roosh, when he writes he is really speaking of himself. It is a projection. He is the one who has reduced himself to a sexual commodity. He is the oil well that fears being tapped out. He is the one on a carousel ride, convinced he is not made of the same stuff as his grandfathers and in a way, he is right. He is not.

    It’s kind of sad, for all his bluster and bravado, what he desperately craves is a wife, intimacy, relationship, genuine connection with a woman. That craving, that longing, is what women sense and recognize in him, that is what is at the root of the attraction, and so he fancies himself a great PUA.

    I can think of nothing more painful than to die alone, realizing that you’ve had sex with a hundred people and yet never known what it’s truly like to share yourself with one. He exploits women, yes, but the one he really hurts is himself.

    • “Being a man is about leading, not preying on the weak and broken.”

      Truer words were never spoken…

      Roosh V makes me sick. He has all these articles about patriarchy yet when I read the shit he writes and the way he talks about women I just want to go throw up. No I haven’t made the move to call myself an “MRA” and probably never will because the whole lot of them make me sick. Men created this society. It’s not that women are complete innocent bystanders with no influence but ultimately men are responsible for the state of affairs. And you hear all the time how Western women don’t deserve Western men’s protection. Well, if we don’t deserve men’s protection then maybe men don’t deserve our love.

      It’s not that most women set out to be promiscuous, most just don’t know any better. They start having sex with guys as teenagers, in a society where the media influences them to be sexy and have sex, looking for love, yet none of the boys want commitment and society and the parents don’t force the issue. Eventually children come into the picture and more broken relationships and the cycle just keeps repeating itself.

      It’s POSs like Roosh and his cronies that keep the cycle going. They COULD instead teach traditional masculinity to men to up their value and be more productive citizens. Traditional manhood isn’t about exploiting and harming women.

      • Sanne says:

        “And you hear all the time how Western women don’t deserve Western men’s protection.”
        Roosh is not a Westerner himself. Perhaps he should try his antics in a Middle Eastern country? This said, feminist hysteria around his site was/is ridiculous.

      • Susan Nercher says:

        You typed: “Men created this society. It’s not that women are complete innocent bystanders with no influence but ultimately men are responsible for the state of affairs.”

        Some men and some women are responsible for the state of affairs. The masses have no control or power unless they work together. Claiming that one group, in your case, men has all of the responsibility, means that you are absolving all others of their responsibilities and laying the blame on that one group. That’s like saying that the Jews control everything and therefore it is okay to discriminate against them because they have all the power. That is nothing but ignorant, bigoted hate.

        So now you want traditional masculinity? For decades now, feminists have been fighting against traditional masculinity. Now suddenly you want it back and want Roosh to teach it? Well, perhaps you should define what traditional masculinity and find ways of teaching it to society if you think that’s what society needs.

        Women have claimed that they don’t need men’s protection. Many men are saying that if that’s the case, then women shouldn’t need men’s love either. Women should women up and support their men and traditional masculinity if that’s what they really want. It seems woman want the so-called privileges of a few men at the top without the responsibilities that all of us must fulfill. No one should prey on the weak and the broken.

    • Susan Nercher says:

      You typed: “I can think of nothing more painful than to die alone, realizing that you’ve had sex with a hundred people and yet never known what it’s truly like to share yourself with one. He exploits women, yes, but the one he really hurts is himself.”

      I can. Living with someone who abuses you or doesn’t care about you. Being alone and broke after a divorce. Those things are more painful than dying alone. It’s funny how people who advocate marriage always seem to believe that marriage is a guarantee that you won’t die alone. Considering the divorce rate, marriage is more of a guarantee that you will die alone and broke. Google “gray divorce” and you will see what I mean.

      What’s the point of “sharing” yourself with someone when that person will just walk out? Considering the state of marriage nowadays, it’s probably a lot better to have a number of happy relationships than one long, drawn-out relationship with someone who will leave you and take a huge chunk of your assets with them. We all die alone. Live your life to the fullest.

      And why is it when men sleep with women, men are exploiting women? When women sleep with a lot of men, are they exploiting those men? When men sleep with a lot of men, are they exploiting those men? When women sleep with a lot of women, are they exploiting those women? You are still stuck in a time period where a woman needed a man’s hand in marriage in order to establish her self-worth.

