Pua

Roosh V and a Reappraisal of Traditionalism

Roosh
Previous ArticleWomen Will Not Save Japan
Comments (32)
  1. Max Hydrogen says:

    So was Roosh IV his father then…?

    1. vortex says:

      My theory is the former four are placeholders for his ego.

  2. Max Hydrogen says:

    Roosh should have studied Dick Masterson’s performance on Dr. Phil.

  3. joe says:

    “The initial affect of vulnerability by these women, accompanied by superficial beauty, is strong enough to activate the protector/provider complex and push men willingly into the habitas of a white knight mangina. The reason for this is that these men have never addressed their ingrained mother image/ideal, and are slaves to powerful unconscious forces.”

    This is so true. It is a challenge that all men, even mgtow, will have to face, and perhaps continually face.

  4. Michale says:

    1) PUA techniques don’t work. Women mate based on looks, unfakeable status (confirmed over multiple dates with tested evidence, not “body language”, and a “dominant posture”), and compatibility of personality.

    2) PUA techniques are an attempt to serve women, not manipulate them, to subordinate your own personality as a man to what you imagine she might like.

    3) The actual persona crafted by PUA tactics is that of an insecure male who is overcompensating by emphasizing and exaggerating his masculinity in inappropriate contexts and in inappropriate ways. The man who practices the prescribed PUA tactics does not present as confident and self-sure, but as insecure and overcompensating. There is a reason Roosh oozed lack of self-confidence in the OZ interview, and that everyone agrees he was notably unimpressive as an individual.

    4) The psychological effect on any male who adopts PUA tactics is reduced self-confidence, reduced authenticity, and reduced independence.

    5) High status men, and self-confident men, do not display the characteristics, traits, and behaviors prescribed by PUAs like Roosh and others. As such, PUA behaviors are a poor misreading of the behavior and presentation of self-confidence, as well as its psychology, even if self-confidence was critical in attracting women, when in reality it only plays a minor role.

    6) High status and self-confidence are most notable for the absence of any behaviors meant to indicate them, meaning that any specific effort to convey status or confidence would indicate the opposite, meaning that through behavior alone status and confidence would be difficult to determine except at the extremes of low self-confidence, – shy, bumbling, blushing, etc. In the center, a highly confident man would appear “normal” and not unusual or drawing attention to himself in any way. His confidence would only appear in unusual circumstances. The shy, bumbling, man, representing genuine lack of confidence, will often try and appear especially confident through behaviors meant to draw attention to his supposed confidence – i.e, PUA recommended behaviors.

    7) No one is fooled.

    1. Cary Harris says:

      Michale, yes I agree with you points. PUA’s are a parody of masculinity. But then their target demographic is a parody of femininity. Women will put on the make-up, do the hair, heels, push up bras, perfumes, spending 2 hours to get ready for the bar or club. Look at how easy it was for Bruce Jenner to perpetrate the same fraud to make the magazine cover.
      But women then expect the man to respect them as capable,equal and empowered despite this fraud. Women have been playing this manipulation game for many years already. Perhaps within all the same areas you have described for PUA’s. PUA’s are just catching up.

      PUA’s and MGTOW see women for the fraud they are. But PUA’s are still willing to play the game.

      1. Michale says:

        What exactly are the PUAs catching up with? When women deck themselves out, they actually become more attractive to men, even if its an illusion that disappears in the bedroom. Female self-beautification efforts work, at least in the short term.

        PUAs do not 1) successfully manipulate women. They act stupid while having no impact on their chances 2) They have misunderstood how genuine self-confidence “behaves” and “looks” so fail even if you accept that confidence is whats most attractive to women (which I don’t) 3) They make themselves psychologically dependent (on the reactions of women for the duration of the encounter at least) 4) They lower their own self-confidence

        Female tricks work on men, allow them to gain power over men, raise female self-confidence, whereas PUA tricks don’t work on women, are a surrender of power to women, and lower male self-confidence.

        1. Cary Harris says:

          Michale, how is you allow for generalizations about women when referencing PUA’s but exclude generalizations of men when referencing women?
          PUA’s have success with women, dont know the numbers but it would seem self evident or they would not exist. How effective are they? I suggest you talk to them.Who cares about the number or quality of the women, that is not the point. What they are catching up on is the use of games to manipulate the mating ritual.

          The tricks you suggest women use, PUA’s use, and all the so called benefits of these tricks for women also apply to PUA’s. If the PUA is successful with women their confidence is raised, their tricks work, women have surrendered power to men, and womens self confidence has been lowered. And female tricks DONT work on a significant number of men, hence the rise of MGTOW and herbivore movements.

          Personally I dont care about whether PUA’s are effective or truly confident, and I have no idea why they would expend any energy in the pursuit of tail. But it is their life and their choice.

