Have men always been as obsessed with sex as they are today? Was it thrust into their faces practically every single moment? I doubt it. Men of the past had to put so much more energy into survival that sex was seen more as the dessert instead of the main dish like it is now. Otherwise, the sex-obsessed ancient man would surely die of starvation or predation. What you think of as a normal level of horniness and healthy sex attitude would be vulgar and downright ill to men of the past.

I go online and there is sex in places it shouldn’t be. My Twitter timeline is filled with attention-whoring women who showcase their cleavage and beauty, retweeted by thirsty men. The trending list on YouTube is filled with women using their sexuality to get views, and even children’s videos have sexual themes. Instagram, an app I barely use, insists on recommending busty women who showcase and jiggle their breasts. The only way you can turn off receiving endless sex messages from the internet is if you don’t go on the internet.

My Instagram recommendations

Even when I succeed in not thinking about sex, I’m immediately corrupted as soon as I walk out my door. Women are too eager to show me the curvature of their bodies, their breasts, their ass, and with yoga pants, even the outline of their chubby labia. Women have become so deranged with showing us their sex that many are petitioning the government to go topless on public streets. It doesn’t matter how much willpower you have as a man, they will attempt to suck you in and put your mind into thinking about fucking them so they feel a sense of validation.

Sex is our generation’s daily obsession. If men don’t spent hours on porn sites or social networking trying to “like” or swipe their way into a woman’s pants, they hop on an airplane and travel thousands of miles away to bang until they’re sick of it. While most of the third world is looking for economic opportunity, the comfortable men of the first world look for sex opportunity, because it’s one of the top things that gives them meaning in life. It’s so easy to survive that so we can safely dedicate ourselves to rock star sex goals at the same time we experiment with a diet or supplement stack that maximizes our testosterone level to ensure superhuman fornication.

Frankly, I’m tired of it. I’ve dedicated more time than 99% of men into getting sex. It has given me a community of men online I can talk to, which is great, but my soul has nothing to show for it. I don’t want to care about sleeping with a girl I don’t have feelings for. I don’t want to go on another bang mission, or travel to more countries to find a perfect woman who exists only in my mind. Enough! I can’t bear to look at another vagina for the sole purpose of using it as a tool to get a ten-second orgasm that gives me no pleasure as soon as it’s done, even though I know deep down that the next girl I sleep with will certainly be someone I do not love.

If some facet of the culture has been normalized by the time you reach puberty, you will think it’s an integral part of humanity. This means that any man born since the sexual revolution of the 1970’s will grow up thinking about sex and pursuing it far more than his ancestors. The situation is worse for men born in the era of internet porn, who don’t know what it’s like not to have hardcore ass-to-mouth videos on demand.

Even if you decide to shake this sex obsession, those around you have not. Girls will insist on displaying vaginas close up to your face, asking if you would kindly take a sniff. Men will insist that you need to “just get laid,” as if that will solve all of your problems. There’s no way to stop it unless you remove yourself totally from society, an unreasonable task. It looks like we’re cursed to have sex a daily part of our existence, whether we like or not.

Read Next: A Woman’s Body May Incorporate DNA From The Semen Of Casual Sex Partners

217 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cmp679
cmp679
2 years ago

Needed to be said.

Solo
2 years ago

Good Post, deep

James Q West
James Q West
2 years ago

I’ve realized how detrimental this has become to our culture over the last 4 years or so. Now when I see a woman in yoga pants, the first thing that crossed my mind is hussy or slut.

Ravi Macho
Ravi Macho
2 years ago
Reply to  James Q West

To hell with this sluts & whores, these ungrateful creatures are literally destroying reputation & divinity of the great system “Yoga”.

AmitD
AmitD
2 years ago
Reply to  Ravi Macho

Whenever I am out cycling, I see that almost 8 out of 10 females, irrespective of age who are “exercising” in yoga pants simply don’t have a body worth showing off.
These dillusional bitches think that they have such amazing physique/legs that it simply needs to be “displayed” for our viewing pleasure.
The 2 good ones have narcissism written in bold on their face.
There is a time and place for EVERY clothing style…..but who is to drill this into their pea sized brain?
It just seems shameless….. marketing their wares to random strangers on the street.

Mighto Guy
Mighto Guy
2 years ago

Stop being a whiny BITCH and learn an instrument already…..

lindseywagners
lindseywagners
2 years ago

If you think things are different today than in the past, you aren’t paying attention. But then again, I’m not surprised by the short-sightedness: you all seem to think “culture” is to blame for all your problems when in fact evolution is the real culprit.

Marshallaw
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

What the fuck do you know about anything? Evolution? Evolution tales hundreds of thousands of years dipshit…..now crawl back to whatever shithole you emerged,

lindseywagners
lindseywagners
2 years ago
Reply to  Marshallaw

I know that you don’t get to 7 billion people without people being obsessed with sex. That’s evolution, pal. Not “culture” or whatever else you want to blame your shortcomings on.

Marshallaw
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

Ha ha….I’m not your pal dipshit….

lindseywagners
lindseywagners
2 years ago
Reply to  Marshallaw

Still avoiding the substance, like a girl. Not surprising because men act like women when they experience cognitive dissonance. You’re a good case study.

Marshallaw
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

Case study? You think you’re an academic? Even more laughable.

greyghost1
greyghost1
2 years ago
Reply to  Marshallaw

That cat is full of shit, trying to sound bigger than he is. First thing he does is insult all of the commenters here

Marshallaw
2 years ago
Reply to  greyghost1

Thanks for the heads up…..

Bob
Bob
2 years ago
Reply to  Marshallaw

Evolution doesn’t necessarily take hundreds of thousands of years. If some virus spread that didn’t affect a certain race and it wipes the other races out in a month..boom …the next step of evolution.

James
James
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

I guess all those people who defected from the Soviet Union were just stupid idiots who wanted to blame Soviet kultur for all their problems instead of themselves and evolution? Howabout this: An intelligent and spiritual person seeks to rise above the depravity and stupidity that besets every human society in all times and all places?

lindseywagners
lindseywagners
2 years ago
Reply to  James

J- You don’t understand that people are constantly battling to fulfill deprivations of various kinds their entire lives, that you’re always unsatisfied and looking to fix things. You probably live a decent life and yet look at you: on here complaining, unsatisfied, trying to fix society, trying to “rise above” lol. Story of evolution. Of course, to admit this would be too painful, as you need to convince yourself things will get better one day.

Domitian
Domitian
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

You aren’t paying attention. Before the 20th century in Europe most women tried to be virgins until they were married, fucking outside of marriage was a grievous sin. Did fornication exist on the sidelines? Sure, but it was not part of polite society.
Just by quitting porn (we did not have this technology before the 20th century) I became a lot less interested in sex. The survival instinct is a lot stronger than the sex instinct.

Ram
Ram
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

It’s amazing how many simpletons are on these sites. Amazing!

You have obviously no knowledge about history at all. Sex has always been a factor, but it has never been so prominent and advertised as now.

In general a lot of fake and overhyped desires are created by advertisement, because it turns you into consumers who only get validation in life from flimsy temporary things.

A happy self-confident person has less “needs” and is bad customer.

This youth-hysteria has similar roots. As soon as you start to be more independent you get devalued and criticized as “older” or “old” (while in real that’s the case when you retire), to attack your self-worth.

Insecure people are easier to rule.

When sex is free and fun and you connect, you don’t doubt yourself. You feel awesome.

Constant sex is like a drug addiction, you need more and more stimulation with less return.

It’s definitely not healthy nor evolution.

Btw, evolution is pretty complex. No being survives by overemphasizing one goal. What a stupid argument.

Santiago D' Anconia
Santiago D' Anconia
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

1. Animals are primed to fuck… Evolutionary priorities: A. acquire food, B. acquire shelter, C. Mate. That’s how your limbic system is wired
2. Average Human in the west has shelter and food taken care of.
3. Now he or she can devote as much time as they want to Sex. Courting, Flirting, Thinking about Sex, Attracting attention.
4. Sex without love is basically an animal function, does not fulfill the higher tiers of Maslow’s hierarchy, hence you feel unfulfilled after you satisfy your sexual urges.
5. Human brain isn’t designed to seek out truth or greater spiritual truths, it is a machine designed to survive and reproduce itself, therefore you as well as the average human prioritize sex and sexual gratification over higher level pursuits such as Art, Science, Spirituality, etc.
6. These urges are constantly being called upon and used by Freudian advertising in the modern and now post-modern age to sell you products.
7. One simply has to make the choice to not prioritize sex, no one forces you to look at porn, advertising, a girls ass. Show a little self restraint and channel your high sex energy into the higher levels of Maslow’s hierarchy.
8. stop throwing temper tantrums about how you got screwed by society, every high culture descends into sexual decadence. Rome, Israel, Babylon, the Assyrians, the Persians, The Caliphate, The Mayans, all descended into periods of sexual immorality. Simply choose to not be apart of it. Rechannel your energy.
TLDR: Evolution primes you to fuck, modern science makes fucking like a porn star possible, its up too you to channel that energy into something greater then your animal nature.

Eric
Eric
2 years ago

I spent my whole life climbing the social hierarchy ladder to get to fuck hot chicks, now I have plenty of hot chicks that I can bang easier than a rich man in Patong still I get less satisfaction than ever before. Modern women take no work to get in bed, and they are for free so I see some serious declining business for hookers in the west.

What was the frontier in society 20 years ago, whether it be traveling to Amazonas, living in eastern europe or having multiple girlfriends are now common average Joe shit. I believe some men thrive only on the frontier, now the frontier has caught up to were we thought we could settle. If its comfortable and the majority of people in the PUA society approves of the decision its not frontier, people have to think your slightly odd. Its outside societal norms. You need to be “weirdo” by societal norms in a way that is good and pleasing for you.

Can you have a harem, with all the women working for you, bringing home the paycheck and giving birth and raising your offspring. Thats the new game,. Can you do this while spearfishing, making youtube videos and enjoying life. Yeah that kinda frontier homeboys wont catch up to anytime soon.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago
Reply to  Eric

“I spent my whole life climbing the social hierarchy ladder to get to fuck hot chicks, now I have plenty of hot chicks that I can bang easier than a rich man in Patong still I get less satisfaction than ever before.”

If you are compelled to brag here, more likely than not you are covering up your own insecurities and lack of perpetual success in this area.

Eric
Eric
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

Typical soyboy reasoning, gasp.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago
Reply to  Eric

You reek of projection.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

Yes he does. I’ve never heard a man who actually gets pussy ever brag about it. Just like pretty women, they never have to say it.

He’s full of shit and so is Rooshv and every other incel on these sites.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

Btw Roosh banned me for telling him he doesn’t get any sex. The truth stings like a bitch.

Bear
Bear
2 years ago
Reply to  Eric

“Can you have a harem, with all the women working for you, bringing home the paycheck and giving birth and raising your offspring. Thats the new game,. Can you do this while spearfishing, making youtube videos and enjoying life.”

Sounds like Africa…yeah a great model to emulate. I hear the place is thriving!

Eric
Eric
2 years ago
Reply to  Bear

Your sarcasm is true, its not a good model to emulate on a national scale. The christian model of one man one woman is great and everything that came with it made western success among other things.

On an individual level thou this is fucking epic if one can pull it off in current world.

Santiago D' Anconia
Santiago D' Anconia
2 years ago
Reply to  Eric

Fuck that Harem Shit Boys. Let’s Mine the asteroid belt and build a New Space Fairing Super Race. We’ll Spin a Toroidal Space Station at 1.3 G’s all of us can have 3 wives and our sons will be Ubermensch who travel the Stars.
THAT’S THE NEW FRONTEIR BOYS.

KL
KL
2 years ago

Roosh, you are not special, deep, or self-aware. You are just a horny dude who likes sex, trolling, and writing crummy philosophy. Your previous post concluded “Banging girls … is the goal thrust upon me.” No, it is your obsession. You left your career, family, country, and relationships to chase pussy. That’s fine, but don’t blame society for your own selfish choices.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago

The only people who are obsessed with sex are those who aren’t getting any. Which explains you to a T.

Edward Easterling
Edward Easterling
2 years ago

“When there’s no market for corn and cotton, pussy will sell. A man will beg, borrow, lie, and steal, just to take care of his dick. Most men don’t master pussy; it masters them.” Fillmore Slim, Godfather of Pimping.
(Or words to that affect).

sean
sean
2 years ago

no this isnt quite right. while sex helps hormones in a man and can make his life a bit nicer, it is not the dominating factor of his actual survival (not talking about his genetic material but his actual existence). An example of this is that the reproductive system is not given a high priority when a man is in a fight-or-flight situation. You can be a successful happy man without any sex. You can live and thrive without being obsessed with sex.

VoodooEconomics
VoodooEconomics
2 years ago

Its possible you are at a point in your life where you need to procreate. Creating life and passing on the things you have learned may be what your mind and your soul are saying.

lindseywagners
lindseywagners
2 years ago

Great advice: create another generation to go through the exact same crap

VoodooEconomics
VoodooEconomics
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

No, the only true way we can get more red pill is to breed more red pill. The opposite is how we got into this crazy situation in the first place.

lindseywagners
lindseywagners
2 years ago

There is no red pill beyond the understanding that everything is futile and all life is is the fulfilling of deprivations over and over until you die.

VoodooEconomics
VoodooEconomics
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

MGTOW

VoodooEconomics
VoodooEconomics
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

MGTOW

Salarino
Salarino
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

You’re really all sunshine and lollipops aren’t you?

lindseywagners
lindseywagners
2 years ago
Reply to  Salarino

I thought people came here for the truth. Nah, you all just want to feel better about yourselves

Salarino
Salarino
2 years ago
Reply to  lindseywagners

It was a joke sweetheart. There is no joy to your life. You are purely mechanistic in thought.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago

Procreate? Roosh can’t even get a woman to bone him. How tf is he going to have kids?

positron1
positron1
2 years ago

I get that impression about Roosh too. I had my first kid just a few years ago when I was 45. It’s really fulfilled me in ways I didn’t think possible (I know “fulfilled” sounds cheesy but I can’t think of a better word). I still get the wanderlust and urge to game women once in a while but now that I’m living more for my children than myself I manage to overcome the temptation. It’s a good life.

Sri
Sri
2 years ago
Reply to  positron1

We all have creative energy. When we keep wasting it, after a while our soul starts calling for creating something more significant.

Vik Ivedi
Vik Ivedi
2 years ago

taylor swift is so hawt!

Ram
Ram
2 years ago
Reply to  Vik Ivedi

She isn’t.

Nick of Time
Nick of Time
2 years ago

So you’re full and empty in the same time, huh? Yesterday I read some story about female war reporter who have sex with her guide and that was her best sex in life! Why? Does he have great look, money, game or she simply find him attracitve? No! It’s because they were in war zone and it was dangerous. 😀 Roosh (in some meaning) need to go to war, where sex isn’t obsession or goal, it just happens.

John Layfield
John Layfield
2 years ago

Maybe that Peterson guy was right about your genes turning on you if you don’t procreate by a certain age.

Anonymous Disqus Account
Anonymous Disqus Account
2 years ago
Reply to  John Layfield

What? When did he say that? Sounds interesting.

sean
sean
2 years ago
Reply to  John Layfield

im wondering the same thing.

Ram
Ram
2 years ago
Reply to  John Layfield

What’s up with all the pussies on here who are so obsessed with aging.

Where is the playboy who keeps having a good life and enjoys women, not just hookups, but actually enjoy sharing time with them.

Living life, educating himself, being himself.

Respect yourself and others.

You are all so needy and whiny, it’s unbearable.

Guy are biologically made to procreate all their lifes, stop spreading FUD!

Ntobeko
Ntobeko
2 years ago

You know Roosh, perhaps not now, but one day people will realize the truth in your work. You speak such truth & wisdom about our world. Its not just the west that’s changing, it is the whole world. We exist in a difficult time as men, and we just have to play the hand we’re dealt, even if it’s a losing war.

Roosh
2 years ago
Reply to  Ntobeko

Even if they don’t, I’m grateful that so many men today are appreciative of the work I put out.

sean
sean
2 years ago
Reply to  Roosh

“you’re a very wise man, roosh”

positron1
positron1
2 years ago
Reply to  Roosh

I’m definitely one of those guys. Reading your work finally helped me make sense of the dating market. Most of all, your article on things you “require in the future mother of my child” was a major influence on my deciding to get married and have kids. My wife was a little older than 25 when I met her (but still over 12 years younger than me) and her skin tone isn’t that close to mine, something I don’t care about, but other than that she matches up perfectly.

http://www.rooshv.com/7-things-i-require-in-the-future-mother-of-my-child

Lucius Clarus
Lucius Clarus
2 years ago
Reply to  Ntobeko

What beko said. You must feel like Cassandra at times. I know the feeling. You extrapolate the trends and see how it will all burn down. But no one else can see.

Denny Passas
Denny Passas
2 years ago

Sex in the context of dating doesn’t work. Arranged marriages work.

Even in white societies, in the past (like the 1900s) they had arranged marriages of a sort(women’s parents would arrange a marriage with a man’s parents etc..). It is only in the last 100 years since women’s ‘liberation’ that they have had ‘dating’. Dating multiple partners is bad for women’s ability to stay faithful to any one future partner. Also, women’s liberation and dating are dependent upon third world largely male ‘slaves’ who work for pennies/a few cents a day in order to make the necessities of life like food and clothing that the first world relies upon. Without such a globalised economy, feminism and ‘dating’ could not exist.

Feminism makes slaves of men, as well as destroying marriage and society; that’s the point from the globalist’s point of view – its not about real female empowerment.

One last point – feminism (as engineered by bankers) goes hand in hand with multiculturalism and race replacement. So feminism ends up naturally with a race dying out. If women want to work, they should aim for proper female empowerment, and not ‘feminism’. Only 10% of women at best would truly be capable of empowerment and holding jobs – the rest should be home-makers and look after babies; but western women have been brainwashed into competing for (limited) jobs against men. This lowers the number of male breadwinners able to support a family and further impacts upon birth rates. No-fault divorce doesn’t help.

TL;DR ‘women’s rights’ destroy marriage and society. Only a few women can have such rights – the vast majority MUST be homemakers and baby raisers to have a sustainable and stable society. Our society has reached peak feminism and will collapse catastrophically because globalists have orchestrated feminism, the economy and brainwashing (they all go together) to its utmost extent. Modern women won’t voluntarily relinquish their ‘rights’, and few of them will survive to see in the next era/society, because they don’t fit into a traditional mould in making good wives and mothers. An economic collapse would easily end the lives of the vast majority of western society(read: the white race) and because due to social engineers, brainwashing and women’s rights; this is now inevitable and will happen soon/is happening.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago
Reply to  Denny Passas

“Sex in the context of dating doesn’t work. Arranged marriages work.”

So why don’t you tell us all how your arranged marriage and how it has been beneficial.

“Even in white societies, in the past (like the 1900s) they had arranged marriages of a sort(women’s parents would arrange a marriage with a man’s parents etc..).”

No, in the States it was immigrant families who would get together and give “friendly advice” that they ought to date and mate. But, in the end, their children would end up making their own choices.

“Dating multiple partners is bad for women’s ability to stay faithful to any one future partner.”

Actually, dating multiple partners is bad for both men and women and their likelihood of being faithful.

“Also, women’s liberation and dating are dependent upon third world largely male ‘slaves’ who work for pennies/a few cents a day in order to make the necessities of life like food and clothing that the first world relies upon. Without such a globalised economy, feminism and ‘dating’ could not exist.”

That’s really not how it works.

“One last point – feminism (as engineered by bankers) goes hand in hand with multiculturalism and race replacement.”

First, what specific evidence do you have that bankers have “engineered feminism”? Second. race replacement is observably not happening in the United States.

“TL;DR ‘women’s rights’ destroy marriage and society. Only a few women can have such rights – the vast majority MUST be homemakers and baby raisers to have a sustainable and stable society.”

In the end, men and women have the liberty to choose who is empowered and the type of relationship they have with one another. They certainly do not need to be virtue signaled to death by your “advice”.

Denny Passas
Denny Passas
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

Thank you for your input. 🙂

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago
Reply to  Denny Passas

Seriously, please tell us how well your arranged marriage is working, as well as the number of offspring you have sired as a result. (White) family formation is key to the survival of Western Civilization.

Clearly, you are practicing what you are preaching, right?

david
david
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

Hes prob hypothesizing about the past. Not necessarily claiming it would work in today’s sesspool.

John Doe
John Doe
2 years ago
Reply to  Denny Passas

Right now our birth rate is 1.77 per woman and it is continuing to drop.

Nate Mircovich
2 years ago

Human nature doesn’t change, but the conditions it manifests under does.

Put differently, the underlying capacity for depravity of humanity may never change, but the extent to which it can be acted out, let alone in the public sphere, will definitely change from one era to the next.

This is where the “manosphere” will eventually actually have a genuine schism. In our current resource abundance, r-strategies are dominant, because any time spent withholding resources and growing individual competence is time not spent reproducing, right?

Except that males don’t form any lasting bonds with females in genuine r-selection, nor do males apply selection criteria on females, because the quality of females is terrible, with rampant promiscuity often being the only way to vent sexual frustration. The frequent mating then produces large quantities of offspring as an accidental byproduct, but yet without that byproduct, the strategy is reduced to hedonism, and that’s why some folks pimping adaptation to r-strategies are doing men a disservice.

Female beauty is a product of selective pressure, but in an environment where selective pressures are reduced or eliminated, so will the selective power of those dynamics be reduced or eliminated, so feminine beauty itself will largely disappear because those spending time trying to find it will be drowned by the offspring of those who reproduced indiscriminately.

To support this, neither men or women can be selective about their sexual partners, and that requires reconditioning male behavior, and thus you get back to Roosh’s post. Women are already subject to their emotional states, but by default men aren’t due to differences in brain structure. As such, men must somehow be enslaved to something in the same way that women are, some external mechanism to get leverage over them, and so sexual desire becomes a control mechanism for male behavior.

If you’re familiar with Genesis 3, you’ll know how effective a choice this is, given that Adam knowingly disobeyed God’s command after his wife was deceived because he wanted to keep banging her. It’s not like there was anyone else around, so what do you think two naked people did while living in a garden where all their immediate needs were being met?

“Be fruitful and multiply.”

Now, you’ll notice that I haven’t talked about porn, abortion, birth control, or sexbots yet. That’s because those are the reason why the r-strategy is ultimately self-defeating on its current path, and why it will be reduced to mere hedonism.

Without actual offspring, the external culling mechanisms on r-selected populations will eventually overtake it and that species will die out.

Oh, it’ll be a glorious orgy with magnificent feasts that the last generation will experience, but without a future generation to carry the torch, other species whose strategies actually produce offspring will overtake them.

This is why, despite Western Civilization being inundated with resources, my children’s generation is going to be downright brutal across the board because they are going to grow up in a resource shortage from older generations having tried to burn out the hedonistic treadmill before they finally died. They’ll see the results of the “social experiment” and know exactly what needs to be done to avoid repeating such depravity.

This is also because of the dynamic where the only people having kids today want them, and that implies a K-strategy. r-strategists have kids by accident, K-strategists do so intentionally, and then invest directly in raising their young.

Compare the mating strategies of whales to the krill they consume, if comparing wolves and rabbits feels like it’s been overdone.

Thus why public schooling has been such a controversial topic, because they’re literal reconditioning factories that allow the childless r-strategists to asexually reproduce by reprogramming the children of K-strategists to think and act like them. This is why, even at the youngest ages, children are being indoctrinated into sexual depravity, to try and accomplish what they would have otherwise happened naturally by the r-strategist’s apathy in raising their own children.

I could keep going but you can see how everything’s connected because it all traces back to answering the question of “how will your species continue?” Roosh sees things through a sexual filter, and he’s not wrong to do so, because sexual dynamics are just a subset of reproductive strategy. Once you connect the dots to the deeper trends of sexual behavior, why it is what it is, all these various loose ends start coming together to form a rather simple and cohesive paradigm.

Roosh is heading down that path, and is already closer to truth than many other in the “manosphere” that are still trying to adapt to r-selection as if no human trends were ever broken.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago
Reply to  Nate Mircovich

K-R selection theory is pseudoscience.

Anonymous Disqus Account
Anonymous Disqus Account
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

r/k selection is an observable fact in biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

Applying this biological reality to human political groups is an induction that seems to have some useful predictive power.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago

No, it is pseudoscience. Anonymous Conservative peddles this claptrap. A classic takedown from a while ago…

It is obvious why the author is ‘Anonymous’, this is a pure and simple restatement of Social Darwinism. Psychology is a science; this is anti science propaganda written solely to support the author’s political agenda. The author’s lack of understanding of the basic principles of behavioral and brain sciences, and inability to think outside the box of his/her obvious biases, is apparent within the first few pages. Although the author lists many references, the titles appear to have been selected purely to provide an air of legitimacy, not based on an understanding (at any level) of their content. I am sure this must be a favorite of Fox “News” fans as it is at much the same level. As someone who has taught Evolutionary Psychology, and considers this an area of expertise, I shudder at the impression this creates. I am unsure what to do with this ‘book’ now that I have it since it is too insubstantial to function effectively as a paperweight.

A footnote: The simplest way to debunk the notion that Anonymous is presenting a scientifically valid evolutionary theory, without using too much science, is to examine chimpanzees, our closest living relative. Both species of chimpanzee (the common chimp and the Bonobo) carry about 99% of the same genes we do, and both (based on number of offspring and investment in them) must be classified as K selected. Common chimps are often violent and maintain a strict dominance hierarchy, even to the extent of warring with (and even killing) their neighbors; whereas the Bonobo is peace loving and promiscuous, generally settling disagreements by having sex. The authors total lack of understanding of basic differences between r and K selected species is apparent in his designation of K selected species as predators and r selected species as prey. The concepts of r and K selection are based on differences in parental investment and are applied at a species or population level; r selected species tend to be short lived and produce large batches of offspring all at once, K selected species tend to be longer lived and produce smaller numbers of offspring over a longer period of time. The author wants instead to apply r and K designations to different individuals within the same populations of the same species, and often appears to conflate numbers of offspring produced by members of a species with the total number of members of a species observed (more = prey), although this appears to be a deliberate distortion it is possible that Anonymous is simply ignorant of the established use of r and K selection. So many species violate Anonymous’ approach to classification,however, that it is difficult to understand how the author could have come to this conclusion.. Applying this principle would mean that elephants, giraffes, gorillas, many antelopes and other herbivores … etc etc etc which are K selected should be classified as predators. The author’s total lack of understanding of evolution is apparent in their use of the term de-evolution … there is no such thing, Evolution occurs when some genes become more prevalent because animals with those genes survive and reproduce better than others … it is a response to the environment organisms are exposed to, Whales lost their legs and gained flippers because it was advantageous for them to do so … if the oceans began to dry up legs could be selected for again! This is NOT de-evolution … simply an evolutionary response to a changing environment. The term de-evolution assumes there is a hierarchy of evolution with some species being ‘more evolved’ than others, and assumes that more complex is some how better. This is absurd. Sharks are more ‘primitive’ in their design than whales because their design was successful, once it evolved it did not require change. Are there any terms in the title I missed? … this is not a book about science. Science uses rules for collecting and presenting data to ensure that the information presented is valid. When you redefine the terms being used (e.g. r and K selection, evolution, etc) to fit your agenda you can no longer claim to be presenting science. ONE final comment. The author appears to be fond of attacking negative reviews by stating the reviewers are not using science …. but does not ONCE support ANY specific statement in their own book by directing the reader to a specific scientific reference that could be used to check the accuracy of the absurd conjectures presented. The author instead uses smoke and mirrors by listing a number of apparently relevant references to mask their ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the content of these references.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago

No, K-R selection theory is pseudoscience. Anonymous Conservative peddles this claptrap. An epic takedown some time ago…

It is obvious why the author is ‘Anonymous’, this is a pure and simple restatement of Social Darwinism. Psychology is a science; this is anti science propaganda written solely to support the author’s political agenda. The author’s lack of understanding of the basic principles of behavioral and brain sciences, and inability to think outside the box of his/her obvious biases, is apparent within the first few pages. Although the author lists many references, the titles appear to have been selected purely to provide an air of legitimacy, not based on an understanding (at any level) of their content. I am sure this must be a favorite of Fox “News” fans as it is at much the same level. As someone who has taught Evolutionary Psychology, and considers this an area of expertise, I shudder at the impression this creates. I am unsure what to do with this ‘book’ now that I have it since it is too insubstantial to function effectively as a paperweight.

A footnote: The simplest way to debunk the notion that Anonymous is presenting a scientifically valid evolutionary theory, without using too much science, is to examine chimpanzees, our closest living relative. Both species of chimpanzee (the common chimp and the Bonobo) carry about 99% of the same genes we do, and both (based on number of offspring and investment in them) must be classified as K selected. Common chimps are often violent and maintain a strict dominance hierarchy, even to the extent of warring with (and even killing) their neighbors; whereas the Bonobo is peace loving and promiscuous, generally settling disagreements by having sex. The authors total lack of understanding of basic differences between r and K selected species is apparent in his designation of K selected species as predators and r selected species as prey. The concepts of r and K selection are based on differences in parental investment and are applied at a species or population level; r selected species tend to be short lived and produce large batches of offspring all at once, K selected species tend to be longer lived and produce smaller numbers of offspring over a longer period of time. The author wants instead to apply r and K designations to different individuals within the same populations of the same species, and often appears to conflate numbers of offspring produced by members of a species with the total number of members of a species observed (more = prey), although this appears to be a deliberate distortion it is possible that Anonymous is simply ignorant of the established use of r and K selection. So many species violate Anonymous’ approach to classification,however, that it is difficult to understand how the author could have come to this conclusion.. Applying this principle would mean that elephants, giraffes, gorillas, many antelopes and other herbivores … etc etc etc which are K selected should be classified as predators. The author’s total lack of understanding of evolution is apparent in their use of the term de-evolution … there is no such thing, Evolution occurs when some genes become more prevalent because animals with those genes survive and reproduce better than others … it is a response to the environment organisms are exposed to, Whales lost their legs and gained flippers because it was advantageous for them to do so … if the oceans began to dry up legs could be selected for again! This is NOT de-evolution … simply an evolutionary response to a changing environment. The term de-evolution assumes there is a hierarchy of evolution with some species being ‘more evolved’ than others, and assumes that more complex is some how better. This is absurd. Sharks are more ‘primitive’ in their design than whales because their design was successful, once it evolved it did not require change. Are there any terms in the title I missed? … this is not a book about science. Science uses rules for collecting and presenting data to ensure that the information presented is valid. When you redefine the terms being used (e.g. r and K selection, evolution, etc) to fit your agenda you can no longer claim to be presenting science. ONE final comment. The author appears to be fond of attacking negative reviews by stating the reviewers are not using science …. but does not ONCE support ANY specific statement in their own book by directing the reader to a specific scientific reference that could be used to check the accuracy of the absurd conjectures presented. The author instead uses smoke and mirrors by listing a number of apparently relevant references to mask their ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the content of these references.

Evan Cary
Evan Cary
2 years ago

It´s more of an outdated concept than a fact. Wiki says ¨The theory was popular in the 1970s and 1980s, when it was used as a heuristic device, but lost importance in the early 1990s, when it was criticized by several empirical studies.¨ That said, there may be a grain of truth to it.

Anonymous Disqus Account
Anonymous Disqus Account
2 years ago
Reply to  Evan Cary

Nice catch.
The wiki page claims that themes from r/k selection have been incorporated into the broader “Life History Theory”, which also has its own Wiki page and has a section on r/k selection theory.
I suppose as a formal theory it has some holes in it, but I think even a serious biologist would understand that it is a useful heuristic for describing reproductive patterns.

Anonymous Disqus Account
Anonymous Disqus Account
2 years ago
Reply to  Evan Cary

Just found this video by Jean-Francois Gariepy defending r/k selection theory. Not saying appealing to his authority de facto proves it right or wrong but I think it counts for something that a published biologist with a PhD thinks it is a useful concept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX7Tj9Gyc4o

Ravi Macho
Ravi Macho
2 years ago
Reply to  Evan Cary

Just for your information, Wiki (by a MAN) is now being infested by femicuntism !! Most of the content is altered to change facts and realities. Deliberately and desperately, images of pussies are shown, instead of MEN who put up the hard work and/or Invented the product/technology/concept etc.

I have downloaded previous/original (read: not altered, adulterated or infested !!) Wiki Dvd Images and will only use them.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago

No, it is pseudoscience. Epic takedown of Anonymous Conservative, who peddles this claptrap…

“It is obvious why the author is ‘Anonymous’, this is a pure and simple restatement of Social Darwinism. Psychology is a science; this is anti science propaganda written solely to support the author’s political agenda. The author’s lack of understanding of the basic principles of behavioral and brain sciences, and inability to think outside the box of his/her obvious biases, is apparent within the first few pages. Although the author lists many references, the titles appear to have been selected purely to provide an air of legitimacy, not based on an understanding (at any level) of their content. I am sure this must be a favorite of Fox “News” fans as it is at much the same level. As someone who has taught Evolutionary Psychology, and considers this an area of expertise, I shudder at the impression this creates. I am unsure what to do with this ‘book’ now that I have it since it is too insubstantial to function effectively as a paperweight.

A footnote: The simplest way to debunk the notion that Anonymous is presenting a scientifically valid evolutionary theory, without using too much science, is to examine chimpanzees, our closest living relative. Both species of chimpanzee (the common chimp and the Bonobo) carry about 99% of the same genes we do, and both (based on number of offspring and investment in them) must be classified as K selected. Common chimps are often violent and maintain a strict dominance hierarchy, even to the extent of warring with (and even killing) their neighbors; whereas the Bonobo is peace loving and promiscuous, generally settling disagreements by having sex. The authors total lack of understanding of basic differences between r and K selected species is apparent in his designation of K selected species as predators and r selected species as prey. The concepts of r and K selection are based on differences in parental investment and are applied at a species or population level; r selected species tend to be short lived and produce large batches of offspring all at once, K selected species tend to be longer lived and produce smaller numbers of offspring over a longer period of time. The author wants instead to apply r and K designations to different individuals within the same populations of the same species, and often appears to conflate numbers of offspring produced by members of a species with the total number of members of a species observed (more = prey), although this appears to be a deliberate distortion it is possible that Anonymous is simply ignorant of the established use of r and K selection. So many species violate Anonymous’ approach to classification,however, that it is difficult to understand how the author could have come to this conclusion.. Applying this principle would mean that elephants, giraffes, gorillas, many antelopes and other herbivores … etc etc etc which are K selected should be classified as predators. The author’s total lack of understanding of evolution is apparent in their use of the term de-evolution … there is no such thing, Evolution occurs when some genes become more prevalent because animals with those genes survive and reproduce better than others … it is a response to the environment organisms are exposed to, Whales lost their legs and gained flippers because it was advantageous for them to do so … if the oceans began to dry up legs could be selected for again! This is NOT de-evolution … simply an evolutionary response to a changing environment. The term de-evolution assumes there is a hierarchy of evolution with some species being ‘more evolved’ than others, and assumes that more complex is some how better. This is absurd. Sharks are more ‘primitive’ in their design than whales because their design was successful, once it evolved it did not require change. Are there any terms in the title I missed? … this is not a book about science. Science uses rules for collecting and presenting data to ensure that the information presented is valid. When you redefine the terms being used (e.g. r and K selection, evolution, etc) to fit your agenda you can no longer claim to be presenting science. ONE final comment. The author appears to be fond of attacking negative reviews by stating the reviewers are not using science …. but does not ONCE support ANY specific statement in their own book by directing the reader to a specific scientific reference that could be used to check the accuracy of the absurd conjectures presented. The author instead uses smoke and mirrors by listing a number of apparently relevant references to mask their ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the content of these references.”

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago

No, K-R selection theory is pseudoscience. Epic takedown at Anonymous Conservative, who peddles this nonsense.

It is obvious why the author is ‘Anonymous’, this is a pure and simple restatement of Social Darwinism. Psychology is a science; this is anti science propaganda written solely to support the author’s political agenda. The author’s lack of understanding of the basic principles of behavioral and brain sciences, and inability to think outside the box of his/her obvious biases, is apparent within the first few pages. Although the author lists many references, the titles appear to have been selected purely to provide an air of legitimacy, not based on an understanding (at any level) of their content. I am sure this must be a favorite of Fox “News” fans as it is at much the same level. As someone who has taught Evolutionary Psychology, and considers this an area of expertise, I shudder at the impression this creates. I am unsure what to do with this ‘book’ now that I have it since it is too insubstantial to function effectively as a paperweight.

A footnote: The simplest way to debunk the notion that Anonymous is presenting a scientifically valid evolutionary theory, without using too much science, is to examine chimpanzees, our closest living relative. Both species of chimpanzee (the common chimp and the Bonobo) carry about 99% of the same genes we do, and both (based on number of offspring and investment in them) must be classified as K selected. Common chimps are often violent and maintain a strict dominance hierarchy, even to the extent of warring with (and even killing) their neighbors; whereas the Bonobo is peace loving and promiscuous, generally settling disagreements by having sex. The authors total lack of understanding of basic differences between r and K selected species is apparent in his designation of K selected species as predators and r selected species as prey. The concepts of r and K selection are based on differences in parental investment and are applied at a species or population level; r selected species tend to be short lived and produce large batches of offspring all at once, K selected species tend to be longer lived and produce smaller numbers of offspring over a longer period of time. The author wants instead to apply r and K designations to different individuals within the same populations of the same species, and often appears to conflate numbers of offspring produced by members of a species with the total number of members of a species observed (more = prey), although this appears to be a deliberate distortion it is possible that Anonymous is simply ignorant of the established use of r and K selection. So many species violate Anonymous’ approach to classification,however, that it is difficult to understand how the author could have come to this conclusion.. Applying this principle would mean that elephants, giraffes, gorillas, many antelopes and other herbivores … etc etc etc which are K selected should be classified as predators. The author’s total lack of understanding of evolution is apparent in their use of the term de-evolution … there is no such thing, Evolution occurs when some genes become more prevalent because animals with those genes survive and reproduce better than others … it is a response to the environment organisms are exposed to, Whales lost their legs and gained flippers because it was advantageous for them to do so … if the oceans began to dry up legs could be selected for again! This is NOT de-evolution … simply an evolutionary response to a changing environment. The term de-evolution assumes there is a hierarchy of evolution with some species being ‘more evolved’ than others, and assumes that more complex is some how better. This is absurd. Sharks are more ‘primitive’ in their design than whales because their design was successful, once it evolved it did not require change. Are there any terms in the title I missed? … this is not a book about science. Science uses rules for collecting and presenting data to ensure that the information presented is valid. When you redefine the terms being used (e.g. r and K selection, evolution, etc) to fit your agenda you can no longer claim to be presenting science. ONE final comment. The author appears to be fond of attacking negative reviews by stating the reviewers are not using science …. but does not ONCE support ANY specific statement in their own book by directing the reader to a specific scientific reference that could be used to check the accuracy of the absurd conjectures presented. The author instead uses smoke and mirrors by listing a number of apparently relevant references to mask their ignorance (or deliberate misrepresentation) of the content of these references.

Anonymous Disqus Account
Anonymous Disqus Account
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

You’ve forced me to think harder on this issue so thanks for that.

My understanding was that K-selected behaviours are an adaptation to an environment of scarce resources, which leads to complex organisms requiring adaptations such as longer parental care for offspring, and a slew of other complex behaviours.

I don’t know if Anonymous Conservative (AC) is implying that all K species are predators, but rather that K species adopt certain behaviours such as more characteristically “conservative” social behaviours (e.g., explicit dominance heirarchies, in-group preference, deeper attachments between members, etc.). I think he would agree that Rhinos, Elephants, and other herbivores that operate in complex groups and exhibit K behaviours can be classified as K selected species.

As you point out, Chimps and Bonobos are almost identical genetically and yet their behaviours are vastly different. The Bonobos as plant eaters have adapted to the vast amount of resources available to them, while Chimps need to maintain their strict social order to survive in an environment where catching their next meal requires greater constraints and behaviours as a group (e.g., hunting gangs and respect for social rank).

I suppose based on R/K selection theory, one might expect that the “R-selected Bonobos” would mate and reproduce very often, and yet they are on the endangered species list. I agree with you that they should be classified as K selected because they must care for their young, but I think it is interesting that they mate and use sex indiscriminately as they do. This behaviour reflects in my mind the fact that strict competition between males is simply not necessary because resources are abundant for them. They seem to be a species that is evolving in the direction towards R selection, but they are constrained due to having already become so complex that parental care remains necessary.

In either case, I still think R and K selection are useful concepts. The Bonobo/Chimp example seems to fit along the R/K spectrum fairly well, despite the fact that the Bonobos appear to be a unique case. Essentially, I disagree with you because I think you have mischaracterized Anonymous Conservative here in claiming that he equates predator species with K selected species, and your Bonobo/Chimp example only shows that R/K selection is better thought of as a spectrum with some species acting as exemplars reflecting common responses to patterns of selective pressures.

And also, I am not entirely convinced that the entirety of homo-sapiens cannot be broken down further into sub-species. There are some clear differences between the races, and sub-species in nature have been divided by scientists on even less substantive lines.

Ravi Macho
Ravi Macho
2 years ago

Hi Clark Kent ! How are you !?

Anonymous Disqus Account
Anonymous Disqus Account
2 years ago
Reply to  Ravi Macho

haha good bro
so much has changed since the good’ol days of ROK a couple years ago eh? lol

Ravi Macho
Ravi Macho
2 years ago

Indeed. Those were the great days to share opinions, ideas, suggestions and comments. Ironically, the Disqus platform is by MEN !

Anonymous Disqus Account
Anonymous Disqus Account
2 years ago
Reply to  Ravi Macho

Seriously tho fuck Disqus… bunch of faggots…
Those old ROK comment sections really were gold mines of real talk.

Ravi Macho
Ravi Macho
2 years ago

Quite true. Hopefully ROK will find a similar Comment platform soon. Its nice to talk to you after a loooooong time !! Have a good day.

Anonymous Disqus Account
Anonymous Disqus Account
2 years ago
Reply to  Ravi Macho

You too man.
Glad someone recognized my avatar hehe.
Cheers.

Nate Mircovich
2 years ago

Anonymous Conservative has a section in their book that deals with this sort of criticism, though it is past the first few pages. It doesn’t matter what other people “meant” when they referred to r/K unless AC relies on those other people’s definitions instead of AC supplying their own.

So not only is it a complaint that AC didn’t use the definitions and framing “everyone else” uses, so AC is wrong, AC is also wrong for not citing the definitions and framing “everyone else” uses which happens to be wrong and considered pseudoscience? Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too.

AC is quite open about how many of the criticisms of r/K stem from how loosely the terminology has been handled over the years, but you’d have had to actually read the book instead of playing with logical contradictions.

Anyway, parental investment is a result of adaptation to, not the cause for, resource shortages. The reason I phrase it that way is that not being the causal factor for K-selection viability, using it alone to distinguish between r/K would certainly be very silly.

That would be akin to saying that classifications of automobiles should be by their emissions or fuel efficiency alone. Petrol or diesel doesn’t matter, engine performance doesn’t matter, pickup or sports car doesn’t matter, any logically distinct causes for the behavior observed should not be used to properly categorize the behavior?

Of course that is absurd and provides no coherent mechanism for analysis.

This is also why Anti-Gnostic hopes you aren’t keen enough to notice they are also anonymous and yet attack AC’s credibility for being anonymous. An anonymous person with no apparent credentials saying another anonymous person with no apparent credentials has no credibility is rather self-defeating.

When people don’t want to discuss ideas, due to laziness or incompetence, they’ll instead try to discredit the need to discuss those ideas in the first place. Dialectic is not an effective tool against rhetoric, and vice-versa.

MKDAWUSS
MKDAWUSS
2 years ago

I guess this is where people get a little jealous of those who isolate themselves in monasteries.

That aside, what I think is just as annoying is the opposite reaction from the neo-Puritans, and as a result, it often seems that society is pushing a completely conflicting and inconsistent message.

jayteeniftb
jayteeniftb
2 years ago

Females WANT to sexually reject 80% of the males and WANT to sexually approve of 20% of the males. It’s not degeneracy, its what a parasitic matriarchial SOCIETY actually is.
Bygone successful ancestral brotherhoods sacrificed “sexual obsession” to form a masculine patriarchial SOCIETY.
Such a time will perhaps return when the millenial generation dies out.

Nick of Time
Nick of Time
2 years ago
Reply to  jayteeniftb

So European women want to have at leats 20% muslims in their countries!

Lisa
Lisa
2 years ago
Reply to  Nick of Time

Are you assuming that all European women prefer Muslim men? Unlikely. (If you really believe that and you’re of European descent, your insecurities are showing. Most women find European men attractive.)

Nick of Time
Nick of Time
2 years ago
Reply to  Lisa

All women prefer men from patriarchy (muslims).

Lisa
Lisa
2 years ago
Reply to  Nick of Time

Nah.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago
Reply to  jayteeniftb

“Females WANT to sexually reject 80% of the males and WANT to sexually approve of 20% of the males. It’s not degeneracy, its what a reproductive matriarchial SOCIETY actually is.”

Actually, females WANT to sexually reject YOU, hence your temper tantrum here.

Ravi Macho
Ravi Macho
2 years ago
Reply to  jayteeniftb

“matriarchial” society !!?? what shit you are talking Jay !?

Ever heard about Father of GYNECOLOGY !? and you are talking about “matriarchial” society !!!

ram
ram
2 years ago
Reply to  jayteeniftb

Men of any worth feel the same way, and do not consider many women worthwhile, no matter if you can get women or not.

Those who don’t want to reject many women, simply have no personality nor taste at all.

It’s not about status, nor perceived worth, it’s about whether she matches you or not, also in sex.

It’s pathetic and idiotic to try to please everyone and be their fantasy, while you wont get any pleasure out of being fake.

THAT is why many women weed out, others are so beyond repair that they are like drug addicts and just seek higher and higher kicks.

You all sound so brainwashed, incredible.

paulieD
paulieD
2 years ago

Yoga pants should be banned. It’s ridiculous that women think it’s ok to walk around with their pussies and asses sticking out. That shit is underwear. Put a dress or jeans on you fucking whores.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago
Reply to  paulieD

Remind me how you’re different than any other leftwing SJW that wants shit banned because things aren’t going your way?

I’m sorry great looking women in yoga pants don’t want to fuck you. Doesn’t mean yoga pants should be banned you incel fuck.

Spider58x
Spider58x
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

failed troll has failed

Lol
Lol
2 years ago
Reply to  Spider58x

Actually I succeeded. Beautifully. Witness how buttblasted your incel friend is below. Stay salty, my friend.

Spider58x
Spider58x
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

still failed. try agian

paulieD
paulieD
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

It was a figure of speech, dickhead. But the point stands – yoga pants are vulgar.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago
Reply to  paulieD

Can’t be any more “vulgar” than all the hardcore butthole porn you’re addicted to, eh there incel?

paulieD
paulieD
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

Only the ones your mom’s involved in. Hold up – I have a webcam coming up with her right now.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago
Reply to  paulieD

Unsurprising a sick piece of shit like yourself would joke about banging someone’s mother. And you unironically have the nerve to be “offended” by women wearing “vulgar” yoga pants?

paulieD
paulieD
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

I just “unironically” busted on her face, too.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago
Reply to  paulieD

Don’t lie. You don’t bust anywhere except into your poor lonely incel gym socks.

Better write your congressman and get those big scary workout yoga panties banned you silly little incel!

paulieD
paulieD
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

I have the feeling you’re a female. You certainly write like one. I would guess you’re fat and unattractive, as well.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago
Reply to  paulieD

Couldn’t be any less overweight or attractive than an incel like yourself who nuts inside his little brother’s gym socks.

Bottom line is, you need to quit blaming your embarrassing sexual inadequacies on women and their yoga pants. Your life failures aren’t other people’s problems, they’re yours.

paulieD
paulieD
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

For the record, I only nutted on your mom’s face and back.

Lol
Lol
2 years ago
Reply to  paulieD

No wonder you can’t get a woman to fuck you. You’re still stuck at summer camp for bullied fat kids telling retarded yo mama jokes.

Grow up and maybe some 2/10 will let you see the inside of her yoga pants. That way you won’t have to cry like an incel bitch about it here.

paulieD
paulieD
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

How do you think I met her? Your mom’s a counselor over here at Creampie Camp.

Lucius Clarus
Lucius Clarus
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

^woman

seulgimybias
seulgimybias
2 years ago
Reply to  Lucius Clarus

If your only argument is “woman”, you’ve lost the argument.

Lucius Clarus
Lucius Clarus
2 years ago
Reply to  seulgimybias

If you say so, woman.

seulgimybias
seulgimybias
2 years ago
Reply to  Lucius Clarus

Bye loser.

Lucius Clarus
Lucius Clarus
2 years ago
Reply to  seulgimybias

If you say so, woman.

Lucius Clarus
Lucius Clarus
2 years ago
Reply to  Lucius Clarus

Lol’s woman tell is her super pissy, hateful comments. Plus this:

“No wonder you can’t get a woman to fuck you.”

No man would say that. Women don’t “fuck” anyone. Women get fucked.

Ram
Ram
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

Whatever happened to you to have such disgusting thoughts, I am sorry for you.

All that hate and prejudice is neither good for you nor your environment.

ram
ram
2 years ago
Reply to  Lol

You problem is that you have no notion of respect. It’s sexual harassment from women to expose their sexual attributes this openly, even if you are not interested in them nor find them attractive.
It’s public, and the same way you don’t shout, spit, or punch people, you don’t shove yourself in their faces, just to feel validated.
It’s immature behavior, especially when it’s regular. And even more ridiculous when you don’t feel ashamed for it.

For some reason nobody understand limits anymore, it’s not social just warrior or left or right wing or anything else. It’s something many have forgotten: basic human decency.

All has it’s place. When you want her or like her it’s different, but there is a place for that.

For some reason women think that this is a one way street. They can be vulgar, but don’t accept the same in return. Well, a lot actually like it as well, if you treat them that way, but you get the point.

And that desperate need to get validated by men who want to fuck you. Pathetic.

Grow up. If you get criticized, it’s not because everyone wants in your pants or is jealous. That’s like saying that people who call you out for spitting want to swallow your spit.

How can you be so full of yourself? Again: pathetic!

MKDAWUSS
MKDAWUSS
2 years ago
Reply to  paulieD

And the only place flip-flops should be worn is the shower.

sean
sean
2 years ago
Reply to  MKDAWUSS

or the beach. they shouldnt wear flip flops either. I’m not trolling I’m serious. Tired of women showing off nonstop. It’s fucking annoying.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago
Reply to  sean

No, you’re trolling.

Why
Why
2 years ago
Reply to  paulieD

Female swimming instructors at Ryerson University in Canada wear very skimpy one pieces that you can see the ass cheeks glowing like the sun, but these swimming lessons are only in the summer season for youth and elementary school students. Makes me wonder why would a feminist university which complains of harassment of women and male sexuality would show their butts to tots at your local swimming pool?
I will offer US$100 for any man in Toronto who will take a snapshot of that female swimming teacher in the coming summer. Reply here and I will talk to you later.

pinetree
pinetree
2 years ago

But lets also put things into perspective. We also live in a most incredible time – with so much freedom, comfort, new technology. We could have also been born during the war where 18 year old boys were forced into battle and died. It is however bad out there for men no doubt.

Ravi Macho
Ravi Macho
2 years ago
Reply to  pinetree

The only problem is with the “ungrateful” pussies. The Freedom, Comfort and new Technology are all because of MEN. And these pussies will never acknowledge that fact !

Neo Anderson
Neo Anderson
2 years ago

I’ve had a theory for a long time that social media is designed to distract us from using the internet so we don’t actual use it for something that would enlighten us. The masses are too busy looking at cat videos to become a threat from the power of information. Ever wondered why there is so much free porn on the world wide wank?

sean
sean
2 years ago
Reply to  Neo Anderson

this is gold

Why
Why
2 years ago
Reply to  Neo Anderson

Roosh turned into a Pariah for only trying to meet with 40 men in an underground bunker in Canada.

Nadie
Nadie
2 years ago

Completely agree, Rosh. I used to have this problem. I used to masturbate every day and was completely horny. Watched porn regularly although it was not an addiction.

For me, God did the trick. I went back to my Catholic roots and you learn to change your thought every time you receive a sexual stimulus (such as a thot showing her body). Prayer helps too. Now I haven’t masturbated in about a year and I don’t feel the need. Every time I see a thot is like a temporary sting that only lasts one second or so. But you must learn to control your thoughts and Catholic tradition helps you to do that (I think other spiritual traditions must do this too but I have no direct experience).

God sent me a very traditional girl 20 years my junior (of course, I don’t live in America) . We try to stay pure although sometimes we have failed. We are engaged and will marry very soon. She is one of a kind.

I am not evangelizing: I know that most of you don’t want to change your life or have any interest in religion. I am only telling my experience. As you American people say, your mileage may vary.

ram
ram
2 years ago
Reply to  Nadie

There is nothing wrong with daily masturbation. God is not the solution, it’s just another drug.

You need to do things in your life besides seeking validation, or rewards, do meaningful things, work on something that seems to be your purpose.

Nadie
Nadie
2 years ago
Reply to  ram

I explained my experience and I said it works for me (and maybe for others too) and it won’t work for everybody. As I said, your mileage may vary.

On the contrary, you start preaching telling what to do and what not to do to other people that you don’t even know (God is a drug. Don’t do it. Do meaning things and something that seems to be your purpose – as if God couldn’t be those things).

“It’s amazing how many simpletons are on these sites. Amazing!”

“What’s up with all the pussies on here who are so obsessed with aging.”

You need to be more humble and less arrogant, as if you own the truth and everybody else is wrong. You seem the preachers of yesteryear.

People who are successful and valued in real life don’t need to waste time to come here to pretend they are the mega-man that should be admired by everybody. Successful people don’t treat others like a shit, only losers and wannabes do it. I guess you are a loser that masturbates every day because you don’t have a real relationship and comes here to try to improve your low self-esteem being rude to strangers in a 4-month-old thread. This goes beyond pathetic and you should get a life.

Peter
Peter
2 years ago

You forgot to finish the article by “The End”…

Is this the End of Rooshv? I respect you for the guts you have had to represent Neo-masculinity in these times of pro-feminism years. Your writing skills are also deep and smart, for writing meaningful and “from the heart” articles. But these past 2 years you’ve been going down the negative path, age being most probably the main factor, as you admit yourself. Real gamers in the community have started to desert the forum since you appear to have lost the “essential skills” of a PUA and the essence of what your readers are asking. This recent negativity and attitude clearly appears to me those of a worn out man, probably due to lack to testosterone induced by age… And this is normal at nearly 40 y/o, mid-life crisis seems to be kicking in. You are about to divert to more physiological subjects, which you are good at I must admit, and I will probably continue reading you since I appreciate philosophical subjects as well. However, not the newbies looking for pussy wot be happy with this. this lack of balls you are portraying in your articles and in your new lifestyle discredits you from what your whole popularity has been built on: Game and PUA lifestyle.

The end???

Roosh
2 years ago
Reply to  Peter

It’s more like the beginning.

John Doe
John Doe
2 years ago

Well, I hate to admit but looking at the big picture, the Muslims got it right. They put their women in line so they have that taken care of. The West need to adapt, perhaps take a page from the book that the Mormons and the Amish use. You don’t see them struggle with this sort of problem. And both societies are thriving in America right now.

jayteeniftb
jayteeniftb
2 years ago
Reply to  John Doe

Muslims got it right on a very short term basis, by mistrusting their own brothers.
The more long term solution is to trust your fellow men to overcome their own “sexual obsession” through discipline.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago
Reply to  John Doe

“They put their women in line so they have that taken care of. The West need to adapt, perhaps take a page from the book that the Mormons and the Amish use.”

No, the West need not adapt nor adopt the ways of the Muslim when it comes to handling their women folk. Western men and women have the freedom to make their own choices.

Besides, how do you propose to put forth this plan in our current society? Have you even thought it through?

I'm not fat I'm just curvy lol
I'm not fat I'm just curvy lol
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

How’s that freedom going for western women now?

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago

Fantastic.

I'm not fat I'm just curvy lol
I'm not fat I'm just curvy lol
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

Including women have their freedom to open their legs to anyone and everyone and call it empowerment. Fantastic indeed.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago

The freedom to do so, yes. But the will to actually go through with it? Not necessarily.

Stop your whining.

I'm not fat I'm just curvy lol
I'm not fat I'm just curvy lol
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

Just look at the statistic. Single moms are glorified. Children are suffering because of that. Your women now are nothing but a cum bucket.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago

I get it, you are angry because you get rejected repeatedly by women. Buy Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life!

I'm not fat I'm just curvy lol
I'm not fat I'm just curvy lol
2 years ago
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic

Lol.
You are so original. Never heard that mockery before. I’m so burned. Roasted. Big time.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
2 years ago

I get it, you are angry because you get rejected repeatedly by women. Buy Gorilla Mindset, it will change your life!

Anonymous Disqus Account
Anonymous Disqus Account
2 years ago
Reply to  John Doe

Marriage, coverture, social shaming, and various other methods were used by Westerners for most of history to maintain functional relationships between men and women for the good of society at large. We can take inspiration from Muslims, but I think it’s better if we just take inspiration from our own history.

Every advanced culture on Earth has employed these kinds of practices because it leads to accumulated benefits for society over time. Societies with no ability to work towards improved future conditions by controlling immediate impulsive desires will never see significant improvement (e.g., non-colonized Africa).

Ram
Ram
2 years ago

No, you don’t need shaming or other manipulative tactics.

You need boundaries and respect, and have parents teach that again, instead of excusing themselves by lame replies like “they are kiddssss!!!!”.

It has been common to degrade and belittle people, everywhere in media, and not in a good hearted way, but in a mean destructive one.

With purpose and respect a lot gets better. It’s simply basic human decency.

Bear
Bear
2 years ago
Reply to  John Doe

The Muslims have nothing right. Its the type of religion you get when you have gamma males in control. And the child rape…its absolutely endemic within that religion and the countries who practice it. Its an utterly worthless religion that should have been left in the ash bin of history. Unfortunately it continues to plague this earth like a recurring bout of jock itch.

oldfashionedfellow
oldfashionedfellow
2 years ago
Reply to  John Doe

No need to look to Islam. We only have to look at our own past, circa 150 or so years ago.

Ram
Ram
2 years ago
Reply to  John Doe

No, they haven’t figured it out. So many Muslim women cheat on their men, and love doing it with white guys. They also can be very controlling in the family. Muslim men just act “big” in public.

The real issue is that people have no more goals and purpose in life, there are too many conflicts, and drugs and other distractions keep people from changing.

It’s not about ideologies, it’s about having a purpose and feeling useful, healthy, respected. But not many care, and so this vicious circle of seeking validation or status increases.

Once more people do what is meaningful and they get respected, all the rest comes naturally and things get more balanced.

Ads and other influencers however work against the feeling of self-worth.

RAlexander
RAlexander
2 years ago

Well said Roosh. I’m exhausted as well. I’m on the verge of losing my girlfriend to her desire to “further her career and meet new people” as oppose to realizing what she has and build a family. I don’t want to go back to game, I’ve done it, it was fun in my twenties but hitting 30 it’s different. This society is so corrosive. Your writing keeps my sane brother. I thank you.

sean
sean
2 years ago
Reply to  RAlexander

do yourself and your mental health a favor and leave her ass.

david
david
2 years ago
Reply to  RAlexander

Get out and travel a bit. Game is our toolkit for the rest of our lives. It will be decades before appreciative american women reappear on the scene.

Homine
Homine
2 years ago
Reply to  RAlexander

Women now marry the state: “her career”, meet new people.

The state, the biggest procurer.

Ram
Ram
2 years ago
Reply to  RAlexander

Your problem is not your age or that you are hitting 30s. You are thinking in stereotypes, which is one of your problems.

You need to get in touch with other people, that’s it.

When you feel young, it’s because you feel right.