      What two competent, consensual adults do is their business and it doesn’t mean that they are exploiting each other. Not everyone is meant for marriage. But then again, with the state of marriage being what it is right now, perhaps marriage isn’t meant for anyone.

      • “What’s the point of “sharing” yourself with someone when that person will just walk out?”

        Well, there’s that age old bit of wisdom, “it’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” Everyone will leave you someday, it could be death or even divorce that takes them away. To wall yourself off however, to be so afraid of the risk that you never allow yourself to be vulnerable is a sad thing indeed. That’s not living, that’s like preserving your pride and protecting yourself from future imaginary pain. Pain, risk, suffering these are the things that make us alive, that speak to a life well lived.

        Men are called to lead. Men are called to be men, to recognize their responsibility and authority there. Roosh exploits those women because he actually has the power to lead, to show his brothers and sisters a better way, to call people to their higher selves. Instead he exploits and takes advantage of other broken people, uses them for sex, and then moves on to the next target.

      • theasdgamer says:

        Women are called to submit, which they generally do poorly. “You go, girl” and Strong, Independent Woman ™ are cultural messages that contribute heavily to women’s rebellion. And blaming men for women’s failures doesn’t help women become respectable. In fact, it undercuts the efforts of others to correct women.

        Women use men as sex toys frequently. Women are much more likely to Pump & Dump than men are because women have so little invested in a sex toy. Even PUAs expend more time and money in getting laid than women do.

      • Crystal says:

        @ asdgamer,

        I must strongly object to this comment:

        “Women are called to submit, which they generally do poorly.”

        NO, sir (and I’m assuming you are a MAN), we are NOT called to f***ing submit to anyone but ourselves, God, and our conscience. That’s it.

        “‘You go, girl’ and Strong, Independent Woman ™ are cultural messages that contribute heavily to women’s rebellion.”

        Men fear independent women because they cannot control them. That’s why the psychopaths like the naive, trusting, insecure, sheltered, submissive, traditionally feminine types. And no, I am not saying you are psychopathic. I’m simply stating as a fact that men hate any assertion of femininity, whether it be menstrual pride, painfree childbirth, gaining an equal footing with men in society, being a solo parent, being f***ing raped and calling it out for what it is, or a myriad of reasons you can name.

        “And blaming men for women’s failures doesn’t help women become respectable. In fact, it undercuts the efforts of others to correct women.”

        Absolute nonsense.

        If you’re referring to rape, then I have to burst your bubble. Two people I highly respect suffered from partners raping them and this has traumatised them both very severely. So please, before you complain about men being blamed too much, look at yourselves and pull up a few boys calling out rude and lewd comments to young ladies minding their own business on the street, and stand for enthusiastic consent in sex and sexuality. Then you just might see a few more women feeling and behaving respectfully towards your sex.

        Furthermore, when women blame men, it is more often than not, because men are responsible. Men like you seem to enjoy claiming your “right to lead” etc. If you really want to believe that, then you hold a greater responsibility for your actions because you are meant to be leading, not in spite of your leadership role.

        “Women use men as sex toys frequently.”

        As a sex, we tend to be very loving and loyal, and far more likely to be faithful, and even Phyllis Schlafly says so. I strongly disagree with women using men as sex toys. Show me – tell me – where and when have we done this, and how? I’ll listen.

        “Women are much more likely to Pump & Dump than men are because women have so little invested in a sex toy. Even PUAs expend more time and money in getting laid than women do.”

        Good heavens, at least back up your assertions with a few articles. And please don’t use Return of Kings as a source; I don’t respect anything Roosh V or his confounded cronies have to say.

        Last but not least:

        @Jesse, if I have broken any unknown commenting rule by this comment, please forgive me, and explain why I did so because I would like to comment here and have no intention of causing trouble. I simply have very strong views on this subject and many like unto it.

      • @Crystal

        You have not broken any commenting rules or come close to breaking any commenting rules. My freedom of speech ethic is quite strong regarding how I moderate or fail to moderate comments at this website.

      • Crystal says:

        @Jesse, that is so good to know. I am relieved. I think, at heart, despite our disagreement on this very hot-button issue, you as a person are nice. Doesn’t mean I agree, just seeing the good in people despite the differences.

