Roosh V put an article up on July 18, 2014 (republished on his Return of Kings site on April 19, 2016) with the provocative title “The Death of Male Authenticity.” This article is wrong headed on a number of different levels from my point of view. It is selfishly oriented rather than being idealistically oriented. It pretends that the man is operating from helplessness being trapped by his circumstances rather than the man asserting himself taking on an orientation of strength and purpose. It throws in a distortion of how society worked in the past traditionally to explain or justify why things are worse today. It strangely presents women as the cause of male inauthenticity, that women are forcing men to be inauthentic, rather than acknowledging that men are freely choosing to be inauthentic precisely to “get what they want” from women. It presents women as a consumption item, something to get love and sex from, rather than women being a cause or a purpose or a higher calling that you as the man sacrifice for to enable your desired purpose as a man through her.
The very theme of the article, the sadness and tragedy of men not being able to be authentic with women, itself is actually selfish and self-referencing in orientation because the problem with inauthenticity from Roosh V’s point of view is that it compromises the enjoyment he gets from his relationships with women. In other words the problem with inauthenticity is not that it is dishonest, that it is manipulative, that it goes against whatever higher moral purpose one is hoping for in a relationship; instead the problem is simply that being inauthentic doesn’t feel good and makes the relationship less enjoyable and rewarding.
As Roosh V states in the opening paragraph of his article:
“I noticed that the more I’m myself in a relationship with a woman (as I see myself), the happier I am with her. On the other hand, the more I have to change my behavior in line to what I think she would find attractive, the less satisfaction I get from that relationship. While “being yourself” is not the key to getting laid, it may be the key to being satisfied in relationships.”
The concept of “being yourself” is interesting. It implies letting down your guard, relaxing, feeling secure that the other person won’t leave you or punish you if you “say the wrong thing,” doing what you want to do and expressing how you really feel and being accepted for it. There is another aspect of “being yourself” that implies laziness, doing whatever the hell you want, being self-absorbed and not caring about the other person’s needs and interests; in short the absence of performance pressure. The part of “being yourself” that is based on feeling secure in a relationship and therefore feeling free to be honest is good; the part of “being yourself” that is lazy and self-indulgent is not so good.
I believe what Roosh V is complaining about the most regarding his inability to be authentic with women is that being inauthentic is an intimacy blocker; if he is not showing women the “real him” then the woman cannot love or validate or accept or approve of the “real him” because he is not giving the woman access to the “real him” in the first place. Now the reason why Roosh is hiding his “true self” from women is because he doesn’t want to be rejected or punished by the woman. The thing that needs to be kept in mind however is that Roosh is presenting an inauthentic version of himself precisely to get the reward of approval and in particular sex from the woman in the first place. Roosh is the one deciding to be inauthentic for his own calculated gain and purpose, and then Roosh complains that his own strategy is backfiring against him, and then to top it all off Roosh claims to be unable to escape from his self-created predicament as if he is not capable of changing his behavior to get a different and better result.
The answer to this dilemma of inauthenticity is for your authentic and true self to be attractive to and desirable to and in particular of benefit to women. Remember you as the man should actually have it as your goal to benefit the woman, not just trigger in the woman attraction and “tingles” that you then can convert into sex but to actually benefit the woman so that the woman will rationally come to the decision that being with you romantically is something that will benefit her life. If you want to enter into a relationship with a woman as your true and authentic self then your true and authentic self has to actually for real be desirable to and attractive to women not just in a flashy way but in a deep and real way; in a way that combines indicators of masculine performance (what makes the man attractive to women in the first place) with real and actual masculine performance over the long term. There are no short cuts, if you want a real intimate secure long term relationship with a quality woman you have to develop yourself for real into the kind of man such a woman will want to be with.
Roosh V said in his article:
“One reason the game is not worth it for some men is because we are forced to be actors and clowns in the presence of women for transient sexual gain. I would do 1,000 approaches if it meant the next girl would unconditionally love me for who I am and will become for all eternity, but this is an absolute impossibility where girls can survive without men. Instead I will have to dance and juggle for her, fuck her maybe 10 times, but more like 4 or 5, and then the relationship will get stale, neither of us able to find the will or motivation to continue because of the type of 20th century environment we were born into by no choice of our own.”
First off Roosh is choosing to be an actor and a clown as a calculated strategy to get the “transient sexual gain” he is looking for; if Roosh doesn’t like the results he is getting he can choose another way of looking at women. Roosh is then proclaiming that what he really wants is a “girl [who] would unconditionally love me for who I am and will become for all eternity.” Interesting thing to want from a woman. We call such a woman a wife, don’t we? Though I’d quibble over the “unconditional love” part; there are expectations of obligations one is expected to fulfill on behalf of their wife. Roosh then proclaims that such a traditional marital union is impossible today in the modern world because women can now survive without men.
