PUA , What Pickup Artists Will Never Tell the Men They Scam

Comments (23)
  1. RationalistFaith says:

    I tried the PUA route just to see what it’s all about. It gets boring really fast but if one is smart and focused on self improvement they can extract objective self improvement metrics like: wealth attainment, good personality, social status and fit body (SMV – Sexual Market Value).

    One should be careful to remind themselves they’re doing this to attain one’s potential and not to become subservient to females.

    1. TFCNU says:

      The ironic – or perhaps not so ironic part – is that most of the stuff that the PUA’s sell that actually works, you could get from any blue pill sex columnist. Seriously, the most important parts of what they preach: confidence, persistence, attention to personal appearance are not new ideas. The biggest thing that they get right is the “don’t put pussy on a pedestal” mantra but they don’t follow that through to its logical conclusion. They don’t realize that devoting endless hours in the pursuit of pussy by default puts it on a pedestal. They don’t realize that the logical conclusion to “don’t put pussy on a pedestal” is go your own way.

      Having said all that, I actually don’t mind the PUA’s for the most part. I think it’s a reasonable first step for a lot of guys towards a deeper red pill understanding. It’s the same thing I say about MRA’s. Very few people are going to go from blue pill to MGTOW without a pit stop unless they’ve really been fucked over by a woman. A intermediate step, even if it is plagued by traditionalism, will mean more men finding MGTOW in the long run. What bothers me more than anything else about the PUA side is the professionalization. These people who make a living preying on the sexual desires of vulnerable men disgust me. They’re the televangelists of the manosphere.

      1. Ergeniz says:

        “These people who make a living preying on the sexual desires of vulnerable men disgust me”.

        Welcome to human civilization and particularly, women.

  2. Gyrus says:

    This was the second video of bar bar’s I ever saw. Knocks it right out of the park. Productive competition vs. toxic competition. I’ve never seen anything in PUA that helps men in general.

  3. Tim says:

    PUAs are harmless, right? They’re just guys trying to establish their self-esteem and egos on the unshakable foundation of female validation. Where’s the harm in that? After all, what’s your worth as a man if you can’t make a woman happy? What purpose does a man’s life have if it’s not based in pleasing the fairer sex? It’s obvious that men without wives and daughters are the makings of child molesters and rapists, right? Behind every successful man is a good woman. Why else would women get such big payoffs through divorce?

    When you drive down the road, everything you see was built by women. Next time you drive, look left and then right. How much of what you see was built by men? You and I both know women are the primary builders and inventors. It’s in women’s DNA to create and build. The wars fought to ensure the freedom of all were bravely fought for and by women. Men had to be shamed into volunteering so that they wouldn’t feel they were women’s lessors.

    Just as they always have, women will continue to build the infrastructure and technology that has propelled the US into the esteemed position of first world leader. As we all know, it’s girl power that established and empowered the greatest nation in history.

    Diana Davison’s fabulous rape joke:

    A sensitive man, an insensitive man and Michael Jackson are on a cruise ship. The ship hits an iceberg and starts to sink. The sensitive man says, “Children first!” The insensitive man says, “Fuck the children!” Michael Jackson says, “I don’t think we have time for that.”

  4. Plutonian says:

    I liked some mid 2000’s “Become more attractive to women” stuff as it helped me understand more about self confidence and what is attractive to women, but in the end I came to the same conclusion as most of you: Why should I care so much about women in the first place?

    I think that was before PUA really hit mainstream. It seemed as if a lot of what I was into was more about just “being attractive” and more easily talking to women. There was actually good advise but it was always about women in the end. Full blown PUA’s were still on the fringes as far as I remember. I’m not an expert on this though.

    Honestly, I somewhat get tired of MGTOW materials that focus so much on the negative aspects of women. It’s not that I disagree totally but it kind of still seems to make them out to be an enemy. I don’t want to idolize women but I don’t want to just hate them either.