        Just curious – what would you ban people for anyways?

      • I would ban people for threats or violent language; also for racial denigration. I am more sensitive to white supremacist stuff than I am about things regarding gender issues.

      • Crystal says:

        I feel the same way about racism as you, LOL. Shouldn’t be tolerated. Period. Thanks.

  2. That is a very insightful comment and I believe a very true comment. I guard my idealism towards women and my respect for women very strongly; I see it as kind of the center of my soul or the center of my morality. If I am not advocating on behalf of women then what is the point? As a man my purpose is to serve women and by extension to serve children; to ultimately in this way make things work for society overall.

    Roosh V is an interesting personality; his pathos emblematic of and widespread among MRAs and the Manosphere in general. I am just hoping that my voice in some way can correct some of the wayward thinking and dysfunctional socially destructive hostility towards women that is alas all too common among MRAs / the Manosphere at this early stage of development in the process of trying to undo the harm that feminism has done to relationships between men and women.

    • “Roosh V is an interesting personality; his pathos emblematic of and widespread among MRAs”

      Roosh V is not an MRA and bashes MRAs because he says MRAs are naive to believe that equality between men and women should be the goal. I’m an MRA and we do not support Roosh. Here is Roosh’s Return of Kings website telling you that they have specified over and over and over again that they are not an MRAs.

    • Susan Nercher says:

      You typed: “As a man my purpose is to serve women and by extension to serve children; to ultimately in this way make things work for society overall.”

      Shouldn’t all human beings serve each other? And are you saying that children are extensions of women? Women and children aren’t the same and children are not the possessions of women. I don’t understand this comment.

      MRAs are not hostile towards women. MRAs are reacting against the hostility against men created by extreme feminism and a legal system biased against men. MRAs are saying that men have feelings and rights too and should be treated as human beings as well. Men are not just put on this earth to serve women.

    • Crystal says:

      We disagree on a lot but I agree with you on Roosh V. He is an absolute bastard. So thanks for speaking out. That being said, if you want to protect women, read about rape culture and speak up against it.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Both men and women need protection. Everyone needs protection. No one seems to talk about rape culture when men are the victims. That’s what we should speak up against. I don’t believe that poster called Roosh V an “absolute bastard.” But we should all speak out for all victims.

      • Crystal says:


        First, hope you’re going well out there; we haven’t spoken to one another for a while and I hope you’re having a good day.

        Actually, I’m the one who called Roosh V an “absolute bastard”, not any other poster. Yes we should speak out for all victims. I agree with you there, egalitarian gal here.

        That being said, we particularly focus on women needing protection because they do, their danger for rape tends to be greater; take into account that they are generally smaller and weaker, in need of protection, what better person to offer it than a man who sometimes becomes a potential rapist? Please hear me, I know this can happen to men too; that being said there is a reason women get the higher focus, it’s called chivalry, a deeper understanding of rape culture, and a willingness to understand how negatively it impacts women particularly due to purity/raunch culture influences.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        Actually, Crystal, if prison victims are included, men are more likely than women to be raped.

        More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.

        Just 9 per cent of accusations made by men resulted in a conviction.

        In recent studies 4.5 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds in adult prison and 4.7 per cent of those in jail reported being the victims of sexual abuse.

        Of the juveniles reporting staff sexual misconduct, 89 percent were boys reporting abuse by a female staff member.

        Male rape victims being ignored isn’t chivalry, it’s just the same discrimination and oppression that men have always faced and everyone ignored.

      • Crystal says:

        “No one seems to talk about rape culture when men are the victims. That’s what we should speak up against.”

        I explained in my previous comment why my reasoning was different from yours on this; that being said I agree with these sentences as well.

      • FamilyFirst says:

        With all due respect, Crystal, you really didn’t provide any reasoning as to why female rape victims get the higher focus. Using chivalry as some type of excuse as to why male rape victims are ignored? First of all, that isn’t chivalry but even if it were, why are you using history to justify the apathy towards male rape victims? Would you use history to justify the mistreatment of women? All victims should be cared for and treated with sympathy. That is the real rape culture – the one where male rape victims are ignored just because they are males.

      • Crystal says:


        Hmm, okay. What are you looking for when you say “reasoning”; would you please mind explaining so I can try again. Also I had no intention of ignoring male rape victims at all; I thought I had made that clear in my comments but apparently I don’t seem to have.