          1. Michale says:

            Come on, you cannot argue that just because many men try PUA techniques they are successful. Primitive tribes pray for rain and continue to do so, but that’s not evidence their prayers are successful.

            Of course, some men who do game get women, but that doesn’t mean game is anything more than placebo.

            PUA techniques are different in kind from feminine tricks. Women make themselves into desirably physical objects who are then pursued by men, giving women the upper hand. PUA techniques involves jumping through hoops in order to obtain the approval of women. PUA techniques are a natural complement to feminine tricks – the female makes herself desirable and the object of pursuit, the PUA invests time and energy in winning approval from said desirable object. PUAs accept the paradigm where the female judges the energy and effort of the male puts into winning her approval, and where it is the male who is responsible for proving himself.

            MGTOW is great, but I don’t know if it will ever appeal to more than a minority.

          2. Michale says:

            And I agree with you, it doesn’t matter if game works.

            Lowering my self confidence, developing a dependent state of mind, losing my authenticity, learning to supplicate to women, constantly looking over my shoulder to see her reaction, constant anxiety over whether she accepts my “dominance”, constant anxiety over what impression I’m making and never being able to be free and spontaneous, is not worth it even if it got me every beautiful woman in the world.

            But game isn’t men finally beating women at their own game – it is once more men playing women’s game.

            I also don’t enjoy acting like an asshole. Its no fun.

          3. jimmy says:

            “PUA’s have success with women”

            But these idiots are going out 7 days a week chasing women? They should have some success.

            Some success isn’t enough, they are trying to sell products which claim to help you more than normal.

            What are the results above a placebo test? – That’s what you need to ask, anything else is just bluster and dishonest bullshit.

            If an 2 equally good looking guy’s said “Hello, I’m x y.z! vs the same guy saying “Hi, what shampoo do you use” or whatever horseshit they tell you to say, what is the difference over a large number of trials?

            You can’t do that experiment but you should get my point.

            I bet the shit they actually tell you to do (talk like a gaggling woman) HINDERS you rather than helps you.

            The fact that they make such a big deal out of having sex with a woman just goes to show PUAs don’t really get laid at all and are just men with mummy issues.

            PUAs always have some stupid rationalization, which means they can rationalize any female behavior to fit their method. If a black guy tried to pick up a female white supremacist the PUA would say that it’s the man’s fault because he wasn’t confident/or too confident or didn’t approach at 45 degree angle rather than she hates black guys.

            You should also note that now what encompasses game/pua includes dressing well, leaving the house, going to a club, having a shower, working out etc. stuff which most normal people would consider “common sense”.

            You would have to have very little experience with women to believe what PUAs tell you, but that’s who it’s marketed to, awkward guys who want a sci-ency step by step explanation on how to delude themselves.

          4. since when is getting an STD or fucking yourself towards child support court success? those guys are the real mating market losers

    2. Caploxion says:

      Nonsense. Some PUA tactics are very effective a giving a man the his best chance at scoring poon. I agree that it is playing into women’s hands, but women don’t realise this, as the article briefly mentions, and hence the tactics are very effective. I’ve personally tried some of these things out, and I have had young girls ask me for Facebook or my number. I can agree that some PUA tactics are marketed by frauds, but there is a lot of it, for example Roosh’s work (before this neo-masculinity update) which absolutely works.

      Also, as to your claim of “[confidence] is plays only a minor role”, this is absolute bullshit and reeks of someone who has never had sex in his/her life (not that being a virgin is terrible, but you shouldn’t be writing out of your ass like that). If you are not confident, you will be invisible to women, unless you are very, very famous/rich or if she has low self-esteem or hears the clock ticking. In fact, you’re so wrong about this that I am wasting my time in writing all this, so I’m going to cut it short.

      In future, I suggest that you avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water, because some of the PUA stuff is electrifyingly effective at attracting women.

      1. Michale says:

        No, there are no PUA tactics that work. Its all based on a misunderstanding.

        1)Women mate based on looks, unfakeable status, and compatibility.

        2) There are no behaviors that indicate confidence or high status in most everyday situations. Most confident men act “normal”. Any attempt to demonstrate status or confidence is a “DLV”, to use game language. Therefore game cannot be anything other than a massive DLV. Its the basic psychological fail at the center of game. By definition, game is “try-hard”. By definition, trying to demonstrate confidence demonstrates that you lack confidence.

        3) Even if you were able to communicate high status through behaviors in every day situations, women would test heavily. Behaviors would be promises of something else – but that something would have to be there.

        4) Roosh’s advice is laughably bad. When I think of Roosh’s and Heartiste’s advice (its the same), I think of the character Ziggy from the HBO TV show the Wire. Look it up on youtbe.

    3. Veritech Ace says:

      So, if what you say is true, then that leaves one reason that PUA tactics seemingly work: volume, volume, volume. Like any salesman, if you knock on enough doors, or call enough phones, you will eventually close a sale. Figures why I always got the same vibe from PUAs, salesmen, and politicians.