  5. Andy says:

    When you read their books or see their videos, often they even admit that they are frauds and scamers. And there is also a pattern of “i was hurt by my first girlfriend” and so on. Its basicly just the revenge fantasy of hurt little boys who became unsure of their masculinity after their school girlfiend broke up with them who on one side want to hurt the women they want to fuck, and on the other side they need their approval like some sort of vampire needs blood. I felt a mixture of pitty and discust, but when they fake “alpha” qualities, leadership roles when there is no leadership, it becomes realy dangerous to the Gang or whatever you want to call a group of men. Just remember that ancient european cultures didn’t sacrifice the Weaklings to their gods when a War Raid or a Hunt went bad, they sacrificed the strong “alpha” warrior who was responsible for the whole operation. Fake masculinity is dangerous.
    Also, it does actual damage to the female population preventing the raise of next generations or spilling them with all the emotional traumas their irresponsible mothers put up with. This Rosh Guy spoke in Berlin to some poor Schmucks who paid actual money listening to this instead of going to the brothel, and this guy said Men need to control their women/daughters/wifes, which basicly would put an end to the whole PUA game. This shit is just possible in a socienty where Fathers don’t care for their offspring or are prevented to raise them right by goverment institutions and family doesn’t matter.

  6. Pellaeon says:

    @Barbarossa Thanks for posting this. I’ve been wanting to respond to that video for a long time, but was not comfortable posting of my main YouTube account. I actually did buy a burner phone so I could set up a MGTOW account to post from but have yet to set aside the time for it. I told myself I’d put up my own video response, but perhaps that was just wishful thinking.

    ” With “game” the only thing produced was a sex act,

    That’s not entirely true, especially when it comes to guys who have really swallowed the feminist narrative on how to appropriately act as a man (I intentionally used “feminist” instead of “gynocentrist” as I know you would consider the study of game itself as gynocentrist). The feminist narrative days that men should demure themselves as much as possible, and double – triple – check every decision with a woman to ensure that he does not exploit his “male privilege.”

    The reality, in my experience, is that the moment you demure yourself, as a man, is the moment you render yourself invisible. If instead you speak with authority and act decisively, you’ll garner more visibility and respect. Certain tenets taught by certain sources in the “seduction community” focus on encouraging just these skills. If successfully learned, the product is someone who is a much more capable leader – such skills of decisiveness and male charisma can be extremely beneficial to society, both socially and in the work place.

    For instance let’s take you, Barbarossa, as an example in contrast to that gentleman from Men’s rights Edmonton with whom you had a few video exchanges last year (Nick maybe? I apologize for not taking the time to look up his name. A quick Google search didn’t help and I don’t want to take up my data plan sifting through YouTube videos).

    When you speak, you speak loudly enough to be heard, with little hemming and hawing (though you did tend to do so more in that video than usual, as well as any time you explain why it’s okay that you are “more naturally dominant in the bedroom” and that this is somehow different than a PUA who acts in such a way as a result of conscious practice). You take fewer involuntary pauses for “umms” and instead take conscious pauses for effect. This gives the impression of someone who knows what he is talking about – your manner of speaking is very captivating and one of the big reasons I started watching your videos. Even if I don’t agree with many of your views, I still find myself instinctively respecting you.

    The gentleman from Edmonton, on the other hand, speaks very quietly and stumbles over himself quite a lot. The subtext of his language and mannerisms oozes with a passive aggressive neediness – he had said some intentionally inflammatory language and then tries to play the victim card when people rightfully lash out against those statements. On an instinctual level,I find it very difficult to respect him and his opinion – he has no weight of authority to put behind it and seems ready to crumble at the first sign of serious conflict.

    Now the message from MGTOW is that it is okay to be vulnerable as a man – as indeed the Edmonton gentleman exhibits A LOT of vulnerability. I can certainly get behind the idea that we shouldn’t mercilessly shame men for this. But that doesn’t change the fact that we don’t cover authority to those who appear weak. The PUA side encourages men to develop a strong presentation, with the downside that they often mercilessly shame and berate men who have difficulty living up to the ideal. I think these are two incomplete halves.