        Also what would you call yourself? Egalitarian? MRA? What type of thinking do you align yourself with, and why?

      • FamilyFirst says:


        Saying that there should be a higher focus on female rape victims because of chivalry isn’t sound reasoning. ALL rape victims should be treated with compassion. Focusing on some and ignoring other rape victims because of who they are is wrong. Why do I need to explain that?

        How about humanitarianism? How about the fact that all of us are human and that we all need compassion? I guess for people who want to focus only on themselves and the people like them, that is just too much to ask.

  3. theasdgamer says:

    “usually the end goal of game is simply to “pump and dump” women; to have sex with women as soon as possible with the least investment or effort possible.”

    These two aims are mutually contradictory. Pumping and dumping is expensive in time and possibly resources for all but top alphas (professional athletes, rock stars, politicians) as I have explained at

    I don’t know any PUAs who aim to pump and dump. If that happens, it’s because a woman is too much trouble to keep around–emotionally unstable, disloyal, etc. I explain that at

  4. theasdgamer says:

    Respect for women, lol. Insanity knows that I can be obnoxious and charming at the same time. Let me relate some of my escapades along that line.

    Item 1: I was dancing on the dance floor with a woman partner and another woman came behind me and tried to pull my handkerchief out of my back pants pocket. It felt creepy like someone was messing with my butt. The woman was a stranger but wanted to mess with me and likely wanted my attention. I had been ignoring her for weeks at my country bar. She had a bf who was much older than she was. I went over and introduced myself to her and played my Broken Taillight Game with her. Obnoxious, but no more obnoxious than she had been. Then the woman introduced me to her two friends and neglected to mention that one was her bf. When I departed, the woman smiled and said, “Nice to meet you.” She was not offended by my obnoxious charm. However, her bf went and complained to the bouncers and the bouncers told me to stay away from them and that was the end of it.

    Respect? lol

    Item 2: I met a woman in a group dance lesson. Another time, I saw her at a bar and noticed that she had put on weight. I looked at her belly, then at her face, walked on, not saying anything. (an obvious shiv) I saw her at a different group meetup and didn’t say anything to her. The woman had lost weight. (she got my message) She came over to my table and sat across from me to play a group game. The woman wanted to be in my line of vision. She commented loudly that she had met me elsewhere. (obvious attention-seeking behavior) I replied with when and where. Later, when a group of us walked out of the event, I said good night and the woman yelled the loudest out in the parking lot, “Good night!”

    The woman stayed talking to a couple of other guys, but she was thinking about me.

    Respect? lol

    Item 3: I played Broken Taillight Game with a 25 y.o. girl I met at my country bar. She was not offended. When she was leaving, she made a point to yell at me and wave from across the noisy bar, even after she had already told me good night. (attention-seeking behavior)

    Respect? lol

    Item 4: A woman I was dancing with had a wardrobe malfunction–one of her falsies came poking out of her top. I suggested that she repair to the restroom and she apologized for being a hot mess. She wasn’t even slightly embarrassed. The malfunction was likely a common event.

    Respect? lol

    Item 5: A married old lady who I’m certain has been hooking up with a PUA I know wants to dance with me because she has a big crush on me. She keeps asking and I keep refusing her requests. I have occasionally asked her to dance. One time when she asked me, I took her by the back and moved her so that I blocked her in. I told her, “Sometimes I want to slap you…silly…and sometimes I want to spank you.” She replied, “I’m just here to dance.” (I had invoked her ASD with my obnoxious behavior which she found charming.) Shortly thereafter she said that she was leaving early (indicating a hookup opportunity) and I said that I was going to another bar. The woman asked if there were other dancers at the bar–she was looking for a plausible reason to go to the bar and dance with me.

    Respect? lol

    Item 6: I was talking with a couple of women and mentioned that women don’t like “Boy Scouts” (nice, respectful guys). I said, “Boy Scouts are…” The girls finished, “Boring!”

    Respect? lol

    Item 7: A country bar on a Sat. night. I was chatting with a fifty-ish woman I had just met. I was NOT gaming her. Not even flirting with her. She made out with another man. Later, about 11, she wanted to dance with me. And she wanted to grind her butt against my crotch, then her crotch against mine. Stories for my book, I’m not complaining.

    Respect? lol

    What Insanity means by “respect” and what Jesse Powell means by “respect” likely diverge radically.

    Do I need to tell you all that girls find me charming? I’m not even seriously gaming any. The girls who read this will know this from my writing, but the men will likely think that being obnoxious and disrespectful turns girls off. It doesn’t–it’s part of standard mating. You have to grapple with women or they find you boring. “Grappling” requires sexualization and throwing women off-balance. Women know this, but “respectful” men don’t.

    • Crystal says:

      “‘Grappling’ requires sexualisation and throwing women off-balance. Women know this, but ‘respectful’ men don’t.”

      Okay, fine. Are you talking about negging? Because, if you are, it’s a highly unmanly way to behave. I have experienced it and I can assure you I did NOT find it charming at all. The man who did it to me made personal remarks about my sexual life and intimated that he would like to “convert” me offline. Thanks but no thanks, if you’re talking about that. Negging is an abomination to any good relationship between a man and a woman, marriage-oriented or otherwise.

      • theasdgamer says:

        Darlin’, what do you think that negging is? Your experience doesn’t sound like negging. Context matters a lot, too. Work, library, church, bar…all have different behavioral expectations.

        Some men are beginners at game and end up being clods at first. When they are more practiced and smoother, what they do seems more like a…game. Games should be fun, right?

    • Crystal says:


      My name is Crystal. Please use it. I am not your darling either.

      BTW what I went through is negging. Negging goes like this “I like your nose” – compliment “but it happens to have a spot on it, and I don’t like spots” – devaluing. It’s a reversed compliment turned into an insult that intrigues women and draws them to the man insulting them.

      Ironically he claimed to be a feminist. Have fun with that. Here is the substance of his conversation, having a go at me. Click on the “Newest” icon and scroll down, and you’ll see it. It disgusts me to this day to remember it:

    • Crystal says:


      What I went through *was* negging. It was very insulting and devaluing to me as a human being.

      Negging is when you compliment someone “I like your nose” and then devalue them “but it’s got a spot on it … weird.” It’s an insult twisted into praise so that the other person feels off-balance and unable to trust themselves.

      Here are two good pages describing what negging is:

      [Edit: same links as in above comment]

      This is where he has a go at me, several times. To this day I still feel deeply insulted remembering it. If you want to see it, click the Newest button and scroll down:

      [Edit: same link as in above comment]
      [Note to Crystal: if you put two or more links into a comment the comment is automatically held up for moderation]

    • Chia maria says:


      I can also give an extensive list of the stupid things men do as an excuse for why men shouldn’t be respected. I can give a long list, twist things around to make them look bad, just like what you’re doing. It’s not a difficult skill, anyone can do it. But it’s a dumb thing to do. Besides, we’ve only heard your side of the story, we haven’t heard the side of the women who you mention in your “items”. It sounds like in some cases you’ve twisted the situation a bit or taken what the women said or did out of context.

    • theasdgamer says:

      Dear Trixie, er, I mean Crystal. Darlin, are you this full of yourself? Maybe you are too serious…or too old to remember what mating is? You could stand a bit of levity.

      A friendly suggestion. By the way, I dropped a quarter. Could you pick it up for me? Thanks.

      • Crystal says:

        F*** off, you are behaving in an unmanly fashion towards me. You don’t know two confounded cents about what being a real man is all about. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your lack of respect and refusal to listen to what a woman is telling you, for that is the mark of a gentleman. If you can’t even take seriously what the hell I’m trying to say to you then I fail to see why we should continue to have this ridiculous conversation. Shame on you. I might be young but I refuse to hang around men especially your type. Thanks for confirming for me why I should stay single. Have a good day, cupcake, and don’t write to me again or I will consider it harassment.

      • Crystal, you said:

        “Have a good day, cupcake, and don’t write to me again or I will consider it harassment.”

        What do you mean exactly by “or I will consider it harassment”? It seems like you are threatening ASDGamer with some kind of sexual harassment accusation or something though I don’t know how that is supposed to work based on a public internet exchange.

        ASDGamer has not violated any commenting rules with what he has said. If you Crystal don’t want to interact with ASDGamer that is fine but I don’t like you seeming to threaten ASDGamer with an “accusation” of some sort.

        The comment section at my website is basically a free speech zone and I do not welcome someone poisoning the atmosphere with “sexual harassment” accusations against other commenters.

      • Crystal says:


        I didn’t threaten him with sexual harassment charges, and never would unless he genuinely sexually harassed me, which he has not. Because he is unwilling to listen to me, and is mocking every word I say, I told him I did not want him to contact me again, and said so in that comment you are replying to now. I meant by “harassment” his following me around and talking to me after I’d asked him to leave me alone, rather than raising charges of sexual harassment and such. I’m sorry for offending you but I can’t be sorry for standing up for myself. I don’t want to be banned but if that’s what you decide, it is your blog. I have no desire to attack anyone here but his jeering at me is getting to me. Please know I do not generally snap like that. I hope you can understand where I am coming from.

      • Crystal says:


        I hope I’ve explained clearly what I meant by “harassment” and if I haven’t, I’ll be willing to re-explain. I would never accuse someone of sexual harassment without good reason; I am not that kind of person and I am thoroughly against anyone else doing so as well.

        Please tell me, how do you think I should handle this kind of thing, if it occurs again? I’ll at least listen to what you have to say, and think about it. I can assure you, although I will defend myself if I believe someone is being unnecessarily rude to me, I haven’t come on here to attack anyone but rather because I find some of your articles intriguing. I know I’m repeating myself a little here but I would like to know what you think a suitable approach would be for next time.

      • Crystal, you can respond to ASDGamer any way you want or just ignore him but you should not be threatening to make unwarranted accusations against him that are considered to be punishable in ordinary circumstances such as the accusation of “harassment” you were implying against him. Charges of “harassment” have led men to be fired or kicked out of college so such accusations should not be thrown around loosely in any context.

        As of now Crystal you are free to comment but refrain from implied threats against other commenters. Insults or criticism or put downs or even debating the issues is fine but threats are not acceptable.

      • Crystal says:


        I don’t mind following this rule generally, in and of itself, and will do my best to adhere to the spirit of this forum while commenting here. As I said, I recognise that my opponent was not sexually harassing me, and that I meant harassment, not to accuse/threaten him but to protect myself from his rude replies because I know he will do it again, and again, and again. I have been through a lot online and I find this kind of caustic rudeness extremely difficult to bear, especially lately. Furthermore, if I had meant “sexual harassment” I would have said those two words. Harassment doesn’t always mean “sexual”; it can just mean crude remarks and trolling or it can mean death threats even.

        That being said, I am curious to know how you would deal with genuine sexual harassment on your blog? I ask because you have stated this quotation: “I guard my idealism towards women and my respect for women very strongly; I see it as kind of the center of my soul or the center of my morality. If I am not advocating on behalf of women then what is the point? As a man my purpose is to serve women and by extension to serve children; to ultimately in this way make things work for society overall.”

        If a woman is truly being sexually harassed online it is a man’s duty to protect her. That is my honest opinion.

        I will explain what I mean by sexual harassment online by using details from my own life.

        On one occasion, I was discussing something online with my friends and this man came up to me – a complete stranger, while I was sparring – and said “Dresses are great – for getting you out of.” I felt frightened and cold by his comment, and begged him to stop it. But he would not and eventually we fell out.

        Another man repeatedly negged me online. He said things like “I like you but I wouldn’t want to procreate with you”, “you’re a rebellious virgin and you need to start masturbating”, and he got creepy as hell about “converting” me offline to his twisted sense of sex.

        The comments of both these men were inappropriate and unmanly. I was harassed during those cases but ironically enough it took others to point this out to me or help me stand up for myself, or I’d never have seen it for what it was. I imagine that was mild! Some women have received graphic rape threats for discussing rape culture, abortion, or women’s rights in general. How do you, as a chivalrous man, respond to this? Is this honouring the soul and role of woman, in your mind? It is not something that should be ignored, ever.