      1. Caploxion says:

        Not really, although volume does factor into it. However, if you purely rely on volume, you’re going to be spending countless amount of hours using ineffective tactics and wasting a lot of your time. Besides, I’ve never met or seen a PUA say “all you need to do is approach a lot of women”. They always have tactics and strategies for you to use (otherwise they wouldn’t make any money). But some of the tactics, which include Roosh’s, are legitimate.

        Here’s an example of a tactic. Say you’re taking her home in your car. You get to her house and need to get inside, in order to have sex in her bed. Being honest and asking, “can I come inside for sex?” is going to get you laid 10% of the time (when she’s really horny or has other issues that make her desperate). However, using the golden PUA line of “can I use your bathroom?” nearly guarantees you access to her house, because it doesn’t make her feel like a slut and gives her plausible deniability.

        The other side of the volume advice is that it is how you become good at game. Reading a million PUA books on how to game is far less effective than reading one PUA book for 3 hours and then applying that information for your first 20 approaches. Experience is very valuable, when it comes to game.

        tl;dr sheer volume will get you laid very infrequently, at best (unless you’re super famous)

        1. Michale says:

          This one’s got a real bad case of the brainwash.

          Time, I expect, will cure him.

        2. cold257 says:

          Caploxion – exactly right. Game has its flaws, but the basic ideas behind it are largely correct. At its heart, game is simply a male self-help movement, that tries to help the betas and nice guys at least get some of the action, that would otherwise mostly go to the alphas.

          The guys who rail against game are strange. Something tells me they’re afraid it works, and it disturbs their idealized visions of sex and relationships. They keep saying “game is a scam to make money”, but most of the game material out there is free and always has been, as it began on newsgroups and forums in the early days of the internet.

  5. Cary Harris says:

    Some excellent points in the article, particularly ” The female devalues her body to the point where she is worthless as a reproductive agent and downright dangerous as a social partner.”

    But it is hard to feel any sympathy for Roosh, as a supposedly above average person, to walk onto the set of Oz and not expect that type of reaction. This supposedly skilled PUA got played by a bunch of mangina’s and feminists.

    And although your chronology of Roosh’s transition from PUA to neo-tradionalist may be accurate, I dont follow the motivation behind it as outlined in the article. If he is a PUA as you state, then he would not be a proponent of marriage. Though maybe it is this contradiction that will doom the movement to failure. Well, that and the fact there are very few good reasons for a man to succumb to marriage in culture of gynocracy. His interests will never be of consequence, by and large because there will never be a galvanization of an influential male voting block as there is with women.

  6. I’m not sure where the whole “Neo-Masculinity” bullshit came from, but I find your sequence of events a bit of a stretch.

    Surely men in the Manosphere (even PUAs) are used to being shamed. Why would a segment on daytime TV “break him” to the extent you describe?

    I’m not saying you’re wrong, and admittedly, I don’t follow Roosh, and am not all that familiar with him. However, I just think you’re oversimplifying the situation.

    1. Alex says:

      Hi TFM, this Roosh episode highlights to me the equation: pussy hound (PUA)= Pussy beggar (Mangina). The PUA community are trying to compensate for emasculation and mother need through promiscuity in the clubs and bars of the US. However successful they may be, they are only pussy hounds on good days, and beggars on bad days. The pussy hound gets tired and loses motivation to play the game, and transitions to a pussy beggar. This is why Roosh was talking about traditionalism, i.e. marriage. Those women who slept with these pussy hounds knew that they were softening these men up for other women to colonize psychologically and marry. Deep down the pussy hound/begger has never dealt with male mother need and the idealized image of the mother that was implanted in infancy. The transition is simple in my opinion because I never gave PUA’s any inordinate credit for servicing the sexual needs of sleeze bag whores.

      I think that Roosh wants to profit from traditionalism, though he calls it neo-masculinity, and I assume that after he was broken, they made overtures to him to reform and convince men to marry. Moreover, he is half Persian, as I am, and Persian women are straight up caricatures of false mask materialist women who entrap men via seduction and use them as utilities. This is why Persians write so much damn poetry: to appeal to these women. He will make a lot of money with a special show where he attempts to bring men back on the plantation. I sense this deeply; the mangina is strong in them (PUA).

      BTW, love your material.

      1. Xtianity says:

        All good points – Roosh is experiencing classic post 35 year old case of PLAYER BURNOUT!

        There was a suggestion in The Red Pill Reddit that he probably goot OOPSd by a bar slut and will most likely wife her up now.