    We should encourage personal growth and strength, but from the standpoint of an encouraging and supportive brotherhood.

    I think the Edmonton gentleman could learn to be much more assertive and decisive in his communication. Sure, maybe he never learns to become as charismatic as you, and maybe he never gets laid any more than he does now
    … but he can learn to speak more confidently.

    Well he learn it from something like say “mystery method?” Probably not. It’s been a long time since I read it, and maybe it touches on some of the subtleties of subcommunicatuon, but I don’t think it does. A book like “Mode One”, on the other hand, could be extremely helpful as it does focus on learning to take action on what you want and taking pride in the act of asserting yourself rather than the result. Even better, there is ” No More Mr Nice Guy,” which focuses on learning to prioritize your needs and set boundaries.

    Another major thing the seduction community provides, albeit indirectly, is an avenue to meet men that you can safely be vulnerable with. You won’t see this from the outside – big name gurus are busy beating their chests trying to attract business. The lairs, on the hand provide an opportunity to connect with men who know what it is like to struggle against society’s expectations of men, and be found wanting. Granted, the toxicity of PUA culture guarantees that these men won’t stick around too long, but at any given time there usually at least a few decent guys trying the community out to try and make some headway on their dating life.

    When I moved to my current city, I knew no one. The first thing I did was joine local lair and seek out a guy I could relate with. I knew from the get go, because of the nature of being in PUA territory that he would be at least sympathetic to Red pill ideologies. From there, I sifted through the members until I found someone I could relate to. We’re roommates now, and he’s the best roommate I’ve ever had. We have, essentially, daily talks about the things that trouble us and what we’re excited about. While he loathes the term registered to label it as such, we are practicing vulnerability.

    If I were to move to another city, I would go through the same process again and have a reasonable chance of finding someone I can relate to much sooner than done random meetup about games or hiking or socializing. Does MGTOW have something similar yet?

    I have A LOT more to discuss on relation to this post, but I’m going to leave it off for now as my response has already become huge. I’ll resume later.

  7. Mike says:

    That’s not true. Puas are very upfront about telling men they are serving women. They just don’t find it shameful.

    In his intro to bang, roosh clearly states that a man’s worth is entirely determined by what women think of him. He is not in their least shy about it.

    He merely claims that evolution says this is correct.

    Heartiste says the same thing upfront. I once told him I know some very nice guys who did great with women. He responded that by definition, they were alpha. When asked to define alpha, heartiste clearly says it’s s man who women find attractive. There is no other definition.

    This is as clear as it comes.

    However, since this is a very stark admission, they dilute this message with contradictory statements about how men control women etc.

    Its cognitive dissonance. A pua can simply switch back and forth between messages depending on what he is doing.

    Its weird, but probably not unusual. Crusaders believed they were killing and conquering in the name of a god who told them to turn them other cheek.

    What bothers me about pua is its false psychology. Its recommended behaviors mimic weakness. Bravado suggests lack of confidence.

    What also bothers me is that adopting pua mindset cannot help but lower a man’s genuine confidence and self esteem.

    I’m disappointed in you barb that you cannot see through their poor psychology and think pua will get you laid.

    PUAS are not servants of women who sometimes get laid. They are servers of women who surrender their back bone without increasing their chances one bit, and quite often reducing their chances.

    Then again, unlike most men here, my experience has taught me wimen don’t focus ruthlessly on “strength” and are not blind gene maximizers, and that “fitness” is a complex concept that can’t be simplified into primitive notions of “strength”.

    The modern reductive way of looking at it is merely a modern prejudice which wishes to see only primitive drives and brute facts at the bottom of everything, even though history and say to day life show this picture to be extremely partial.

    But each generation has its own idea of “tough minded” thinking, and ours just happens to be particularly unintelligent.

    1. Pellaeon says:

      “They are servers of women who surrender their back bone without increasing their chances one bit”

      That’s not true. If nothing else, I hope we can at least agree that a man increases his chances to get a date, kiss, etc by actually initiating. I’ve personally never had a woman directly ask me out or initiate the kiss, done have given extremely strong hints, but all of them put the onus on me to actually take action.

      Now I’ve heard many people say “that’s not game, that’s just common sense.” Well if it’s considered common sense now, I would posit that’s it’s because the PUAs have forced the mainstream to admit that “just be yourself” and “you’ll find the right girl eventually” is shitty dating advice.

      Certainly when I was in high school, no one ever told me “it’s just a numbers game, keep hitting on women and eventually something will happen.” And I asked around: I asked my older sister (I’m the oldest male of my siblings), I asked my parents, I asked my peers, I asked my psychiatrist, and I asked my guidance counselor for advice on dating.

      The psychiatrist assumed my lack of dating success meant that I must have some egregious lack of basic social skills (I did not) and gave me the most basic advice on how to make friends (I had plenty of friends, just no dates). The guys who did get dates only ever said “your problem is that you respect women too much.” Everyone else just have me some lame variation on “you worry about it too much, just be patient and you’ll find the right girl.”

      When I got to college I went around and met many girls. I initiated conversations, but I never tried to be sexual as I was waiting for some kind of “green light” that it was okay to go for the kiss. Never happened. Then a friend introduced to PUA material, and after six months of experimentation, I finally got my first kiss.

  8. MGTOW MO says:

    I was a PUA for 2 years. Read very post on Return of Kings, Rollo, Roisey, McQeen etc and went ‘gaming’ every night for months – practice makes perfect. I will admit PUA ‘tricks’, for lack of a better word, work and although I no longer call myself a PUA I still use the knowledge I gained. My PUA days were the first time I understood female psychology. However I found it limiting since PUA’s weren’t interested getting past understanding female psychology enough to get pussy, that’s why I became a MGTOW.

    PUA’s preach 3 main principles: not putting pussy on a pedestal, self improvement and alpha and beta male:

    1: PUA’s say don’t put pussy on a pedestal but when spend your free time reading articles about getting pussy and then go out hunting for pussy you can’t really claim you are not putting pussy on a pedestal – actions speaks louder than words.

    2: PUA’s also talk about self improvement but they only ‘improve’ themselves to increase their sexual market value – lifting, travel, acquiring money is all for the female. Like an employee doing extra curricular activities in school, learning a new language all to impress potential employer.

    3: Alpha and beta males both serve women equally BUT in different roles. When you realise women don’t have any understanding of masculinity beyond how they can benefit from it and view men as human doings and not as human beings as the great ManWomanMyth put it you realise the pointlessness of trying to be ‘alpha’. In the animal Kingdom you have a group of females and one alpha male who has breeding rights to them and this is what PUA’s strive for but once that alpha male gets challenged and overthrown the females start mating with the new alpha in town and the old alpha lives on the edges to die off if he wasn’t killed in the initial fight for dominance. Its the same with humans although we don’t challenge each other directly the principle remains the same. Remember all those homeless men once had women who “loved” them, where are those women now?

    I started to loose interest in women and game after interacting with the average western woman enough number of times – it will do that to you. Pussy is this amazing mystical thing when you are a teenage boy whose hormones just kicked in but by the time you get to your early twenties and gotten laid in the process the effects of it start to wear off – for me anyway. Once you reach this stage you start to look at the all the effort you put into getting pussy and start to wonder what this women who the pussy is attached to is doing for you other than having sex with you, which by the way she’s enjoying too.

    Look at Christian Grey in 50 Shades of Grey – he buys Anastasia a new laptop, a new car, new clothes, takes her gliding, she moves into his mansion and what does she do for him? open her legs? This is the stage you realise a) the juice isn’t worth the squeeze and b) the game is rigged.

    1. Pellaeon says:

      I’m curious Mo -if you put no effort into hitting on women, do you still find yourself getting the occasional lay?

      I’d like to get to the point where I truly don’t care about getting laid… But right now the closest I can get to is pretending like I don’t care.

      When I hear individuals like yourself and Barbarossa say they don’t actually care, I see it’s usually accompanied by “once you’ve had pussy enough times.”

      I suspect that part of actually not caring comes from the knowledge that you can still get it if you want it without having to try too hard. For me though, I’m not attractive enough to get laid without busting my ass off.I know that if I go full ghost, then I’ll never get laid again… Maybe not even get another date.

      Unfortunately, this tends to depress me on a deep, sometimes subconscious level (if I try to deny that it affects me). I find that if I’m not at least doing something that, long term, will increase my chances – like working out with the idea of losing weight to become more attractive – then I have difficulty doing much other than engaging in escape behaviors – burying myself in video games and shows that feel more and more empty as they fill my free time.

  9. GhostFaceMGTOW says:

    Just use escorts.

    The ancient Greeks and Romans apparently viewed sex as just another bodily function, just like taking a piss or shit, or breathing. Sex was neither good nor bad, just neutral. They did not consider that there was any moral, religious, emotional link to sex. Christianity linked sex to something bad, like lust, shameful and deviant, evil behavior. Escorts are legal in Europe – It’s just like going to see a masseuse or chiropractor, it’s really no big deal. Since romantic love is a fallacy and delusion, I agree with the Greeks and Romans.

    1. Pellaeon says:

      They are not legal in the US though. If that was a viable option I certainly would. If you get caught though, you’re on the sex offender list.

      1. mike says:

        It’s a misdemeanor. Just don’t fuck underage hookers.

      2. mike says:

        The sex offender list doesn’t apply to fucking of age hookers.

  10. Mike says:

    Not caring comes from having a ton of it and finding it isnt that great. Not because you could really have it if you want. Its good, but not better than a ton of other things in life.

    I used to mravel that everyone says sex is amazing and I found it only ok. I thought I just had to get prettier girls, more my type, whatever. I hit all my goals and it was still just ok. Then I found that all guys who get a ton of it eventually realize this.

    Its one reason I recognized heartiste as a total fraud. Supposedly he’d been with tons of women, yet still spoke of sex as “exquisite pleasure of sex with beautiful women”, like a breathless teenager with his first date. Ha! Familiarity breeds contempt, but not with hrartiste.

    Life should be lived lighlty, not too seriously. Many cultures saw love and sex as amusements that should be taken in a spirit if non serious play. Taking it seriously – passionate romantic love – is a pathology unique to the west.

    If women can be had easily without much fuss, they are ad good as any other amusement. But to strain and strive mightily after masculinity and toughness is to take things way too seriously.

    Thats why I don’t care what wimen are “really after”. To care would be to take them way too seriously. If they are fun and easy, great, I will laughingly enjoy my time with them, especially with a woman who also takes the whole thing in a spirit of lighthearted olay.

    All this talk of “biological imperatives” also takes life way too seriously. Plenty of men and women can laugh at the whole business and not “ruthlessly maximize their genetic fitness” etc even if a part of that is true.

    We have always been somehow more than our biology. History and literature shows us countless humans who don’t seem to take their biological imperatives very seriously at all but live life with a shrug and a smile, in a way that would infuriate a modern evolutionary psychologist. But biology says you’re not supposed to do that! Ah, but I do. Sorry biology. Sorry modern evolutionary psychologist.

    Reductionism never works. Because we can measure only one thing with our science, there is a conspiracy to pretend nothing else exists. How come people can’t see the amazing sleight of hand in this? Its nothing more than a superstition to think that since science can’t handle it, it doesn’t exist.

    So we are left with only what science can handle – and it is a partial picture pretending to be the whole picture.

    Amazing. We should simply have said not everything can be measured by this peculiar tool science, which can only measure material things. Instead we said anything this peculiar tool can’t measure, let’s say it doesn’t exist.

    A modern superstition.

    To develop a more lighthearted, laughing g attitude to life, taoism buddhism, stoicism, epicureanism, mo taigne, are helpful guides.

  11. Kryptokate says:

    Barbarossa, your analysis of the intra-sexual competition that results when men are economically equal is correct and clearly observable across societies both modern and historical. You are correct that men will compete for reproductive access, and only the form of competition changes, from economic to physical prowess to an almost innumerable number of arbitrary forms of competition to determine relative status and rank.

    However, I’ think your value-judgment regarding “healthy” versus “non-healthy” competition is a bit narrow, and I strongly disagree with your tying scientific and technological progress to reproductive competition. In particular I think you are very mistaken here: “Something is produced, society is rewarded with something as a result of this conflict, our understanding of science was furthered.”

    Let us not make the mistake of looking only at the past few thousand years as if they weren’t an aberration — or even worse, the *enormous* aberration of the last 100 years. For 99% of human history, no one labored to produced surplus and everyone was more or less economically equal. Living in a temperate climate without winters and having no means of storing resources meant that it was not actually that hard to provision for oneself, and hunter/gatherers typically only devote about 2-3 hours a day to “work” — that’s about all it takes to find enough for you and your children to eat for the day. The rest of the day is basically spent hanging around with your friends socializing. Men and women have very little to do with each other. The women hang out together, watch the very young babies/toddlers, repair clothes, gather food, cook, and gossip. The men hang out together, hunt, play games, and gossip. Most of life is leisure and hanging out with the same sex. Boys leave the women’s camp and join the men when they’re about 5 or 6. The genders get together once in a while for sex, celebrations, dancing, rituals, but don’t usually sleep together under the same roof or really have much to do with each other at all. Note that I’m not trying to romanticize this because the standard of living, in a material sense, is very low, and mortality is high. Nevertheless it is a leisurely life. Monogamy is not really relevant and men do not provision women, though they share meat throughout the whole group. Dogs, fire, and group living fend off predators.

    Because minimal energy is needed for survival, men invest much more energy in reproduction. This takes the form of competition with other men through adornment, tattoos, making headdresses and jewelry, dancing, physical competition, verbal disses and showing off verbal facility, and violence. This is well known in the anthropological literature. The more abundant local food resources are and the less work that is necessary to secure food, the more flamboyant a culture will be with increasing time and energy to invest in attracting a mate — this is seen clearly among native groups in New Guinea, Africa, and native American populations. The harsher and more difficult obtaining food is, the more drab the people will be as they don’t time and energy to sit around making headdresses and perfecting war dances or the perfect humorous insult. We see this today, as you’ve outlined in this post, in welfare communities where men also do not need to work to survive. Men do not provision women or make paternal investments

    Then about 10,000 years ago we start to get agriculture, and with that the ability to produce surplus and thus horde resources. High status males begin hording both resources and women. Once a male has horded enough resources to hire other men to fight for his interests, a single male or small elite can very quickly amass almost total power over other males by hording ALL of the resources and then forcing everyone else to do what they say. The high status and elites then basically enslave everyone so that all women and almost all men have zero economic power or ability to provision for themselves. And then you get societies where the teeming masses are impoverished and 99% of them labor all day long in slave conditions, are used as cannon fodder, and are used up so almost every ounce of their energy goes towards further glorifying the elite so they can horde and be buried with their horded resources.

    This is where both monogamy and theistic religion come into play, both of which are tools to pacify the masses sufficiently so they don’t violently overthrow their overlords. Coups occur, but really only when one elite male uses his masses of slaves/quasi-slaves to overthrow another. The masses are exhausted, poor, and kept in line by religion and the fact that at least one woman is assigned to them who can’t leave. Men can’t provision for themselves without the blessing of their overlords, with whom they exchange labor for the privilege of sustenance and being allowed to live. Women provision for themselves by marrying the men who are laboring for their living by serving their overlords.

    You know all this, I believe. But we disagree on how beneficial civilization is, or why. Post-agriculture, women who can’t provision for themselves and therefore must trade sexual exclusivity to men for sustenance don’t have the luxury of choosing mates based on what they would otherwise — how sexually attractive they are (how well they dance, show off their rhyming skills, throw a spear, flex their muscles, wear a headdress, etc). Thus women are arguably worse off than they were pre-agriculture. And men now have to work and slave away their entire lives to trade their surplus labor to the elite, and have to provision the single woman they’re allowed, rather than basically hanging out having fun with their friends all day and getting sex with different women now and then. I would argue that is worse for most men. For the elites it is clearly much, much, much better, but the masses? No. Only religious fantasies and delusions that perhaps they could one day be an elite make a man think that’s a better life for himself.

    You argue that competing through “productive” competition like labor and sports is healthy and a benefit for all society. Not really. The benefit flows almost entirely to elites. How does everyone else benefit? By working 12 hour days so they can accumulate a bunch of crap they don’t need, which serves no purpose other than to elevate their status? Working some dumb ass job that now takes all goddamn day their whole lives for a status competition that was already in existence when they got to have fun and joke around with their friends? Other than better serving those at the top who horde resources, how is that better?

    Sure, people produce “something”. Is that something beneficial? It’s all still a status competition. Working hard to get a bigger and bigger house of empty rooms filled with crap you never look at or play with? A fancier car? More expensive clothes? It’s all pointless and wasteful and still serves the ultimate purpose of gaining status in order to increase reproductive options. One is just way more wasteful. The vast majority of people do not produce anything of value other than the value it serves for gaining status. We produce massive amounts of crap that serve no purpose, other than allowing those with high status to horde and display their status.

    Sports is arguably the greatest example of massive effort expended and money spent and resources consumed for zero purpose. Putting a ball through a hoop? Great, Michael Jordan’s the best at that totally useless activity. And he gets millions of dollars so he can display his status and fuck any woman he wants while millions of men spend their time and money to cheer him on and fantasize that they are him. Sports are just a really elaborate and wasteful way to achieve the exact same result that would have occurred sleeping in a leanto and living like a primitive. What’s the most productive economic activity of all time? War. I’m not sure why an elaborate schema that requires more consumption and more work is better than one that serves *exactly* the same purpose (competing for status in order to get reproductive opportunities) and achieves exactly the same outcome is preferable or more “healthy”. It’s true that there is more violence in the welfare-supported ghetto or on the savannah. But I don’t think it’s necessarily obvious that that is worse than a non-violent world where people are instead forced to labor excessively. I bet many (perhaps most) men would prefer an increase in violence in exchange for much greater leisure and not having to be someone else’s slave. At least among primitives they are directly serving their own reproductive interests, rather than those of the elites.

    All this said, and here’s where I think our major point of disagreement is — there is one reason that things are much, much better now (IMO) than primitive times: science and technology. And yes, those came out of civilization. However, they do NOT come out of intra-sexual competition. That’s where you’re wrong. The mind of a scientist/philosopher type is simply not designed to care about status or competition. You said so yourself when you mentioned the shut-in Newton. Same goes for Einstein and any number of brilliant philosophers and scientists. It makes me wonder how many scientists you’ve known. These people are typically INTPs and they are not driven by the same reproductive imperative as everyone else. They don’t care about status, they don’t care about amassing resources to gain status, they don’t care about competing for sexual opportunities and they typically do not even care about reproducing. They are driven by and thirst for knowledge. No scientist goes into it for women or glory. Lord, probably the biggest genius we know of, Da Vinci, was gay. They are MGTOWs to the extreme. I’m surprised you make this mistake. You, who spends your time and energy writing a blog for no status and no money, solely because you thirst for and have a drive for knowledge that exists in and of itself. This personality type is just not concerned with the competition for status and mates the way that the vast majority of humans are.

    And they’re the people who created all the good things we have…the medicine, the technology, the physics, the math. It’s a tiny minority of people, maybe 2% of men and .5% of women, who have this turn of mind. It’s probably some form of genetic mutation and clearly seems to be related to autism. The masses of humanity benefit off the inventions and discoveries of the tiny percentage of semi-autistic INTPs while those masses engage in mindless, pointless, wasteful competition like sports or war or resource hording or status displays. You could get rid of the opposite sex entirely and eliminate reproduction and the INTPs would not stop their quest for knowledge and understanding, and would not stop their discoveries and advancement of science.

    The laboring masses do sometimes put that labor to good use by carrying out the visions that the scientists discover. But mostly their excess labor is just entirely wasteful and serves no purpose other than increasing the status of the elites. The material abundance we now enjoy really has nothing to do with sexual strategy or “hypergamy”. Civilization was necessary to amass surplus labor to get to this level of knowledge but it is not required to sustain it. Technology will increasingly sustain itself. So we can keep all the benefits of the science and allow everyone a basic survival level of sustenance, and people can therefore go back to their natural behavior, which is to spend most of their waking time socializing, hanging out, and trying to increase their reproductive opportunities by being sexually attractive.

    Intra-sexual competition is not difficult to understand nor non-obvious — the only reason that people aren’t aware of it is because of religious illusions and fantasies peddled to them by media in order to keep them laboring and consuming. The real mystery is how and why the scientist personality type developed. It’s some kind of mutation that is not beneficial to the individual because it redirects mental resources from reproduction and status competition and directs them towards obsession with acquiring knowledge, which benefits humanity as a whole but does not typically benefit the individual. Most of our brilliant scientists and philosophers died youngish, often very ill and penniless and often as alcoholics or suffering from “mental illness” (i.e. not being neurotypical and obsessed with status/reproduction). The scientist/philosopher personality is fundamentally MGTOW in nature.

    Sorry for the long, late, meta post that goes beyond your point about PUAs, who aren’t really worth discussing…they exhibit one strategy among the various alternatives to achieve the same result most people are after. I just wanted to make that point that you are mistaken to tie the primary benefit of civilization — which is that it created the conditions making science possible — with the more general and common effects of it, which are monogamy and religion to allow for excess labor that produces surplus in order to benefit elites. Consider it. And god forbid, PLEASE do not put Jordan in the same category as Newton. They are virtually precise opposites and the equivalency is offensive in every way to Newton.

    TL;DR: male competition is almost *always* wasteful and destructive for any purpose other than gaining status and thus sexual opportunities. It may be “productive”, but not in any actual beneficial way. The knowledge, science, and discoveries that are truly beneficial for society are almost entirely produced by a tiny minority of deviant personality types who have little to no interest in either status competition or reproduction. They probably like sex because it’s pleasurable, but they don’t usually give a fuck about having kids, passing on their legacy, or proving themselves to either men or women. Everyone else benefits from the things they discover and behaves like the animals they are.

    1. MGHOW4LIFE says:

      Brilliant piece of writing. Spot on! I am a twice divorced father and a MGHOW. Also I’m probably slightly autistic thanks to the toxic vaccines administered to me as a child. I agree with everything you wrote.

  12. Joe walker says:

    True. PUA is a scam beyond belief. Endless loneliness, endless rejection, and isolation. For years and years, until your mind is frayed and there is nothing left but anger.
    I’m Rick Grimes walking in the sea of the undead.

    If you feel the same, come check out:

    -its time for a revolution

  13. Dmitry says:

    I ve never seen more dumb or inaccurate post on the Pua subject. And no I don’t sell Pua material, I’m a man who turned completely his life in just few years and became a whole better version of myself and for myself.

    You people should really get help. I’m sorry.

  14. Ayam Sirias says:

    One of my favorite videos by far.
    In the meantime, Roosh V thinks teaching a man game will stop mass shootings and terrorism. Let that sink in.

  15. Stephania says:

    The brand new idea is here). I have read the post with amazing
    satisfaction and even could know something brand new that I will use for
    my further requirements. The guide is bright and clear, without any additional useless facts or else.
    The speech is both brilliant and vivid, so the more I see,
    the longer I do like it! Anyway, the information is quite cutting-edge, so just like

Leave a Reply

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