        I am totally against any woman who would falsely accuse a man of sexual harassment, not only for the reasons you have listed (loosely throwing around the charge, for one) but also because, by her actions, she contributes to the victim-blaming and revictimisation of true rape victims, and stifles the chance of a rape victim receiving justice by offering her testimony. That being said, I would argue, based on the rude and lewd behaviour of young men on the street alone, that sexual harassment is far higher than we think – that in fact, 90-95% of sexual harassment accusations are genuine. Why would women want to accuse a man on a whim like this? Some women do, and I deplore that; on this, I would dare to venture that we have common ground, of a sort. But that is not the vast majority of women.

        I appreciate your hands-off policy when it comes to free speech a great deal and will do my best to respect it; and at the same time I would like to know that, as a woman, I can feel protected and safe if I genuinely face a problem like sexual harassment while commenting here (which I am aware my opponent was not doing BTW), so what can I do?

        PS: I would never accuse someone of doing such a thing lightly; I understand it’s a heavy accusation. However since we are strangers online it isn’t always easy to determine these nuances just from reading words on a forum. I also hope that I have made it clear that I will try to honour the commenting policy, and if I haven’t please explain why I didn’t make it clear. I felt it highly necessary to post my question about “sexual harassment” online up, because people need to know how to act when, and if, these issues ever do arise IMO.

      • theasdgamer says:

        Jesse, I appreciate your sentiment, but I don’t need any man to defend me against a broad who issues legal threats against me. I know my way around the courtroom.

        There are always ripostes to lawsuits and charges if someone should be foolish enough to attempt such a stupid thing. Trixie is just being a silly girl. I don’t expect any problems from her. She’s just trying real hard to be a man’s man for all the other girls and looking silly.

  5. Pingback: Trad-Cons blaming men: It’s those evil PUAs! | The Autistic Gamer

  6. Hilary says:

    Roosh is a rad trad, a red pillers, sick in the head, and you got in bed with him when you joined red pill!

  7. Pingback: A Man’s Respect For and Idealism Towards Women | Secular Patriarchy

  8. Bj says:

    Your ‘traditional woman’ is as much a commodity to you as Roosh’s ‘modern woman’. She’s still an object to you, if one to be kept and maintained for the long term like a well – tailored suit instead of fast fashion to be disposed of when it wears out. She’s still an object to you who exists only in terms of her ‘quality’ i.e. her sexual and domestic usefulness to the male, not as an autonomous individual, a human being in her own right. Your attitude and Roosh’s are merely two sides of the same objectification coin.

  9. Bj says:

    Your ‘spoiling the goods’ comment says it all, really. Women are not goods, sexual or otherwise. They are people whose sexuality is only one aspect of their being.

  10. Pingback: Does the Traditional Man Objectify the Traditional Woman? | Secular Patriarchy

  11. Susan Nercher says:


    You typed the following: “Well, there’s that age old bit of wisdom, “it’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” Everyone will leave you someday, it could be death or even divorce that takes them away. To wall yourself off however, to be so afraid of the risk that you never allow yourself to be vulnerable is a sad thing indeed. That’s not living, that’s like preserving your pride and protecting yourself from future imaginary pain. Pain, risk, suffering these are the things that make us alive, that speak to a life well lived.”

    Loss, pain, risk and suffering do not speak to a life well lived – those factors indicate that a person is not really living at all. That is something society used to tell individuals at the lower levels of the social hierarchy (the poor, slaves, etc.) just so they could continue to make the sacrifices needed in order to make more enjoyable the lives of those at the top. People were told that if they suffer in this life and sacrifice for others, they will go to heaven. Promising people that a life of misery and sacrifice for the benefit of others will lead to a better afterlife is nothing but a con game – one that fewer and fewer people are falling for.

    A true life is when one person gives to and receives from the people around her/him. You don’t need marriage in order to do this and marriage has become nothing more than a series of financial transactions. But then again, marriage started among rich people who wanted to combine money and property so perhaps marriage is returning to its original roots – who knows? Marriage may have made sense when there were no other options but it doesn’t make any sense to take the risk today.

    You typed: “it’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” You can love without being married and you don’t have to lose in a divorce when you never marry in the first place. Divorce leaves a lot of people broken. Many wish they never married in the first place. I don’t see how their lives are better having gone through a painful divorce.

    Then you mentioned leading. Great leaders make great decisions that benefit many people without infringing upon the rights of any. There aren’t that many great leaders around, unfortunately.

  12. Pingback: The Poison of Promiscuity and the Necessity of Marriage | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s