On this point, the point of women’s dependence or lack thereof upon men today as compared to the past and how this affects relationships Roosh V said:
“In more ancient times, relationships were much different than what we experience now. Back then, when a woman valued a man’s resources for her very own survival, the man could more or less be himself since there were less options for her to walk away YOLO-style and immediately find another man. He acted the opposite of what we have today, where most men apply a filter to their natural impulses in order to keep their women in a permanent state of being attracted. Today we do what we believe or know that women will like in a way to minimize our rejection rate and maximize the quantity or quality of sex or love that we receive. We apply rules, techniques, and strategies to meet women, because without them it would not be possible to achieve intimacy.”
I think Roosh is seriously confusing here how men thought in the past and why things worked the way they did in the past. In the past men were taught to financially support women, men were taught to be in charge of their relationships with women as a duty consistent with their male role, men were taught to obey and fear God first and foremost. It was then with that foundation that men then entered into marriage with a woman. The success of the traditional marriage then being based on this taught and supported male performance that the man then brought to the marriage; this combined with the female performance that was expected of and taught to the woman.
As far as women in the past being dependent upon the man’s resources for her own survival; you have to keep in mind that in the past any man a woman would marry would financially support the woman. If you as the man were not willing or able to financially support the woman there was something seriously seriously wrong with you; certainly a man could not expect a woman to marry him if he was not up to the most basic responsibility a man has to support his wife. In addition a woman who wasn’t married could expect to be supported by other male relatives; in particular her father. The support and protection of women was a very high priority in traditional societies. A woman in the past indeed was dependent upon men in general but she was not extremely dependent upon any one individual man.
Today a man willing and able and expecting to take on the role of financially supporting his wife is a novelty and a prize; it is not just taken for granted and assumed as it was in the past. This means that today a breadwinner man has even more leverage and prestige in relation to women compared to how things were in the past where the man as breadwinner was just assumed and a basic minimum requirement to be able to get married in the first place. Even though a woman can physically survive without a man today (just like in the past where a woman had multiple sources of potential support to turn to) it is still true that in order for a woman to lead her best life as a woman she still needs the support of a man to do so, support that is harder for a woman to get today as compared to the past since today there is no cultural standard that women are supposed to be supported by men while in the past the cultural value that women are to be supported by men was very strong.
So Roosh is totally wrong that traditional marriages allowed men to be more authentic with women in the past compared to today because women were more dependent upon men in the past compared to today. Instead men were able to be authentic in their traditional marriages because the real true character and qualities of the man were attractive and desirable and beneficial to the woman in their own right. You don’t have to fake it when the real you itself is desirable and manly and caring and idealistic; then the real you will be plenty to catch and keep a desirable high quality woman.
I must say the very orientation that the ultimate goal is to impress women to then get what you want from women is wrong headed. The primary goal should not be to please the woman; the primary goal should instead be to serve the woman. God or the Superior Power or ones objective moral duties towards others has to be in the picture somewhere. The goal is to be good, as a man you want to treat the woman well and live up to your duties and obligations to the woman. You serve the woman because serving the woman is moral and good in its own right. You don’t serve the woman just to create a positive reaction that then benefits you as your pay off or reward; the moral act in service of the woman’s objective interests is its own reward. You love the woman, you maintain control of your relationship with the woman, and you serve the woman (you serve the woman primarily by financially supporting her). You do this as your duty to God or simply because it is the right thing to do. The woman then decides if what you offer is what she wants. If she doesn’t want your authentic true self that you show to her or offer to her then she is not the woman for you. If what you have to give to a woman is of real value to a woman then you can be sure that another woman will want you even if the woman you may currently be most interested in turns you down.
You want to make sure that you as the man are in control of things and at the same time that you are meeting the woman’s needs and being good to the woman that you desire. An orientation to serve God first as your primary moral obligation and duty is the way to pull this off; it is what allows you to be in charge of things and meet the legitimate needs of the woman at the same time. It is what allows you to be authentic and desirable at the same time. Serving God is what gets you out of the selfish mindset of giving to the woman only to get something out of her in return and allows you to enter into the mindset of service as an expression of your masculine identity and your love for the woman. When you yourself are then living according to this ethic of service then you can impose upon the woman the standards of performance you expect from her in order to protect your own interests as the man in the relationship.