        But I will say that whatever criticisms we have of PUAs atleast they are helping college kids get laid – I had to resort to David DeAngelo when going through long stretches of celibacy (as I never wanted to lower my standards). The only PUA I like is Rollo Tomassi, he doesn’t lie about looks not being important – if it wasn’t for his War Brides post combined with a link on mgtowhq.com to BarBar’s vid on Deconstruction Game & PUA frauds, I wouldn’t have become full-on MGTOW.

        These days I go full ‘Level 4’ and ‘Level 5’ to avoid communicating with women altogether including my mother and sister.

        I am very introverted by nature so MGTOW biologically appealed to me … also these so-called quality women can be total cunts at times. That is what MGTOW means to me, even in the best of cases these women are just not worth the time and slow you down. Porn is a very safe release for me.

        1. Cary Harris says:

          If Roosh is helping college guys get laid he is also lining them up for rape convictions. Do not mess with pussy. It is toxic.

          Divorce, rape accusation, sexual harassment allegation, risk of domestic assault by females without any recourse to a gynocentric legal system. Any scenario where men are primarily negatively dominating is ignored due to the distractions of feminists cries of microagressions. Yes, man spreading trumps the 95% of workplace deaths that are men. Yes, women not being able to wear cropped tops without being looked at trumps the tripled rate of suicide for men.

        2. jimmy says:

          “I had to resort to David DeAngelo when going through long stretches of celibacy (as I never wanted to lower my standards). ”

          You do realise the David DeAngelo aka Christian Carter is not a pick up artist? He’s just an internet marketer/huckster called Eben Pegan who pretends to be a pick up artist amoungst other things.

          http://scambust.org/david-deangelo-is-a-scam-heres-why/

          Watch this “Scamworld” documentary.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0LZ6DNCgrY

          That’s what PUA’s are: Internet marketers WHO pretend to pick up women using models/edited videos/hookers/insiders to sell you products and “bootcamps”.

          Why do you think they use all this evo-psychy bullshit? – They do it because they know that appeals to nerds who like looking for scientific explanations. They also do this because most men who want these products are probably physically unattractive, so the PUAs convince them that women are special creatures who will look past your looks so to speak. Everyone knows this is BS, women are way more petty than men, they will dismiss a man because of shoes or some other such nonsense.

          Provided you have a normal type personality not overly introverted/extroverted. How a woman reacts to you will almost always depend on the way you look. If a Brad Pitt walks up to her she’ll be the friendliest woman in the world and be down to fuck, if it’s an unattractive man she’ll be more cold/dismissive/rude and try to find out if he’s at least got any money or “dating” as it’s known.

          PUA/Game is all bullshit rationalization.

          1. Veritech Ace says:

            I knew it! I can smell a rat salesman a mile away.

          2. cold257 says:

            Jimmy – looks don’t matter to women nearly as much as you think, this is a projection that many guys have, that since they like beauty then they assume women must also like it. I don’t know where you live, but in any major city you will see ugly dudes (usually thug types, or businessmen) walking around with pretty girls every day. Women are mainly attracted to social status, dominance and power. Ugly celebrities, politicians and businessmen attract women like moths to a flame. Looks do matter to women as far as physical characteristics that display power and aggression – such as height, broad shoulders, etc – which is why thugs and jocks tend to be attractive to women as well.

    2. Veritech Ace says:

      I have a theory on where this Neo-Masculinity BS came from. I suspect it is an attempt by PUAs and MRMs to resolve the cognitive dissonance they encounter when their traditionalist beliefs conflict with MGTOW philosophy. In essence they’ve taken some of the trappings of MGTOW (self actualization, acknowledgment of female hypergamy, etc.) and adapted it to fit traditionalism.

      This is slightly different from Bar Bar’s assertion that it is a rebranding. Rebranding is more a conscious endeavor. However, I suspect that this is more a subconscious endeavor. If I’m correct, then the cognitive dissonance will continue and we’ll see more and more of this adaptive behavior.

  7. tamerlame says:

    Roosh doesn’t give any good advice, do not give that clown any credit

    1. Caploxion says:

      It is grossly generalised comments like this that are going to set-back the MGTOW movement. For anyone who has actually used Roosh’s advice and seen the effects, no one in their right mind would write that he doesn’t give any good advice. Whilst other PUAs produce mostly bullshit lies designed purely to line their pockets, Roosh, especially in his earlier days, produced very effective content to help men get laid. The fact that you claim he produced absolutely no good advice, even after Roosh penned hundreds of articles and books in well over 10 years, indicates to me that you haven’t the faintest idea of what you are writing about.

      *If* you want to get laid, Roosh has some very, very good advice.

      1. I think People got laid before Roosh and will continue to do so after him.

        1. Caploxion says:

          That was not the topic of conversation. The topic was whether Roosh gives good advice, not whether people got laid before him.

      2. Michale says:

        Roosh’s advice does not work. It will not get you laid. It will make you look stupid, and feel less confident.

        Just an insecure man obsessed with machoness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *