An Open Letter To Denise Romano, MA, EdM

by Obsidian on January 5, 2010


[A MAJOR Corrective To Her Views On Game, & Other Issues...]

Perhaps as a result of the Internet, among other things, Game and what was once a “secret society of Pick Up Artists” has gotten the attention-and ire, it seems-of quite a few Women bloggers, some of whom seem intent on tearing the House that Mystery & Style have built to the ground. This, I find to be disturbing on a whole host of levels, but perhaps the most disturbing, is the fact that oh so often, these “crusaders” are so misguided, if not misinformed, not only about Game itself, its key thinkers and writers, but most sadly, about where they’re getting their source information from.

In the few months that my personal blog, The Obsidian Files has been in existence, I’ve run across several Women who all have key things in common:

  1. They’re all bloggers of varying stripe
  2. They all have deep issues with regard to Game, however
  3. they haven’t read the key source material, and almost always use, as their “primary” source info, Roissy in DC, or blogsites like it (such as say, Tucker Max, in the case of Ms. Susan Walsh of HookingUpSmart.com)

Keep in mind here that all of the Women I’m talking about would be, in the minds of the average person, highly educated, even accomplished people; Ms. Walsh for example, boasts an MBA from the Wharton Business School of UPenn while Ms. Romano has multiple degrees from Columbia U. Yet the level of reasoning and simple investigative research into the basic of issues surrounding Game by these and other Women is, I have to say, a slap in the face to all that the Academy stands for. I am NOT arguing that these or any other Woman has to AGREE with Game, but rather, to merely be educated on its basic premise and methodology, as propounded by its creators and key thinkers themselves. I’ve written in some detail previously here at TOF, about this very disturbing tendency on the part of quite a few ladies I encounter in my Internet travels.

So, with all that said, enter one Ms. Denise Romano, a certified psychologist who specializes in spousal abuse and the like. Apparently, she got wind of my back and forth epic struggle with another (unnamed) Woman blogger who can’t get the bee out of her bonnet that is Roissy, despite her multiple goes at the Man, and which I have extensively written about. Like Romano and Walsh, she too has minimal understanding, at best of what Game exactly is, but worse that the former two, she has flatly refused to at least read some of the widely recognized and accept sources of information on Game, such as Style’s book The Game, and Mystery’s The Mystery Method, dismissing both as the fodder of snake oil salesmen and reality tv show stars. To be honest, I have never encountered such an individual in debate. I suppose the old saw is true, that there’s a first time for everything.

Ms. Romano’s comments over at the aforementioned anti-Roissy blog struck me as a bit odd, considering the string of letters following her name; perhaps I do give such people a bit too much credit, because I have always been taught that such individuals are by definition, people who attempt to live by Reason, Logic and at least some understanding of and application of, the Scientific Method. It would appear that I was wrong.

For not only has Ms. Romano made what I consider to be comments inconsistent with the core meaning of the letters that follows her name, but her more “fleshed out” commentary on the matter of Game, PUAs and Seduction, which can be found on the Aug 1 2009 entry at her blog eqwithdenise.wordpress.com, only filled me with more dread, for how can such a highly educated and credentialed human being say such outrageous things?

The post referred to above by Ms. Romano is quite lengthy – even for me(!) – and I would highly recommend anyone so inclined to read it to be sure they have an hour or two to kill before settling in to take it up. In it, she lays at the feet of Game and PUAs, charges of patent abuse of Women, and even goes so far as to lump in Neil “Style” Strauss, with OJ Simpson, Mike Tyson, and Scott Peterson. Yes, that’s right-Ms. Romano, Columbia U grad twice over, has made such an outrageous remark. Outrageous because it is ridiculous on its face; all of the other Men she’s mentioned are convicted felons, and in the case of Simpson, we know, for a fact, that he was indeed abusive towards his then-wife, Mrs. Nicole Brown-Simpson. There are no such convictions, or for that matter, charges, against Style; moreover, given that the Man has written, to date, no less than two memoirs on his life in the Game/PUA community, one would think that by now, if he wasn’t on the up and up, quite a few Women-at least one-would have come forward. To date, not a peep from the Sisterhood. That’s gotta say something. To me, it says that they’re quite satisfied with what Mr. Strauss has had to say.

Speaking of Style, it should also be said, that he goes out of his way in BOTH of his books, to warn Men about the very real Dark Sides of Game; in fact, I attribute a goodly bit of my own “style” to Style, not just in a stylistic sense, but in a moral one, too. No one reading his books can say, with a straight face, that he comes off or sounds anything like the Tom Cruise, Ron Jeffries-inspired, and truly disturbed and sleazy character seen in the film “Magnolia”. Style is very careful to chronicle the pitfalls of Game, and I for one am very glad that he did so; of all the many books, dvds and the like out there on the topic, I maintain that his is the most honest-often painfully, brutally so-of the entire genre. He gives Game a human face.

So for Ms. Romano to suggest that Mr. Strauss is in any way akin to Mr. Simpson, Mr. Tyson or Mr. Peterson, it only goes to show how far our educational institutions have fallen; such sentiments are to be expected from the Great Unwashed; its akin to heresy when academics like Ms. Romano does it.

Secondly, her assertions about the methods, techniques and the like within the Game community being deceptive and the like are also laughable, because it just goes to show the degree to which her ignorance of Game truly is. So, once again, unto the breach I go dear friends, to give a quick primer on what Game is, and how it operates:

Game (noun, verb): A corpus of knowledge, and series of behaviors, designed to win the SEXUAL ATTRACTION of the Female. PERIOD. The act of employing Game is often referred to as “running Game” or “Gaming”. It is a mating strategy, and ALL living things found on the Earth has one, if not several. Game, is simply a mating strategy for Human Males to use. Game draws its knowledge from the insights gleaned from Evolutionary Psychology, itself considered by some a controversial corner of the Psychology world; PUAs (or “Gamers” if you will) study not only Game-specific materials, but also the work of noted Evolutionary Psychologists, like David Buss, Mat Ridley, and Steven Pinker. In addition, Gamesmen (my preferred term) study the great works of literature on the topic of romance, seduction and Human Sexuality, such as The Story of O, the compendium written by Robert Greene The Art Of Seduction, My Secret Life and others. Many of its core tenets may seem bizarre or counterintuitive to the uninitiated or otherwise untrained eye; but to those well-practiced in the Game, they know well the efficacy of its use and practical results.

Game can also be said to be an “applied science” in the sense that it relies heavily on trial and error, after periods of intense and lengthy observation. Field reports, detailed accounts of actual, real-time interactions with Women are a staple of Game practice, and much of what is viewed today as the core tenets of Game came from said practice. It remains perhaps the single most valuable aspect of Game today.

Moreover, Game is NOT in itself moral or immoral; in fact, Game is AMORAL, and it is left solely to the practitioner as to how he will use it. This is where methods such as the use of what is known as NLP-and forms the backbone of the Ross Jeffries school of Seduction or Game-comes in, because it uses considerable degrees of hypnosis in its methods. Does it work? I’ve seen it in action and can say, YES, it does work. But then we are left with the moral implications of such a strategem; is it RIGHT to do it? I say NO, and I am not alone. It is unclear if Mystery himself is cool with NLP, but what is clear, that his school of thought does not include or incorporate NLP in any way; instead his school of thought deals with what has become known as Social Dynamics, how people interact with each other within the context of group activity.

Again: Game is amoral. In and of itself, there is no “right” or “wrong” way to get a Woman into bed with you. The only one to determine ultimately if something is good or bad, is the practitioner himself. In this regard, I view Game in the same light as Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince-a practical and pragmatic, how-to guide to gaining political power and keeping it. It doesn’t concern itself with the moral or ethical implications of Statecraft; it is left to the “Prince” to decide for himself which way to go.

Furthermore, Game is NOT relegated to the niteclub, bar or lounge, although it certainly can be used in such environments; Game can be applied to a whole host of situations and scenarios, from the boardroom and shop floor, to the local taproom or formal events. Basically, ANYWHERE Men and Women get together, there will you also find GAME. Additionally, the idea that Game is designed only as a short term mating strategy is immensely misinformed and shortsighted-Game can be applied to both, a one night stand, and to a marriage, or anything in between. Game can be used to win the affection of one Woman, or a thousand. Nor does one with Game have to actually bed any Woman AT ALL-all of these things are purely up to the Man in question, as to which way he will go. And that, is the true Power of Game-it gives a Man options.

That so many Women are so very concerned about the blatherings of weird guys with funny names in our time – a time where Women enjoy an unprecedented level of advance, freedom, opportunity and largesse – is proof if there ever was any, that Game does indeed WORK. The very fact that Women from Lady Raine to Susan Walsh and now Denise Romano, make such a stink about it all, is again proof positive, that despite all the protestations and denunciations and denials to the contrary, that Game is indeed, highly effective. Understandably then, they would be concerned about the way in which it is applied by its practitioners, and to what ends.

It is important for these ladies to understand that, like any discipline or field of endeavor, there will invariably be many approaches, understandings and stances by many corners of said community; it is not at all unusual to find multiple, seemingly conflicting interpretations of things such as, say, the “Neg” is and how it is to be applied. For example, some say that Negs are indispensable to any seduction; others argue that it plays at best, a tangential role. Some say that Negs are to be employed in “carpet bombing” fashion regardless as to the Target is, others say that Negs should be “calibrated’ for use depending on how “hot” the Target is-the hotter she is, the more you Neg her. Those who attempt to diminish the whole of Game, are akin to those who attempt to diminish the whole of ANY field of endeavor, because within each one is bound to find differing takes on core or key tenets and ideas or principles. Such critics shouldn’t see this as a weakness or failing of Game, but indeed a strength, just as we would say, Psychology, and its many differing takes and “squabbles”, LOL. Viva La Difference, indeed!

Now – with all the above being said and laid out – it is also important to let Ms. Romano and every other person, Male or Female, reading this, know that YES, there are what I consider to be “Dark Forces” in the Game; who twist and pervert it to their own ends, and has the potential to really damage many lives with their “Black” Arts. For my part, I and others whom I consider good friends, do what we can to act as a kind of check on said behaviors, by speaking out against them and their kind. For example, I liken NLP to Sith Magic, effective and highly seductive, but deeply morally unethical and potentially soul-killing, for both parties involved. While I respect Tyler Durden’s knowledge of Game, I refuse to use much of what he’s gleaned, because I so thoroughly disagree with his philosophical stances and just overall “vibe”. He creeps me out, quite frankly. And, as much as I respect Roissy’s deep knowledge of Game, I also deeply disagree with his application in many instances, as well as the overall vibe of his “house,” which explains why few if any people have seen me posting there after my own blog launched, nearly three months ago.

While I’m on the topic of Roissy, let me also say, that in many ways, his presence on the Internet is both a triumph and a curse. He is a triumph in the sense that Game has real utility and, quite frankly, power, to change things. His promotion of Game has touched many lives, mine included, and I would to think, at least in my case, for the better.

But he is also a curse, in the sense that because of the way in which he blends his personal views on many topics in with Game itself, people on the outside looking in get the impression that HIS TAKE ON GAME IS “THE” TAKE ON GAME, and that’s where they would be sorely mistaken, but by then the damage is done. Women, such as Susan Walsh and Denise Romano, are convinced, based on Roissy and a few others like him, that Game is no good, that it is inherently misogynistic, and that it is also deliberately deceptive and manipulative. That Roissy attracts so much attention to Game on the one hand, yet so much negative publicity for it on the other, is truly sad. It’s sad because Game itself has a much harder time getting a fair hearing. I’ve taken it on as my own personal mission to do what I can to present Game in its best light, since it’s been so good to me in meeting my goals in life. The record clearly shows me not only speaking out against what I consider “Sith” applications of Game no matter who does it, but I have also opposed Roissy himself publicly on a host of issues, both on his actual blog and here at my own, and will do so again if the need arises. Let me be clear here: Roissy’s understanding of Game is not and cannot be in dispute; it is his application of Game, his undergirding philosophy, that IS in dispute, and that which I take deep issue with. This is the key distinction that I think is lost on many of his critics, many of whom refuse to properly acquaint themselves with key Game source materials, most notably Style’s works.

I would also like to address Ms. Romano’s charges that to be a Gamesman is to be an abuser-something I take great umbrage with, for a number of reasons. First, despite the presence of Men like Roissy, there has been no reports of Women being abused, and by that I mean, physically abused by PUAs. By the way, Roissy does NOT consider himself a PUA, he’s said so himself. Just wanted to be clear on that point. Moreover, as one who has put his livelihood and very life on the line to protect Women from abuse, I find Ms. Romano’s slinging out the term “abuse” to BE abusive, and a most disturbing trend in the popular culture of late-merely call anything you have a personal issue with or otherwise don’t like, “abusive”, “misogynistic”, “racist”, “homophobic” and so on. Such abuses of truly powerful terms cheapens their meaning, makes REAL instances of such abuses seem trivial, and makes the whole exercise a joke and a laughingstock, while at the same time throwing the true victims of such practices under the bus. One would think that a Woman of Ms. Romano’s statue would be a bit more deliberative with her language, especially the written word.

I also find it most interesting — aw heck, I’m just gonna call it what it is: it is hypocritical of Ms. Romano to, on the one hand, deride those in the Game community who sell their wares to customers as snake-oil salesmen, to then turn around and implore Men to instead spend some $250 on “NVC” training. Mind you, I’m not yet in a position to say whether NVC is worth its weight in gold or lead — just that I find it interesting that she wants to shut down one aspect of commerce in favor of another. Hmm.

Then there’s Ms. Romano’s seeming indifference, or intellectual dishonesty when it comes to the full range of “abuse”, indeed violence. Her Aug 1 2009 post was terribly one-sided in its view of the situation: Women are victims, Men victimizers. And while no one would deny that Woman are indeed abused and victimized, it seems incredibly hard for Women to even acknowledge that the same can happen to Men, too-even when the stats back this up. For more on the spousal abuse side of it, please see such authorities on the matter as Glenn Sacks, a Men’s Rights Advocate who has long been known to have his facts straight, just to name but one person in the fight. According to him, nearly half of ALL domestic partner violence, was initiated by the Woman. And, as if to bring heaven sent proof of this fact, we need no other than one Mr. Tiger Woods, who, on Thanksgiving Day, was clocked upside the head with one of his own golf clubs by his wife, Mrs. Elin Woods. To be sure, no one I personally know – and definitely not me personally – defends Mr. Woods’ actions. But that doesn’t give Ms. Elin Woods the right to physically abuse her husband.

Now, where is the intellectual consistency on Ms. Romano’s part here? Hmm? To ask the question is to answer it. If she can take time out of her schedule to write a lengthy hit piece on Game and PUAs and MRAs, if she can find time to log her comments in to anti-Roissy blogs about same, then why can’t she find the time to speak out against what Elin Woods did? Hmm? And why is that NO MAJOR FEMINIST WEBSITE TO DATE, has done so either? If anything, it’s the exact opposite, a kind of “You Go Girl!” sentiment, not tacitly expressed, by EXPLICITY expressed. If Ms. Romano is truly interested in the fairness she exhorts PUAs to exhibit with regard to Men and Women, one would think she could start in her own backyard. After all, charity begins at home.

What about Mary Winkler-who shot her hubbie in the back with a shotgun, while he was sleeping? The only “proof” we have that she was “abused” comes from Mrs. Winkler herself – there was no independent record of spousal abuse on Rev. Winkler’s part, and to add insult to injury, Mrs. Winkler was even feted on Oprah – white platform shoes and all, to tell her story. No one was there to speak for Rev. Winkler. Dead Men tell no tales.

I saw no such denunciation of Mrs Winkler on Ms. Romano’s or quite frankly, any other Woman’s site who claims to care about “domestic abuse”. Seems that they care about it only when it involves Women on the receiving end.

Last month, in specific response to my lady readers, I put up a post taking up the question as to whether Game was inherently deceptive and manipulative. Without exception, excuse or apology, I said that YES, Game can indeed be used this way, that there is a contingent of the Game community who does this, and that I neither condoned or endorsed it, nor did I want to be associated with anyone who was known to be engaging in such activity. Then I asked the Women who claimed to be so concerned about the ethics of the Men in the Game community, about the many deeply deceptive and manipulative things Women do, and have done, for YEARS. I invite Ms. Romano or anyone else reading this open letter to see my post for themselves, it’s in the Dec 2009 archive and very easy to find. The replies I got back from the majority of Women – notable exceptions aside – were, in a word, mind boggling. Some actually wanted to justify the heinous actions I pointed out that Women undertook; others wanted to actually put up for debate other things Women have long done that are misrepresentations of themselves, if not out and out deceit. Finally, in a followup post I put up directed at the ladies of my forum, also found in the Dec 2009 archives, I questioned them as to why we never see those issues addressed on so many Women’s blogs and websites. The responses were again mind-boggling — if not quite deceitful in themselves.

It all adds up to a feeling on the part of many Men, of a very real double-standard: Women want Men to be held accountable, but they don’t want to be held accountable themselves. Women have no problem using every advantage they can get out there on the Mating Grounds, but deplore anything that might help Men get an advantage, too. Women want Men to speak out against their own who do wrong, but Women can never seem to be found when time comes to speak out against a Elin Woods, a Mary Winkler, a Crystal Gale Mangum, to say nothing about the many scores of Women who take advantage of Men every way till the next Xmas. Women want Men to take the high road, but don’t seem to have trouble at the very least, condoning the low behavior of so many of their “sisters”.

That Ms. Romano makes outrageous claims against Game, indicts someone like Style and lumps him in with known and documented spousal abusers, rapists and murderers, asserts that ALL PUAs are “abusers of Women” and then falls completely silent on the well known and publicized events of clear, present and REAL abuse perpetrated by the Women above, someone who’s LIFE WORK is to advocate for victims of violence and abuse, really says it all to me, and to any thinking, caring person who gives a damn about fairness, decency, and just plain ole getting the facts straight. If this is the best our Academy can do, it is little wonder we as a society are in the mess we’re in after all.

I’ll say this in closing, and it behooves Women like Ms. Romano to listen close: your “war” against Roissy, Savoy and others, will not succeed. It won’t because not only are your motives wrong, but so to are your own convictions. So long as Women like you refuse to remove the 2×4 out of your own eyes before you go to plunking splinters out of the eyes of Men like Roissy and Savoy, your effort will fall flat on its face. More and more Men aren’t flocking to these guys for nothing, Ms. Romano — there’s definitely something there. And so long as you and others like you refuse to address the root causes of why the Roissys exist in the first place, all you’ll be doing is standing in the middle of a sinking boat, trying to prevent it from going under by tossing overboard bucketfuls of water.

That’s it. If you want to talk, you know where to find me.

Thanks for listening.

The Obsidian

{ 311 comments… read them below or add one }

Ray January 5, 2010 at 11:18

You must have been typing this page very quickly as I wasn’t able to reach your website from the links…
it’s

Thanks for a very good reply to that person.

You’ll never hear a response from her…!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ray January 5, 2010 at 11:19

Sorry, it’s
http://theobsidianfiles.wordpress.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 5, 2010 at 11:22

Stupenderificent!

May your words provoke a reaction.

I grow impatient for the coming war.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Talleyrand January 5, 2010 at 11:25

Why is “Women” capitalized?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 5, 2010 at 11:31

You must have been typing this page very quickly as I wasn’t able to reach your website from the links…

it’s

Thanks for a very good reply to that person.

You’ll never hear a response from her…!

-Ray

My mistake — I put in the links. It’s fixed now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 5, 2010 at 11:33

Engaging, or expecting a woman to engage intellectually, was about the the only issue I had with this article.

The “is there a female brain?” article reinforces that doing so is futile, esp wrt Game. You’re going to see Game in black/white and they’re going to see it in lavender/turquoise while attaching their feelings to it. Good luck sir, good luck.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3
Bob January 5, 2010 at 11:33

Women like Ms. Romano will eventually see the light. Some will actually do their research, but draw the same conclusions due to bias or fear. Others will just accept that they can be Gamed.

But no amount of logic will sway them, whatever their degrees. They’ll change when *other women* start looking down on these attitudes. All we have to do is find the exceptional ones and convince them of the foibles of their gender.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 5, 2010 at 11:38

goddamn O, that’s actually some good shit.

go GET them bitches

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Kulak January 5, 2010 at 11:40

“You’ll never hear a response from her…!”

Don’t be so sure about that, since she (Romano) is making the rounds on sites like these -

~ http://therawness.com/precious-review-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-4084

~ http://therealsavoy.blogspot.com/2009/12/letters-from-crazy-people.html

~ http://therealsavoy.blogspot.com/2009/12/crazy-lady-returns.html

Beware though, a lot of cutting-and-pasting articles comparing PUA’s to (if you can believe this) ‘street gangs’ and ‘hate criminals’?!?

*She even wants Roissy arrested on ‘hate’ charges?!?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 5, 2010 at 11:45

“”You’re going to see Game in black/white and they’re going to see it in lavender/turquoise while attaching their feelings to it. Good luck sir, good luck.””

Very funny! I would say we see in black/white/and gray, while women see in lavender/turquoise/ and pokey-dots.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 5, 2010 at 11:53

“She even wants Roissy arrested on ‘hate’ charges?!?”

Such as here (among MANY other places) -

http://ladyraine.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/exposed-roissy-in-dc/#comment-1686

*350+ comments and growing…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 5, 2010 at 12:03

Free Speech for Me
But NOT
for thee

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DF January 5, 2010 at 12:03

I don’t have the time or inclination to engage in a debate with Romano. I sifted through her site several days ago and found it appalling. I was particularly thrown back by the PUAs/MRAs are “hate groups” equivalent to the KKK with all PUAs/MRAs neatly clumped together for convenience.

There is such a complete lack of academic rigour on her part that I’m almost ashamed to say I graduated from the same institution. The degrees don’t impress me and neither does her work. I would summarize her work as unintelligent, misinformed, and irresponsible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
z January 5, 2010 at 12:06

Yelling at the wife to be illegal in France?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html

What do you think of them apples Welmer?
_____________________________________________

Obsidian,
Ms. Romano is one of those women who no doubt believe that if plus-sized models and actresses were just portrayed as sexy and “in-demand” socially, then men would cease being sexually “prejudicial” towards big-girls and suddenly women who were 20-35 lbs. overweight would be getting dates with the hunkiest guys out there. Then in the next breath Ms Romano would deny that men who can successfully portray themselves as socially in-demand would have any increased success at all in having the ladies find them attractive enough to get a phone number.

“There are none who are so blind as those who will not see”, right?

I hope Ms. Romano gets gamed to the nth power by some PUA out there somewhere, who reveals to her in a how he ran straight Mystery Method on her, and how she fell for it like an egg from a tall chicken. Double points if her to happily do some very kinky stuff that she is ashamed of doing later, especially if this involves handcuffs and buttplugs, etc.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Patr333x January 5, 2010 at 12:07

I’m familiar with her comments on another blog, where she does refer to “hate-crimes” from the Roissy author. In my opinion, she doesn’t want to see another side. Women like her are trying to fan flames so they can interfere with male blogs, etc.
While the content of different male and PUA blogs differs, with different degrees of negativity, I think the real problem many women have is with what men may learn from those sites; they don’t like the idea of men that might otherwise be used getting information about the reality of how many women really think of men.
Let’s face it, women want the men at the top and that is where they focus their attention. If lower-ranked men use what they learn to raise their own profile, women don’t know which men to reject outright; women wish to gain by acquiescing to the “right” men, if they can’t tell one from another they may end up with a smaller payout.
Women also compete with other women. If a rejected man raises his status and finds someone, he is likely to share resources with her and not those who rejected him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 5, 2010 at 12:12

Yelling at the wife to be illegal in France?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240770/France-introduce-new-law-banning-psychological-violence-marriages.html

What do you think of them apples Welmer?

-z

I’m on it, Z.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon January 5, 2010 at 12:26

I disagree with Patr333x as to the source of their hatred toward game.

In a rational world, women would like game, in that it makes more men attactive, so there should be less competition among women for attractive men. In other words, if there are more sellers of an attractive package, it would become more of a buyer’s market.

But, to accept game would mean for them to accept some of the theories of female attraction switches which, let’s face it, run pretty contrary to most feminist theory and would require a degree of introspection among these women of which they are not capable. It requires them to accept the differences between what their frontal lobes rationally should want (and probably do want) and what the more primitive regions of their brains crave.

Some women are cool with it (much like men are cool with the notion that, even if it doesn’t make sense for us to respond to breasts in a pavlovian way, we are who we are). But others clearly are not. These critics constantly say things like “I don’t want xyz, I want a man that does abc”. They just don’t get that what they “want”, in the frontal lobe sense, is not the same as what they respond to. Of course, as always, this is more true of some women than others. Ms. Romano is an extreme example of someone who is incapable of reexamining her base assumptions. She also seems to be more than a little nutty and obsessed. I really don’t think it’s at all fair to lump someone like Susan Walsh in with her. From what I’ve read of her blog, she has evolved her thinking on these things in response to some of the discussions, even if she orginally does not agree with a point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 5, 2010 at 12:27

“I hope Ms. Romano gets gamed to the nth power by some PUA out there somewhere…”

Eh, (no offense to Mz. Romano) but have you seen her before???

http://www.loveandworkcoach.com/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Omega Man January 5, 2010 at 12:27

(Groan) How decayed is our culture that this is even an issue? “Game” does not exist. “Game” is simply common sense about the kind of behavior that women, and for that matter people in general, respond positively to. Even feminists love “game”, so why they don’t encourage men to do this is a mystery. Arguing with people like this is a waste of time. The only that makes any sense at all is “Nobody can make you like them. If you don’t like this kind of behavior, shun the men who engage in it. If you think other women should not like it, explain to them why and train them not to.”

Susan Walsh is at least doing this, all the others are just whining.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 5, 2010 at 13:07

Game…

1/ recently some people may have codified it into books / dvds / websites, but none of them invented it.

2/ game is in fact lying, only a hypocrite will claim anything else.

3/ non game is not making any conscious choice about your words or actions, eg word association type reflex.

4/ I have done game, always as part of a shits and giggles thing with other guys, they get together and pick the target, you get deployed. The object of course is to pick the non pick up able, not the fattest or ugliest.

5/ My success rate using what is now called game was a solid 100%

6/ None of them was a memorable or worthwhile fuck.

7/ shits and giggles aside, I was just me, success rate was also 100%, the difference being the selection was as automatic and reflexive as the words spoken and actions etc.

(as an addendum, I have gone from eyes meeting across a bar to cock up the slit 5 minutes later in the toilets, not having said a single word, more than once)

8/ most of them were a decent fuck, the vast majority called me for day 2

my take on this.

a/ the “gamed” fucks were substandard because the whole thing was after all based on lies.

b/ the non gamed fucks were great because the whole thing was based on a million years of instincts.

c/ most gamers are having better success WITH game than WITHOUT game for one major reason, without game they are STILL lying, NOT just reflex, and basically manage to do what 99% of men do 99% of the time, which is talk themselves OUT of a fuck.

d/ the problem is not lack of game, or gaming skills, the problem is a faulty and false set of beliefs, that lead you to think you need to be anything at all in order to get laid.

e/ the proverbial “bad guys” who get all the chicks (holds hand up) don’t game brother, we just don’t have a faulty and false sense of beliefs.

f/ there are more women out there than you can ever fuck, it is not a podium contest, there is no such thing as last place.

g/ a proportion of women have great bodies, and so so faces

h/ a smaller proportion of women have great faces, and so so bodies

i/ a smaller still proportion of women have both

j/ g, h, & i don’t mean shit, and the same goes for you

k/ I’m not good looking, rich, any of that crap, “what the fuck is she doing with YOU?” should give you an idea, I’ve heard that more times than I can count.

l/ game and reflex / million years of instinct are two mutually exclusive opposites, game is the big head thinking for the little head, game is like your uncle choosing your dates, sure, it is better than nothing, but there is no reason on earth to have nothing, except belief in faulty and false “facts” that are in fact complete fantasy.

m/ every man using game that I have ever met falls into the same trap, the little head is in charge of the attraction, the big head is in charge of the mouth.

n/ every man that I have ever met, whether he used game or not, who asked me to show him how to get laid, was instantly successful, “just be yourself jack, and fuck em if they can’t handle it, another one will be along in 5 seconds” and that’s a fact.

o/ every man above actually achieved success when he started believing “just be yourself jack” and stopped believing faulty and false facts.

p/ “be yourself” means exactly that, the million year old caveman, not “be who you wish you were” or “be who you think they want you to be” or “be who you admire” or anything else, it means be yourself, the real you, the person that lives inside your head, jack.

q/ if a man, ANY man, can put up with your company, you’re a winner, women will stick around men that other men won’t. Gospel.

r/ start being fucking honest here, Richard Pryor word association, what’s the first thing that pops into your head? pussy!

s/ all that other shit about friends and partners and other halfs, that stuff is those faulty and false beliefs you have time to indulge in when you aren’t balls deep in some pussy.

t/ one you realise that the only thing more common place and in greater supply than pussy is oxygen, you’ll stop sweating all this stuff when you don’t happen to be in some… for christs sakes, you don’t walk around wondering where you are going to draw a breath of oxygen at 03:54:22 tomorrow….

and finally…. especially for the young men out there that worry about such things.

q/ you know if you take a stick and poke a hole in the ground?

you ever see that hole wear out?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie January 5, 2010 at 13:11

“But, to accept game would mean for them to accept some of the theories of female attraction switches which, let’s face it, run pretty contrary to most feminist theory and would require a degree of introspection among these women of which they are not capable. It requires them to accept the differences between what their frontal lobes rationally should want (and probably do want) and what the more primitive regions of their brains crave.”

Women say they want healthy food, they cognitively believe they want healthy food because it it good for you, but they actually crave junk food, and don’t have to willpower to resist it. Then they get mad at healthy food because it sees that all the women are actually eating junk food and it decides to become more like junk food. What women really want is healthy junk food.

Well, I want a job that I really enjoy and pays me extremely well, with Fridays off and half-day Mondays.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros2010 January 5, 2010 at 13:13

Being highly educated doesn’t make you necessarily that smart or able to tackle all topics impassionately. The points made in the post are of course all valid, but ill-informed crusaders seem to be a relatively common occurrence, and moral panics happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 5, 2010 at 13:17

How does game equate to lying?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 5, 2010 at 13:26

Mr.M January 5, 2010 at 13:17

How does game equate to lying?

Simple, game means you select your words and actions in order to create an intended effect.

Since you are SELECTING OPTIONS, BASED ON PROJECTED OUTCOME, you are goal seeking, and therefore lying.

here’s the hypocrite test, turn it around…

so, there is this girl, sat opposite you, she is goal seeking (choose anything you like, drink, job, new washer, car, etc) and so she selects her next words to you, to further that goal.

Would you describe this as an HONEST girl?

Will it fill you with desire?

——————–

here is what works…

be yourself, you haven’t driven her away, cool…

You say, “So, do you fancy a fuck then?”

98% of them will say “No”, doesn’t matter what words they use, that is what it boils down to.

you say “Why not? I’m being serious, genuine question, why not”

90% of them can’t give you a good answer, and fuck you

the ones who give you a good answer, they are on lay away, move on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
piercedhead January 5, 2010 at 13:28

Maybe Ms Romano’s problem isn’t so much with Game, but with its core assertion that women are psychologically different, and respond to things in different ways to men. One needs to know nothing more than this about Game to recognize that it is a dagger in the heart of feminist theory, which contends we are all alike if only society could be bent enough to have us all treated alike.

As for the unreasonableness, sounds like Ms. Romano is taking a leaf out of the recently deceased Mary Daly’s book. Daly’s credo was to be as outrageous and unscrupulous in pursuit of women’s interests as one could get away with. Corporate ethics meets Feminist sensibilities. For her, there was nothing wrong with accepting the assistance of men colleagues to argue for and grant her tenure at a university, then refuse to accept men in any of her classes.

We are the Enemy. No prisoners shall be taken. Reason can only be expected from those one deals with in good faith. Ms. Romano wants war.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
whiskey January 5, 2010 at 13:40

Women’s real issue with Game is that it might “trick” a number of women, including themselves, to sleep with Joe Average thinking he’s Mr. Big from Sex and the City.

That is the sum total of their objections. They are afraid it works, and might work on them. Making a number of men “counterfeit Alphas” instead of the real, “Situation” from Jersey Shore, deal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 5, 2010 at 13:42

@AFOR-

You sound slightly sociopathic, and I don’t mean that as an insult. Sociopaths do quite well in our society. A sociopath can have a strong moral or ethical code, sometimes applied much more stringently than most. Sociopathy does not necessarily result in evil. It depends on their environment and their development. It often just leads to a-moralness. Some historical heros have probably been sociopaths. Some defenders of truth and freedom probably have.

Do you have a high threshold for stress and fear? Do you empathise much? When you see someone crying or mad or scared, do you actually have a tinge of an emotionaly response that mirrors that of what you see? Are you easily bored?

I’m interested. I don’t suppress that, even if it might offend. Most mental attributes are on a spectrum. Someone is not either a sociopath or not, they fall somewhere on a continuim.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 5, 2010 at 13:48

Afor –

I more or less view game as a way of thinking; a de-pedestalization of women, and a pretty concise way of illustrating the fallacies of the “fairer” sex not commonly discussed. Also, as a reminder to men to be masculine (as opposed to supplicating). I suppose “my” definition revolves more around the “natural game” thought or theory, which IMO, is just another reminder to be masculine.

I don’t go to bars and pick up random bitches though – not really my goal. So maybe that isn’t “game” in your eyes.

Maybe the “darker” side of game that Obs mentioned in his article is the lying aspect of it and to which you refer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 5, 2010 at 14:19

@ jabberwockie

sociopathic? me? no, gets asked a lot though, as does teutonic etc etc…

I’ve got empathy, I have yes, and pathos, and ethos/ethics, yadda yadda.

*nothing* in what I said implies or requires otherwise.

what I do have is the awareness that 99% of “personality” is fake bullshit. it is a mechanism like the dermis, it is not something worthy above and beyond its own remit, there is no Holy and Immortal Soul.

Turn the electricity off for 72 hours, then come back and talk to me about psychopaths and empathy and people crying…

you’re doing the monkey thing.

me good
psycho bad
me not psycho
him not like me
him psycho?

you’re intellectualising something that neither requires it nor benefits from it.

fuck / shit / piss

no brains required.

be the monkey

hmm, feel gooood!

why is that unsatisfactory?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 5, 2010 at 14:25

Mr M

-I- don’t go to bars and pick up random bitches either.

this is animal magnetism dude, no more and no less, it works at a bus stop same as a bar.

for fuck’s sake

you walk past a restaurant, smell something delicious, go in, order it, eat it, yum yum…

do you also denigrate that about stuffing your face with some random protoplasm just because you did not offer up prayers to the spirit world for the beefsteak?

Y’all would get a LOT more sex with about 50 less IQ points.

***or*** the ability to just stop analysing shit 24/7

sometimes, shit is just shit. it doesn’t have a higher meaning..

we are not all precious snowflakes, seeking matching fractal edges in another elusive snowflake.

we are just DNA’s way of making more DNA.

you wanna get lots of good sex, stop cock blocking your own DNA

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious January 5, 2010 at 14:52

@Anon
Some women are cool with it (much like men are cool with the notion that, even if it doesn’t make sense for us to respond to breasts in a pavlovian way, we are who we are).

I was thinking of the cleavage parallel as well. I guess it just depends how aware you are of the emotional buttons that others can play. I think if they really hated the game they would study it and learn how to “resist” (no better word) when they are being played. The fact that they choose not to leaves them an opportunity to go through the drama and at the end get what they want without feeling guilty for it.

That is not to say that there are no dark sides to the game. I see it as treating others as objects, but I guess that is what manipulation is and both sexes are guilty of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 5, 2010 at 15:05

Hey, Obsidian! Going to head over to your blog again tonight.

Anyway, I finally read The Game. Pretty much as I expected. The best resistance: keep your legs closed. Worked for me.

I’m against PUA activities though, because I believe that fornication of any kind is a sin. Whenever I read about a woman complaining about Game tactics and being “tricked into sex”, I just shake my head. Why is she having sex with anyone who is not her husband? Am I supposed to feel sorry for her? Do you think they’d be going online to complain that their husbands had tricked them into bed? Probably not.

Caveat emptor. People need to take responsibility for their actions. You play with fire and you might get burned. Even my toddler can tell you that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 5, 2010 at 15:36

Afor –

That’s cool and all man (your little rant about DNA) – still doesn’t explain how game is lying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 5, 2010 at 15:42

Afor –

Or are you gonna state something, have someone ask to clarify, then say its stupid to think about things?

Ah who cares – DNA 4 LIFE.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 5, 2010 at 15:52

Mr m
I answered you, the hypocrisy check.

if the chick games YOU for an engagement ring, do you think she is being honest?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 5, 2010 at 15:59

Afor –

Hm. I suppose. I get your point: that only things directly stated can be considered truth (ie: want to fuck? why not?), whereas anything otherwise is considered lying.

No point arguing opinion, but I do see where you’re coming from.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 5, 2010 at 16:11

I say 90% chance of no response.

She doesn’t want to be held accountable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 5, 2010 at 16:29

Whiskey wrote :

Women’s real issue with Game is that it might “trick” a number of women, including themselves, to sleep with Joe Average thinking he’s Mr. Big from Sex and the City.

Even simpler, it will ‘trick’ them into being attracted to someone with no money, OR keep a man with money from wasting it on HER.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gwallan January 5, 2010 at 16:49

I have contributed on the unmentionables Roissy thread. Unfortunately the cowardly bint has banned me disallowing me the opportunity to deal with Ms Romano. I will leave it here so a record does exist…

Ms Romano,

You claim to have “successfully” counselled male victims. Ask yourself why it might be that a male victim of sexual abuse would find it impossible to intersect with what Katz is pushing with your support.

It’s a very, very simple answer.

Now this…

For Gwallan and anyone else who will find this info useful:

resources for male survivors of abuse:

http://www.gmdvp.org – Gay Men’s DV Project
http://www.malesurvivor.org – Support and advocacy for male survivors of child sexual abuse.
http://www.barcc.org – Boston Area Rape Crisis Center

Here you have made about the worst mistake you could make with a male victim. In fact it is seriously offensive. Do you know why?

Question for you: if there was a woman with a blog and she wrote the very same things about men and boys that roissy writes about women and girls, would she be a misandrist?
Would she be inciting violence against men and boys?
Would she be inciting pedophilia?
Would you want her in prison?

YES, YES, YES, and YES.

What do you mean “if”?

You are very presumptuous. I would suggest you look up Butterfly Kisses. I reported this paedophile web site to Interpol and the FBI some six years ago. They did nothing. The site went underground after it was outed by an Australian mens rights activist about two years ago.

Furthermore I have been ridiculed, attacked, hated for the crime of speaking out as a male victim. By women as well as men AND the women are far worse. I have been banned by feminist websites after incredible expressions of hatred including accusations that I am a paedophile hiding my criminality under a veneer of advocacy. For admitting to being a victim!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gwallan January 5, 2010 at 16:57

I have contributed to the “exposing roissy” thread in particular to take on Ms Romano and her misunderstandings.

Now I’m banned giving me no opportunity to respond to questions put to me by Ms Romano.

I will leave that response here so as to ensure a permanent record…

Ms Romano,

You claim to have “successfully” counselled male victims. Ask yourself why it might be that a male victim of sexual abuse would find it impossible to intersect with what Katz is pushing with your support.

It’s a very, very simple answer.

Now this…

For Gwallan and anyone else who will find this info useful:

resources for male survivors of abuse:

http://www.gmdvp.org – Gay Men’s DV Project
http://www.malesurvivor.org – Support and advocacy for male survivors of child sexual abuse.
http://www.barcc.org – Boston Area Rape Crisis Center

Here you have made about the worst mistake you could make with a male victim. In fact it is seriously offensive. Do you know why?

Question for you: if there was a woman with a blog and she wrote the very same things about men and boys that roissy writes about women and girls, would she be a misandrist?
Would she be inciting violence against men and boys?
Would she be inciting pedophilia?
Would you want her in prison?

YES, YES, YES, and YES.

What do you mean “if”?

You are very presumptuous. I would suggest you look up Butterfly Kisses. I reported this paedophile web site to Interpol and the FBI some six years ago. They did nothing. The site went underground after it was outed by an Australian mens rights activist about two years ago.

Furthermore I have been ridiculed, attacked, hated for the crime of speaking out as a male victim. By women as well as men AND the women are far worse. I have been banned by feminist websites after incredible expressions of hatred including accusations that I am a paedophile hiding my criminality under a veneer of advocacy. For admitting to being a victim!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gwallan January 5, 2010 at 16:58

Great. Now I can’t post here either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Faolán January 5, 2010 at 17:19

Game is as much an act of lying for a man as wearing a pushup bra and heels is for a woman.

The intellectual dishonesty of criticizing a movement without reading some of its core texts is astounding. I’d expect this from some kid with a keyboard who just read Dawkins, but not from an academic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 5, 2010 at 17:37

I’d expect this from some kid with a keyboard who just read Dawkins, but not from an academic.

Au contraire…this is PRECISELY the sort of thing I expect from an “academic.”

Schools are no longer about education, but indoctrination, credentialism, and networking for future graft and nepotism opportunities.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous January 5, 2010 at 17:59

Roissy is right and that woman doesn’t matter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 5, 2010 at 18:09

I doubt she’s going to come over here and reply – too bad.

On a related note, her and Lady Raine are buddies now. Birds of a feather…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cannon's Canon January 5, 2010 at 18:12

when you link to lady raine, god kills a baby kitten

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
too late for romance January 5, 2010 at 18:41

Dude they can say whatever they want regardless of whether it is nonsensical or rational.

The bottom line is that the only reason they are able to speak freely and not, say, get raped every hour of every day, is because they are protected by men they do not know who will ultimately kill for their safety.

This situation, much like the US federal government’s insane monetary, fiscal, foreign, and domestic policies, will work itself out one way or another. It will either end with women back in their traditional and, in my opinion, biologically determined roles through peaceful means or violent means. Namely as in men will either be incentivized or disincentivized to protect women who are not kin to them or fucking them. It’s just that simple.

Frankly at this point I don’t give a shit which one happens so long as I get mine. I could go either way and I am not kidding.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 5, 2010 at 18:42

I have learned a lot from reading about “game” but I am not a “player”. I have only had sex with two women in my entire life, and I now only have sex with my wife. All I have wanted from game is to improve my marriage, get my wife to calm down, and have peace reign in the home. So far, it has worked brilliantly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 5, 2010 at 18:59

“Women’s real issue with Game is that it might “trick” a number of women, including themselves, to sleep with Joe Average thinking he’s Mr. Big from Sex and the City.

“That is the sum total of their objections. They are afraid it works, and might work on them. Making a number of men “counterfeit Alphas” instead of the real, “Situation” from Jersey Shore, deal.”
__

As always, another out-of-the-park home run with our friend Whiskey!

“counterfeit Alphas”… LMFAO :)

*Update your blog man… I miss your commentary on the issues of the day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Reinholt January 5, 2010 at 20:03

Everyone lies. Especially women.

Get over it. If you aren’t lying, you are a sucker.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith January 5, 2010 at 20:43

I’m not good looking, rich, any of that crap, “what the fuck is she doing with YOU?” should give you an idea, I’ve heard that more times than I can count.

I’m curious what you mean by “not good looking”. Mere average looks isn’t necessarily a sin where women are concerned, though of course they respond to good looks just like men do. There are, however, a number of much more serious sins in the “not good looking” category:

1) Looking like Festus on Gunsmoke, or Eli Wallach
2) Obesity. I don’t mean just a little bit of belly fat.
3) Disfigurement or permanent injury
4) Being short
5) Bearing visible (but obviously not communicable) disease. ALS or Parkinson’s, anyone?

Remember that one of the premises of Game is that there is no “special somebody”. Game would be worthless if only that “special somebody” would respond to it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX January 5, 2010 at 21:46

I think that the main problem that women have with game is that they each want to believe that they are a “special” and unique flower that all of the bees want to hover around.

It destroys her uniqueness when it is shown that she is just another pistil that the drones are dropping pollen into.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HughRistik January 6, 2010 at 00:01

Obsidian, I’m glad you made this post.

I’ve been having a discussion with Denise Romano over at her blog. here is my initial critique of her views.

She strikes me as being very well-intentioned, but also misguided. Her understanding of the seduction community is badly skewed and seems focused on finding the negative. She shows no evidence of comprehensive research into the community that would support her claims, and she over-relies on her own anecdotal experience and preferences with men, which are surprising given her background of graduate work.

Romano places an undue focus on Roissy. While popular in the blogosphere, he is not an important figure in the seduction community, and anyone who thinks he is really isn’t up to speed. Sure, his blog is funny, but the good stuff on it isn’t anything that hasn’t already been said in 2003. I can’t understand why some who is pro-Western civilization would engage in fundamentally uncivilized behavior like hitting women, and then making excuses saying she “deserved it” (outside a situation of self-defense or defense of another, of course). He also posts photos of underaged girls on his blog without permission. I’ve asked him to clarify and explain his views in the past, and also more recently in a post he is too cowardly to let through his moderation filter. This behavior only makes him and other students of game look bad to those not familiar with the community.

I don’t have a problem with Romano asking if people disagree with Roissy, and to criticize him if we do, though I would rather she put it more as a request, and less of a demand. Goodness knows, I’ve been trying for years to convince the more moderate feminists out there that it’s a good idea to criticize misandrist feminists like Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Daly; it’s like pulling teeth.

Romano claims that what PUAs say about women’s preferences is wrong every time, yet this claim requires dismissing many men’s experiences, in addition to being at odds with current research on women’s preferences. The view of women’s preferences in the seduction community is somewhat oversimplified and lacking, but it is consistent with a lot of the current research in psychology. See this article on the question of whether “nice guys finish last” or not, and I summarize a bunch of studies here.

Virtually none of this research has been discussed in the seduction community, so I think it’s fair to say that some PUAs making claims about women’s preferences are being overly theoretical and don’t offer empirical support. But it does turn out that there is empirical support in the psychological literature for some of the things PUAs are saying. It’s going to take years for researchers to get anywhere near untangling female preferences, if ever, and many research studies are done in controlled conditions and may not generalize to real life. We must act based on our present hypothesizes about women’s preferences, even though we might be forced to discard them or modify them with later field experience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HughRistik January 6, 2010 at 00:03

Obsidian, I’m glad you made this post.

I’ve been having a discussion with Denise Romano over at her blog. Here is my initial critique of her views.

She strikes me as being very well-intentioned, but also misguided. Her understanding of the seduction community is badly skewed and seems focused on finding the negative. She shows no evidence of comprehensive research into the community that would support her claims, and she over-relies on her own anecdotal experience and preferences with men, which are surprising given her background of graduate work.

Romano places an undue focus on Roissy. While popular in the blogosphere, he is not an important figure in the seduction community, and anyone who thinks he is really isn’t up to speed. Sure, his blog is funny, but the good stuff on it isn’t anything that hasn’t already been said in 2003. I can’t understand why some who is pro-Western civilization would engage in fundamentally uncivilized behavior like hitting women, and then making excuses saying she “deserved it” (outside a situation of self-defense or defense of another, of course). He also posts photos of underaged girls on his blog without permission. I’ve asked him to clarify and explain his views in the past, and also more recently in a post he is too cowardly to let through his moderation filter. This behavior only makes him and other students of game look bad to those not familiar with the community.

I don’t have a problem with Romano asking if people disagree with Roissy, and to criticize him if we do, though I would rather she put it more as a request, and less of a demand. Goodness knows, I’ve been trying for years to convince the more moderate feminists out there that it’s a good idea to criticize misandrist feminists like Dworkin, MacKinnon, and Daly; it’s like pulling teeth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HughRistik January 6, 2010 at 00:03

Romano claims that what PUAs say about women’s preferences is wrong every time, yet this claim requires dismissing many men’s experiences, in addition to being at odds with current research on women’s preferences. The view of women’s preferences in the seduction community is somewhat oversimplified and lacking, but it is consistent with a lot of the current research in psychology. See this article on the question of whether “nice guys finish last” or not, and I summarize a bunch of studies here.

Virtually none of this research has been discussed in the seduction community, so I think it’s fair to say that some PUAs making claims about women’s preferences are being overly theoretical and don’t offer empirical support. But it does turn out that there is empirical support in the psychological literature for some of the things PUAs are saying. It’s going to take years for researchers to get anywhere near untangling female preferences, if ever, and many research studies are done in controlled conditions and may not generalize to real life. We must act based on our present hypothesizes about women’s preferences, even though we might be forced to discard them or modify them with later field experience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Fidel January 6, 2010 at 00:07

It’s been said previously in the comments here in a number of ways, but the truth is that these feminists like the stupid Romano will be against anything that gives guys the slightest bit of a leveled playing-field.

Remember, to them, anything that threatens the paradigm of females having all the aces in the dating game is something that must be stomped out with hysteria immediately.

Pathetic skank.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cannon's Canon January 6, 2010 at 00:12

hughristik:

you deserve a criminal sentence of hard labor.

denise would agree, fundamentally: you are, after all, a male.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cannon's Canon January 6, 2010 at 00:18

jesus christ… i scrolled down and read a few more of this MORAN’s life lessons…

apparently, he is the rev wright of obama to SAVOY the pickup salesman…

i don’t mean to be snarky, but i miss roissy’s blog… now go read The Misandry Bubble and tell ten friends!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HughRistik January 6, 2010 at 01:01

Moreover, Game is NOT in itself moral or immoral; in fact, Game is AMORAL, and it is left solely to the practitioner as to how he will use it.

Right. Of course, some techniques might practically always be ethical, while others might almost always be unethical.

Again: Game is amoral. In and of itself, there is no “right” or “wrong” way to get a Woman into bed with you. The only one to determine ultimately if something is good or bad, is the practitioner himself.

Could you say a bit more about what you mean? This sounds kinda like a form of moral relativism. It’s true that the seduction community leaves ethics as a personal matter, and discussion of ethics is often seen as “preachy.” But that can’t mean that anything goes: some practitioners may have wrong-headed ideas and determine that a behavior is good, when it would be considered wrong by any reasonable standard (or vice versa).

Personally, I’ve always been interested in the ethics of seduction, since it’s under-discussed in the community.

I’m not sure what correct system of sexual ethics must be, but I think it must follow at least these principles:

Principle #1: minimize situations where predictable harm happened to someone, when it didn’t have to

Principle #2: minimize situations where a mutually beneficial and desired sexual interaction could have happened, but didn’t

In other words, a system of sexual ethics must help people avoid harming each other, and also facilitate people getting together in sexual and romantic ways. (As you guys may notice, these principles can come into conflict… that’s where things get interesting and acceptable tradeoffs must be formed.)

Lack of attention to principle #1 will lead to people getting trampled over, disrespected, or abused by others. Lack of attention to principle #2 will lead to missed opportunities (meaning missed happiness and missed relationships).

The problem is that commonly, feminists are zealously focused only principle #1, leading to police-state logic where one value (safety, at least for women) is pushed to the extreme while all other values are neglected. It’s very telling that at least two radical feminist men John Stoltenberg and Robert Jensen have some to the conclusion that feminist sexual ethics demand their celibacy; they are correctly following certain feminist views to their logical conclusions. What feminists like Denise Romano don’t realize is that if their views of sexual ethics were taken seriously by men, those men would be locked in partial or complete paralysis in their heterosexual interactions.

It’s highly ironic that feminists are creating a system where men who take their messages seriously will be selected out of the dating pool, leaving women to date men with less scruples. Contra feminists, missed opportunities for mutually beneficial sexual relations is often a bad thing, so there is such a thing as making men too paranoid about wronging women.

To the extent that they are focusing on avoiding the bad in sexual interactions to the detriment of creating the good, feminists would destroy heterosexuality in order to save it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith January 6, 2010 at 02:09

It’s highly ironic that feminists are creating a system where men who take their messages seriously will be selected out of the dating pool, leaving women to date men with less scruples.

Given the number of feminists who essentially hate men, and the number who are straight-up lesbians, this is arguably a feature. Dating less scrupulous men will cause women to hate men more, putting more of them, at least philosophically and possibly sexually, one the side of the “hate men” feminists. Lesbian feminist writing in particular focuses on saving women from men (whether they want or need saving), so that those women can be free to express authentic i.e. lesbian femininity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 6, 2010 at 04:12

“It’s highly ironic that feminists are creating a system where men who take their messages seriously will be selected out of the dating pool, leaving women to date men with less scruples. …”

Maybe this was the game plan all along.

Whiskey makes a point of this — that these women, PARTICULARLY ‘feminist’ women, will get ‘tricked’ out of getting “real’ alphas”, and be ‘stuck’ with “counterfiet” ones?!?

The hypocrisy of these types is absolutely stultifying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Krauser January 6, 2010 at 06:34

Academics are the most dishonest members of society. Liberal arts (which includes psychology, because it’s basically a bankrupt psuedo-science) are the worst. Get used to it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros2010 January 6, 2010 at 06:40

@HughRistik, @AfOR, @Mr.M,

about game and lying: I largely agree with the post “Is Game Manipulative?” from the PUA4LTR blog. You might find it informative as well.

My short answer: game can be lying, but it need not be. You know, it depends.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian January 6, 2010 at 07:19

Hugh,
Thanks for taking the time out to read my humble epistle! I’ve been an off and on reader of your own website, Feminist Critics, and have enjoyed many of your writings. Sorry to say that I missed your “first run” posts over at Roissy’s, but I haven’t visited over there as of late, mainly due to my own blog endeavors taking off, but also to other more private real life concerns as well.

I agree with you in that there needs to be more said in the community about ethics, and not necessarily for the sake of Women, though I don’t view that as a bad thing in the least; but rather, for OUR own sake, as Men. I am of the view that a Man has to have a Code, and we all do, whether we know it or not. Roissy, for example, surely has one, and like it or not, at least insofar as his internet persona is concerned, he remains true to it. For me, when it comes to Game, it is important that a Man has clear “rules of engagement” so to speak.

So for me, it’s very simple:

1. Never “tease” Women whom you have no intention of following through on, with your Game. No Man likes a “dickteasing” Female; well, just imagine what it’s like when you basically do the Male equivalent – worse, I’d say, because we all know that what we have in Game is far and away more powerful than anything Women can come up with.

2. Manage expectations. This is mentioned quite a bit in The Game, and I think, rightly so. A Woman has a right to know what your intentions are, and if you have any honor as a Man you’d tell her, upfront. Real Players never fear the loss of a piece of ass. If, after you tell her the deal, she’s not with it, cool – “next!” – but she can never say that you misrepresented yourself or otherwise lied to her. You told her upfront, before anything jumped off for real, what you were all about and what she could expect from you. Can’t get more fairer than that.

3. Be a Man of your word. If you’re going to play the filed, do that. If you’re going to stick with one Woman, do that. No one likes a Man who’s word cannot be trusted, least of all any Woman. I know there’s some harsh (but often true) things said about Women here, but we still have to keep in mind that despite all the gains Women have gotten, they STILL risk a great deal to lay down with a Man; it’s a decision that can literally make her or break her. A Man who can’t be trusted to live up to his word ain’t worth the trouble of keeping around.

4. NEVER do anything against a Woman’s will. I intend to address this more in detail very soon, and hopefully it will appear here at The Spearhead, but I believe a proper Seduction gives a Woman every opportunity to hit the eject button, because it’s very nature is such that it takes time for it to happen just right. The problem I see with the community at this time, is that there is too much focus on “speed”, which is problematic for a whole host of reasons. Women are very smart – they know when they’re being seduced. And they will never have a problem with it if the Gamesman takes his time, shows enough interest and follows through. I’ve never had any Woman go into “Buyer’s Remorse” mode on me. Taking my time with it, is why, and in order for that to happen, a Woman has to give her consent. Like I said, I’ll have more to say about this in due course. Stay Tuned.

Hope this helps. Thanks again!

The Obsidian

Zammo January 6, 2010 at 07:47

“It’s highly ironic that feminists are creating a system where men who take their messages seriously will be selected out of the dating pool, leaving women to date men with less scruples. …”

Women hopelessly adore the Alpha BadBoy(tm) and utterly loathe the Beta NiceGuy(tm).

As for Romano, her words must be seriously discounted so that her actions can reveal the true agenda. It’s always important to remember that women typically say what is expected of them and then do what is in their true nature.

I strongly suspect that her revulsion and anger towards Roissy is because he (and Game in general) is so successful and reveals that true nature of women so accurately.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman January 6, 2010 at 08:00

Obsidian. Women are not capable of using logic. They use deception and manipulation to get their way. You can pretty much ignore everything a woman says to you. It will all be lies and manipulation anyway. Sure, some of it might be nice to hear. I like to hear my lady friends say ‘I love you’ even though I know they don’t. Gives me the ‘warm fuzzies’ even though it is not true.

Women want two things only. “Babies and money.” By ‘money’ I mean someone to provide and protect them and what they consider THEIR babies. By the way, women do not have babies because they love kids and all the other crap they go on with. They love babies because they are people they hope they will be able to manipulate in old age to pay for them.

Once you learn this fundamental truth women make all the sense in the world.

After learning this and then re-examining the actions of women my entire life I found it to be profoundly true and very, very broadly applicable. Women don’t care about men AT ALL. Not ONE LITTLE BIT. They have to put that pretext to deceive men into paying for them.

It does not have any relevance how many letters they have after their name. Women are ‘a life support system for a uterous’ and they know it. They just don’t want men to know it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
globalman January 6, 2010 at 08:12

As far as game being lying or manipulative. Give me a break. Women lie pretty much with every breath they take. Game is just another way for a guy to get laid. Period. When I am early in the process of meeting a woman I act a little alpha. Is that ‘lying’? No. It’s just a way to project a part of my characteristics that will more likely get me laid. But mostly there is no need to use game or play too much of an alpha in Germany. Women are desperate and they know that by approaching me they have already agreed to sex if I consent to give it to them. Once you turn the tables on women and you realise they offer nothing but sex and that you are actually the prize then it all becomes much easier.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
OM Shanti January 6, 2010 at 10:56

women do not have babies because they love kids and all the other crap they go on with. They love babies because they are people they hope they will be able to manipulate in old age to pay for them.

I’ve seen this phenomena in India where there is no Social Security, however I’ve not seen it in the West. In the West I’ve seen elderly parents financially assisting their adult offspring in times of need.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keating January 6, 2010 at 11:04

why not just call “game” something entirely different? Game is simply a word used to describe the reaction to observed behavior of women over a long period of time.

Why not call it “Nature”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 6, 2010 at 11:28

””””””Remember, to them, anything that threatens the paradigm of females having all the aces in the dating game is something that must be stomped out with hysteria immediately.”””””””

Or letting men know what really happens in marriage. It is for fools.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Degringolade January 6, 2010 at 11:41

In addition, Gamesmen (my preferred term) study the great works of literature on the topic of romance, seduction and Human Sexuality, such as The Story of O, the compendium written by Robert Greene The Art Of Seduction, My Secret Life and others

What are those “others” Obsidian?

Also,does anybody know what happened to Roissy? Hasn’t posted in weeks.Not like him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
OM Shanti January 6, 2010 at 12:05

Also,does anybody know what happened to Roissy? Hasn’t posted in weeks.Not like him.

Facing some possible legal issues.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 6, 2010 at 13:29

“Women’s real issue with Game is that it might “trick” a number of women, including themselves, to sleep with Joe Average thinking he’s Mr. Big from Sex and the City.

“That is the sum total of their objections. They are afraid it works, and might work on them. Making a number of men “counterfeit Alphas” instead of the real, “Situation” from Jersey Shore, deal.”
__

“In one letter, the problem with modern American women”

[...] Modern humans are generally impossible to classify as “alpha” or “beta”– society strongly encourages us to be beta, but both strategies live within our genetic lineage and tendencies. Our term for a person with overbearing alpha-male traits is psychopath– a person with narcissistic and promiscuous tendencies, lacking empathy and conscience. (Most psychopaths are male; that female psychopaths exist is indicative of that female “alpha males” can exist.) What does an alpha female look like? A less physically violent analogue of the alpha male, she’s a hypercompetitive, gossiping, catty, back-stabbing, relationally aggressive bitch. She’s the hypergamous Carrie Bradshaw, lusting after “Mr. Big” despite his repulsive and obnoxious character. She’s what a perverse offshoot of feminism has told young women that it’s “empowering” to be.

As societies become more civilized, they tend to marginalize the true alpha male, outlawing polygamy, rape, and domestic violence, and demanding paternal investment (child support) in biological children. So the worst traits of alpha males have been criminalized, and rightly so. Such men are senselessly violent, parasitic, and extremely disruptive. However, the alpha-female variety of behavior is too subtle to control by law. Where a man would physically lash out at someone, the woman is inclined to inflict grievous social harm, and it’s easy to do this without breaking any laws. The alpha female, nearly as much of a monster as the alpha male, is allowed to roam free.

Modern Sex and the City culture has trained a generation of women to think of men as accessories, placing the status benefits of the pairing at a substantially higher priority than the quality of the relationship itself. The result is that American women have, as a group, lost interest in the skills necessary to make a relationship work, instead concentrating on the quest for the high-status male. This has turned them, unwittingly, into alpha females. The nightmare of hypergamy, “soft polygamy”, casual sex and combat dating that the modern dating landscape has become is a direct result of this. [...]

http://alvanista.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/in-one-letter-the-problem-with-modern-american-women/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 6, 2010 at 13:36

Great stuff Get Real.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 6, 2010 at 14:38

“Great stuff Get Real.”

Thanks J!

A lot of credit goes to Whiskey as well, he is an extremely sharp and incisive commentator on these issues.

I wish he would UPDATE HIS BLOG (and hopefully DO A POST on this issue as well — that of the scumbag “alpha-female” psychopaths… the “…hypercompetitive, gossiping, catty, back-stabbing, relationally aggressive bitch” — LOL).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Patr333x January 6, 2010 at 14:46

The funny thing about women being paranoid about “counterfeit alphas” is that many of them don’t have the looks to get a real alpha anyway. Average women pretend theiy are not average, that is THEIR game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 6, 2010 at 15:47

“…Average women pretend theiy are not average, that is THEIR game.”

Soooooo fucking true, Brother Pat!!!

It is UTTERLY AMAZING how so many plain-jane ‘warpigs’ who pass themselves off as ‘women’ think, in this sick, promiscuous culture because they throw themselves at a guy (‘alpha’ or otherwise) sexually, that the dude is so ‘enamoured’ of them and think they are ‘hot’.

These cunt-stains are a dime-a-dozen — they are a walking textbook definition of SLUT -

“A woman being proud of getting laid is like an alcoholic proud of getting drunk. …”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 6, 2010 at 20:54

Here is an example of a woman using logic and earning her own money:

http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=1824

Not all women want babies or someone else’s money.

I will respond to Obsidian’s letter next week after I meet some important deadlines I have, but not on this offensive blog.

Many women care deeply about men.

Clearly you’re all hurt and angry about things, but so are many women.

It’s really too bad that there is so much irrational generalization of your negative experiences to all women; THAT is illogical.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 6, 2010 at 21:28

Actually I do not think Hugh deserves a sentence of hard labor. I appreciate everything he has said.

Why? Because he is logical, respectful, thinks critically, understands the importance of ethics, and can disagree agreeably.

He also understands the importance of men and women doing no harm.

I really do think there is the potential for a great deal of agreement and common ground to be found within all of this.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
OM Shanti January 6, 2010 at 21:56

“A woman being proud of getting laid is like an alcoholic proud of getting drunk. …”

Can’t agree. While it may be easy for the average plain Jane to get laid with an average and below average plain Joe, for her to get laid with a super hot guy she’s been admiring from afar for a long time IS INDEED much more difficult. Particularly if Hot Joe has his pick of Hot Janes.

So that’s when a woman would be “proud” of getting laid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ferdinand Bardamu January 6, 2010 at 22:09

A woman being proud of getting laid is like an alcoholic proud of getting drunk.

That’s my line:

http://www.inmalafide.com/2009/11/05/what-girl-game-isnt/

OM Shanti/Desi FPUA/Bag Lady/DADT:

While it may be easy for the average plain Jane to get laid with an average and below average plain Joe, for her to get laid with a super hot guy she’s been admiring from afar for a long time IS INDEED much more difficult.

No it isn’t, because most men are polygamous and will screw close to anything (despite their protestations). Not that I expect this to penetrate your thick skull.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 6, 2010 at 22:31

“A woman being proud of getting laid is like an alcoholic proud of getting drunk. …”

Why?

Women have sexual needs and desires also. What is wrong with that? The sole purpose of the clitoris is for sexual pleasure.

Seems like this is shaming women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
OM Shanti January 6, 2010 at 22:56

What that saying means is that getting laid is easy for a woman, just like getting drunk is easy for an alcoholic, it’s what they do. On the other hand, getting laid for a man is hard since so few of them do. Remember Denise, only the top 15% of the male population (the Alpha Males) are getting laid regularly. The rest 85% men are on internet blogs complaining about the top 15%.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 6, 2010 at 23:06

I think you’re kidding and I get it – but seriously, I do know happily married men who are having happy sex.

this is very interesting:

http://saferelationshipsmagazine.com/counseling-ctr/a-path-to-recovery-start-here

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 6, 2010 at 23:29

”””””’It’s really too bad that there is so much irrational generalization of your negative experiences to all women; THAT is illogical.”””””””’

It is not illogical at all. A majority of the negative experiences are because of laws in the us that affect men more than woman. The laws apply to everyone. How would it be illogical to not get married based on a 50/50 chance or so of getting a really bad experience?

Nothing really to do with the woman as just having a bad relationship and wanting to break up is painfull but does not last 21 years. Under the current system it doesn’t let you break up. You have to stay in contact with a person who the both of you no longer want contact with it is why you broke up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 6, 2010 at 23:39

If neither party got anything extra out of it. People could actually seperate and move on with their lives. Instead of breaking up and woman looking like pathetic losers who can’t make it on their own and having to spout nonsense about a former spouse years and years after the fact. Let it go move on. Both of you failed at the relationship or it would have worked out. You are not owed a dam thing.

Like my ex she moved on had a kid and with a new dude. Didn’t ask me for shit. Perfect. We both had closure and I don’t have to have any involvment in her life. She also has none in mine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 7, 2010 at 00:43

Why?

Women have sexual needs and desires also. What is wrong with that? The sole purpose of the clitoris is for sexual pleasure.

Seems like this is shaming women.

Its not shaming at all. I also wouldn’t introduce alpha-males into this scenario either. This has solely to do with how easy it is for the average woman to get laid.

Women are the choosers, men are the approachers, this is nature/normal/life. Women also receive a LOT of excessive male attention (this should be pretty obvious). There is actually quite easy, albeit lengthy, to explain. Little late for me though, so I won’t bother.

However, the slut/stud double standard exists for a reason.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros2010 January 7, 2010 at 00:54

A woman being proud of getting laid is like an alcoholic proud of getting drunk.

“I just had an argument with a girl I know. She was saying how that it’s unfair that if a guy fucks a different girl every week, he’s a legend, but if a girl fucks just two guys in a year, she’s a slut.
So in response I told her that if a key opens lots of locks, then it’s a master key. But if a lock is opened by lots of keys, then it’s a shitty lock. That shut her up.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HughRistik January 7, 2010 at 01:27

This study on speed dating found that men and women were equally selective in small groups, but the bigger the group, the more pickier than men women became. The bigger the group of possible partners, the bigger the gap in pickiness becomes. And I think the default in modern society is that people perceive a large group of possible partners.

This finding (and others than I don’t have time to summarize) is consistent with the notion that men must work harder to find sexual partners than women.

Finding relationship partners is a different question. But since virtually all adult romantic relationships involve sex at some point, being about to find a sexual is necessary precondition for a relationship: if you can’t find sex, you can’t find a relationship. And (for males much more often than for females) if you can’t initiate sex and most of the other steps leading up to it, you probably can’t reliably find a relationship.

Women’s greater selectiveness is not unjust towards men (though certain cultural influences that artificially inflate women’s selectiveness are unjust to both women and women). People have the right to choose partners as selectively as they want. But the selectiveness gap leads to a situation that is unequal, since men typically have to satisfy more requirements to find sexual partners than women do.

As a result, it’s also probably more of an accomplishment for a man to find a sexual partner than for a woman to do so, because on average he had to satisfy a more stringent requirement set than she did. This principle explains, but doesn’t justify, the sexual double standard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get real January 7, 2010 at 06:53

“A woman being proud of getting laid is like an alcoholic proud of getting drunk.

“That’s my line:”

Sorry Ferdi, I knew it was yours and I meant to source this, that is why I put it in quotes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 7, 2010 at 07:08

“Can’t agree. While it may be easy for the average plain Jane to get laid with an average and below average plain Joe, for her to get laid with a super hot guy she’s been admiring from afar for a long time IS INDEED much more difficult. Particularly if Hot Joe has his pick of Hot Janes.”

OM,

Just like Ferdi said, this ‘pride’ that you speak of really applies WAY MORE to said woman if she can get or extract a committment from a ‘Hot Joe’ rather than merely a ‘roll in the hay’, which is pathetically easy for nearly any woman with a pulse, ESPECIALLY in today’s degenerate, hyper-sexualized, promiscuious society where men are encouraged to rack up ‘notches on their bed post’.

Remember that deluded moron over at ESPN, Steve Phillips, and his ‘mistress’ Brooke Hundley, aka the ‘Tubby Temptress’, whom he had a short-term, er, ‘fling’ with -

http://paulspoop.blogspot.com/2009/10/tubby-temptress.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 7, 2010 at 07:14

“Clearly you’re all hurt and angry about things, but so are many women.”

Women get hurt and angry about a bad haircut. Whats your point. Don’t trivialize our anger. Men generally suck it up, man up, and deal with pain. When we get together to complain about how we’ve been hurt, I wouldn’t trivialize it. Its a serious sign something is wrong.

“I will respond to Obsidian’s letter next week after I meet some important deadlines I have, but not on this offensive blog.”

Our very culture is offensive to men. You can imagine what its like for us to try to debate and get our voice heard in it.

“Women have sexual needs and desires also. What is wrong with that? The sole purpose of the clitoris is for sexual pleasure.

Seems like this is shaming women.”

And the sole purpose of that pleasure is to ensure reproduction. Whats wrong with having a dozen babies starting at the age of 16 then? After all, it felt right at the time.

Trust me, women could use a dose of a little shame. And it wouldn’t help to logically follow through with their ideas to their repercussions. And a hypocricy check would be nice. Unbound sexual liberation for women good, “Game” for men bad. Hypocricy check #1: Dressing like sluts and then criticising men “Because we think with our dicks.”, all the while knowing men are visually stimulated sexually. Do women not see this hypocricy in what they believe. They want fried ice. We are sick of the mixed signals.

We can’t always do what we feel like. Is that how you raise children, “If it feels good, then do it.” A 13 year old often has sexual needs also. Where do we draw the line. For women, you can draw your own line, for men, we are encircled by one. And what about men’s sexual needs? Do you think prostitution should be legall, or once again, are men just expected to deal with it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 7, 2010 at 07:44

Seems like this is shaming women.

And tell me, how does that feel?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 7, 2010 at 07:55

(Observe as she responds to this question with feigned indifference and even includes a little shaming of her own. There’s no chance that she will be big enough to admit that shaming makes her feel like crap, because then she would have to accept that women routinely make grevious transgressions against men. While her prior post, complaining about the shaming of women, had its foundations in a concept of justice, that people should be treated respectfully regardless of their sex, she will now abandon this foundation in favour of a more combative men vs. women approach, and will explicitly make value judgements of men and women generally in which women come out on top. Look out for this, because this is how feminists operate – rapidly changing the very basis of their arguments, in order to confuse their opponents. While you respond to her ‘justice’ argument, she will already have switched to a ‘superiority’ argument. This unbalances anyone who argues logically and with honesty. This is, I believe, a deliberate tactic of feminists; it is not that they are naturally ‘illogical’, it is that they have managed to convince themselves that logical propositions, and logic itself, are ‘tools of the patriarchy’ which are used by men to oppress women; they believe this because they tend to be roundly defeated in logical argument. So their tactic is to dismiss logic altogether; or rather, to use logical tactics in an illogical manner, in order to confound their opponents. E.g. a feminist may argue against an MRA on the grounds of sexual justice; but all she really believes in is female victory. She simply uses ‘justice’, the patriarchal concept, against its own guardians, in order to keep them on the defensive while she moves on to new argumentative grounds. The inconsistency is intentional, because it handicaps those of us who argue logically, point by point. Essentially, feminist argument is an assault on logic, which is confused with patriarchal oppression. There is a good chance that, having read this short essay, she will not respond in the way I originally predicted, since this would be to confirm that proposition, which would in some small way be a male victory. Thus her response remains unpredictable at the point, but everything I have said applies to arguments with feminists in general.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 7, 2010 at 23:54

I’m still in the process of meeting a deadline but wanted to share this with you to help you understand my position:

Medical Defintion of Rape:

Please note this part: “Date rape is a sexual assault in which the victim is psychologically pressured…..before the rape.” (below).

Definition of Rape

Rape: Forced sexual intercourse; sexual assault; sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. Rape may be heterosexual (involving members of opposite sexes) or homosexual (involving members of the same sex). Rape involves insertion of an erect penis or an inanimate object into the female vagina or the male anus. Legal definitions of rape may also include forced oral sex and other sexual acts.

Heterosexual rape usually refers to an assault in which a male forces himself upon a female, and homosexual rape usually refers to an assault in which a male forces himself upon another male. However, both terms (heterosexual and homosexual rape) have been used to refer to an assault in which a female forces herself upon a male or a female.

Sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor is known legally as statutory rape. The adult can be found guilty of statutory rape even if the minor was a willing partner.

Gang rape is a sexual assault in which several persons force themselves upon a victim.

Date rape is a sexual assault in which the victim is psychologically pressured, drugged or sedated before the rape. Date rape is so-named because it often involves a dating couple. The male may spike a female’s alcoholic beverage, making her unable to resist his advances or even unable to remember the rape.

Would-be date rapists have used sleeping pills to sedate their intended victims.

In addition to adding sleep-inducing medications to alcohol, date rapists also have combined them with marijuana, cocaine and other drugs.

Rape can also occur in a marriage. Typically, the husband forces himself on his wife at a time when she is unwilling to have sexual intercourse.

Victims of rape suffer physical and mental trauma.

Physical trauma may include cuts, bruises and abrasions in the pelvic area as well as elsewhere on the body.

Mental trauma may include overwhelming feelings of humiliation, embarrassment and defilement.

Rape victims should seek treatment at a hospital. There, doctors and nurses can treat the injuries, administer antibiotics to prevent sexually- transmitted diseases, and provide counseling or any other additional therapy (mental or physical) that the patient requires.

The hospital team’s evaluation and report will help document the condition of the patient for legal purposes.

“Rape” is derived from the Latin word “rapere” (to seize).

Last Editorial Review: 1/26/2000

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
HughRistik January 7, 2010 at 23:56

Obsidian said:

I agree with you in that there needs to be more said in the community about ethics, and not necessarily for the sake of Women, though I don’t view that as a bad thing in the least; but rather, for OUR own sake, as Men.

I like what you say about men thinking about ethics not just for women, but for ourselves. Since men are typically expected to be the initiators, a whole host of moral dilemmas are thrust on our shoulders.

If I ever hooked up with a woman and later felt that things might not have been fully mutual or that she might not have been into it, I would feel shitty.

Another dilemma: If I had a sex with a woman I never really wanted to see again when I knew she was really into me, I wouldn’t feel good about it. So my personal moral standard is that I only sleep with women who I would want to at least hang out with after.

Getting laid isn’t worth sacrificing one’s feelings of integrity and honor.

(Note: Some game skeptics say this while believing that integrity and honor in general must be sacrificed to practice game, which is incorrect in my view. )

My code of ethics means that sometimes I might miss out on sexual opportunities with women. But I don’t see that as a major problem, because my skill with women allows me to hold a frame of abundance.

Funny story:

I once got sorta picked up by this girl at a club, where we made out and I drove her back to her apartment. She invited me to come and I could tell she wanted to get it on. The only problem: I just wasn’t that I attracted to her. But I liked her, and I’m not good at saying “no,” so I decided to give it a try and see if the chemistry got better.

We started making out on her bed… and I realized that the chemistry wasn’t getting better, it was getting worse. I’ll only say two words about what she was like in bed: “pro” and “wrestler.”

Consciously, I realized that if I had sex with her, I would feel really dirty after, and not want to do it again. I liked her enough as a friend to hang out with if sex wasn’t in the picture, but since she was really, really into me I knew I would really hurt her if I didn’t want to continue hooking up with her, and that this would just make things really uncomfortable. Basically, I realized that regardless of whether I had sex with her, I couldn’t hang out with her in the future.

I kept saying to myself, “OK, I’ll stop things in a few minutes.” A few minutes later, I would say to myself “OK, just another few minutes.” Clothes started coming off and she insisted on turning off the light (I didn’t realize this red flag at the time). She started dry-humping me and finally I started actually getting turned on, which made it even harder to put on the brakes.

Luckily, she proposed a bathroom break. She mentioned that she had condoms if we needed them, and went into the bathroom. Finally I could think properly. When she came back, I said that I wanted to leave things where they were tonight and that I needed to head home. She was crushed and I felt guilty, but it would’ve been much worse for both of us if I’d ditched her after having sex.

I went to the bathroom, and I noticed a bottle of acne medicine. “Weird,” I thought, “she didn’t have that much acne.” Then I went back to her room to say goodnight and she had turned one of the lights back on… she had major acne on her chest and breasts! Major, major, major turnoff… I became extremely glad of my decision.

She walked me to the door and asked if I wanted her number. I didn’t because I didn’t think it would work to be either lovers or even friends after what had happened, but I took it anyway. Once I was out of her sight, I breathed a sigh of relief and ran away from her apartment multiple blocks to my car, wearing my uncomfortable but sweet boots.

I’m glad I had thought about the ethics of this type of situation, both before and during, otherwise I might have made the wrong choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian January 8, 2010 at 06:14

Hugh,
Yea, Man, I hear ya. I’ve been putting a great deal of thought into this very issue, because like you, I vociferously disagree with the notion that a guy cannot be a “nice guy with Game”; that somehow they are mutually exclusive. Style, for example, is a “nice guy”, but he’s got mad Game, and has never done anything untoward or unethical in my view. And evidently, others agree; in more than five years, no one has come forward that I’m aware of to refute what he says in his memoirs.

I do have a essay that deals with this point, and had planned to send it to Welmer today; hopefully, it’ll appear soon.

The Obsidian

Schopenbecq January 8, 2010 at 07:03

The only things sickening about GAME is :

1/ It reveals the primitive and shallow psychology of women and the fact that most only value a man in terms of the extent that he has demonstrated that he has power over other men.

2/ So many men are willing to dehumanize themselves in order to learn how to don the dominant ape mask that makes women horny.

Women hate game because it reveals them for the shallow objectifiers and instrumentalisers that they are, and because it involves often beta men sending false alpha male sexual signals (and then sleeping with them). This is no more ‘rape’ than a 40 year old woman who has learnt to apply make up well enough to seduce a man who is tricked into seeing her as youthful and fertile (and then wakes up next to her the next morning and sees what he really has f*****).

Regarding this psychopathic feminist and others who claim that PUAs are rapists – why don’t we just ignore them? And if we can’t, or choose not to ignore them, how about harrassing them back instead of accepting the absurd and seriously debating the morality of seuction? Feminists have more power in society (as we all know) but in terms of numbers, the online men’s movement now probably far outnumbers career feminists like her. If she doesn’t stop sending e-mails or threats post her details around the men’s rights community and she’ll soon be having to read more than one or two angry rants in her inbox.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 8, 2010 at 07:12

“Just like Ferdi said, this ‘pride’ that you speak of really applies WAY MORE to said woman if she can get or extract a committment from a ‘Hot Joe’ rather than merely a ‘roll in the hay’, which is pathetically easy for nearly any woman with a pulse, ESPECIALLY in today’s degenerate, hyper-sexualized, promiscuious society where men are encouraged to rack up ‘notches on their bed post’.

“Remember that deluded moron over at ESPN, Steve Phillips, and his ‘mistress’ Brooke Hundley, aka the ‘Tubby Temptress’, whom he had a short-term, er, ‘fling’ with -”
=====

Steve Phillips first publicized ‘mistress’ scandal, whom he also lost his job over -

“A love mistress of Steve Phillips, Rosa Rodriguez who slept with then-Mets GM in 1998, resurfaces” – NYDailyNews.com

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/10/23/2009-10-23_meet_another_phillips_love_mistress.html

~

“A woman being proud of getting laid is like an alcoholic proud of getting drunk. …”

INDEED!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Days of Broken Arrows January 8, 2010 at 21:22

Regarding Denise’s comment above:

Denise is trying an old feminist’s trick of attempting to broaden the definition of rape. This was the feminist M.O. circa 1990. People are wise to this now. She’s attempting to scare anyone who doesn’t bow and scrape to females.

And so I say this: if women can be “psychologically” pressured into sex so easily by PUAs that it’s “rape,” then women DO NOT HAVE THE DECISION-MAKING CAPABILITIES TO BE IN THE WORKFORCE OR IN ANY RESPONSIBLE POSITION.

You want to cast women as delicate flowers with no power, Denise? Fine. I agree. Now get the hell out of the workforce because you’re not up for being part of society. If seduction equals rape, we need to go back to women being property. We will anyway, once the Muslims take over, stomping over the weak society created by feminists like Denise, who neuter and shame men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 8, 2010 at 21:54

Regarding Denise’s comment above:

Denise is trying an old feminist’s trick of attempting to broaden the definition of rape. This was the feminist M.O. circa 1990. People are wise to this now. She’s attempting to scare anyone who doesn’t bow and scrape to females.

-Days

It’s more than that — she’s trying to get us into an argument about rape so she can smear people here. It’s a small-minded, transparent tactic, and I probably shouldn’t have let such an irrelevant comment through, but I figure our readers ought to have an education in this stuff.

My advice would be to ignore her — she’s not a very important person and probably never will be. Obsidian’s argument highlights the worthlessness of credentials today, so he made a good point, but she probably isn’t worth bringing up otherwise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 8, 2010 at 22:04

””””””I like what you say about men thinking about ethics not just for women, but for ourselves. Since men are typically expected to be the initiators, a whole host of moral dilemmas are thrust on our shoulders.””””””’

Since woman are the acceptors a whole host of moral dilemmas rest on their shoulders. She can not go home with you from the club and you get no chance at her sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 8, 2010 at 23:13

To adapt an old definition:

A feminist is a woman haunted by the fear that some man, somewhere, is happy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null January 9, 2010 at 02:15

“3. they haven’t read the key source material, and almost always use, as their “primary” source info, Roissy in DC, or blogsites like it (such as say, Tucker Max, in the case of Ms. Susan Walsh of HookingUpSmart.com)”

The key source material doesn’t matter. What matters is what PUAs are actually saying and doing.

“Game draws its knowledge from the insights gleaned from Evolutionary Psychology, itself considered by some a controversial corner of the Psychology world.”

From what I’ve seen of evopsych, it’s either total bullshit or PUAs just twist it to suit their own agenda. Usually they use evopsych to make statements like “according to evolutionary psychology… [blah blah] …and therefore all women are biologically predestined to be dumb whores (and also to have sex with me)!

“Women, such as Susan Walsh and Denise Romano, are convinced, based on Roissy and a few others like him, that Game is no good, that it is inherently misogynistic, and that it is also deliberately deceptive and manipulative.”

PUAs have nobody to blame but themselves. When they choose to be misogynistic, manipulative and deceptive (and assholes in general), that is exactly how outsiders will perceive them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Days of Broken Arrows January 9, 2010 at 18:22

“PUAs have nobody to blame but themselves. When they choose to be misogynistic, manipulative and deceptive (and assholes in general), that is exactly how outsiders will perceive them.”

Maybe so. But should that be a crime in a free society? I don’t think so, but Ms. Romano does, because she’s trying to get this classified as hate speech.

I’d be careful with this. It could come back to bite you. Hate speech was invented by the Anti-Defemation League so they could make Holocaust denial a crime. Now Jews find themselves in the uncomfortable position of not being able to criticize Muslim culture that’s hostile to them – because of the very laws they devised. When you try to ban things, unintended consequences pop up. This is supposed to be a free society. If you don’t like an idea, present a more compelling one — don’t ban the original idea.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 9, 2010 at 19:30

Regarding Denise’s comment above:

Denise is trying an old feminist’s trick of attempting to broaden the definition of rape. This was the feminist M.O. circa 1990. People are wise to this now. She’s attempting to scare anyone who doesn’t bow and scrape to females.

-Days

Thgis would really be a shame if this type of ‘college-campus’ Marxism were to become the basis for a national polity, since this would further prevent most average men from getting into relationships with women, let alone having sex with them.

Paradoxically (or intentionally), this will effectively ensure that only the most aggressive and psychotic of ‘alpha’ males would be having sex and relations with most women.

I’ll tell you all what: I think the lowest rung of Hell, as Dante described in his Inferno, is actually reserved for these types of sub-human women who are doing all they can to make life a Hell-on-Earth here for all decent, normal men and women.

God help and save us all from these evil, envious whores.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 9, 2010 at 19:43

Out of fairness, my above comment was not directly aimed at Ms. Romano, since I do not know what her exact position is on this matter.

It is to those women, and their beta-boy enablers, who want to, effectively, price most women out of the dating market for most, men, by attempting to scare and shame average men from pursuing sex and intimacy.

No more, no less.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian January 10, 2010 at 07:23

What continues to fascinate me about this dialogue, is that whenever you directly confront the ladies about what they think they know about Game, they either ignore you, duck and dodge you, or try to shift the debate onto absolutely red herring issues. Lady Raine continues to do this with her repeated appeals to authority insofar as psychology is concerned; Null, here, attempts to poo poo Game by saying that Evo Psych is either BS, and/or PUAs have a corrupted view of same; and Ms. Romano attempts to erect strawman arguments by tossing around terms like “rape” and “hate speech”.

I defy any of these people to find, within my writings, here or at my site, or anywhere else, where I have either done or condoned or endorsed, the rape of ANY Woman; moreover, I defy any of these people to find my direct quotes where I seekout “whores and sluts” to have sex with. They no more know what I am and am not attracted to than a Man in the Moon, but they deign to declare to know these things. They can’t even get the difference between a PUA and Game, for crying outloud! Gimme a break.

Oh, and by the way for those who may be interested – I have yet to hear back from Ms. Romano, and she had promised me that she would indeed respond to my Open Letter. She’s already declared that she wouldn’t engage me here, on the grounds that this venue is hostile to Women (dodge, cough); and to date, the only reply she has made on my site is completely off topic post about rape – implying that the very practice of Game is “raping” a Woman. What a joke!

If Ms. Romano cannot or will not engage me on the points I have directly spoken to, which themselves were in direct response to her hit and run drive-by piece on her Aug 1 2010 post on her blog, EQ With Denise, it will not only show that she is patently intellectually dishonest and a disgrace to the letters behind her name that she bandies about, but also that she’s a coward of the worst kind – who goes after the low hanging fruit of sensationalistic rants ala Roissy. I’ll have more to say about all this, and I trust Welmer will publish my next salvo, soon.

The Obsidian

Welmer January 10, 2010 at 07:58

@Obsidian

I’m getting a bit wary of engaging with this Romano character, to tell the truth. She appears to be one of those women who likes to escalate conflict, and to be honest I don’t think she’s worth the time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 10, 2010 at 08:01

the only reply she has made on my site is completely off topic post about rape – implying that the very practice of Game is “raping” a Woman. What a joke!

I think it makes sense if one subscribes to the Andrea Dworkin school of logic, which states that ‘man’ is synonymous with ‘rapist’, and that all heterosexual intercourse is rape – no matter how aggressively the woman pursues it.

So in other words, it doesn’t make sense, but you’re dealing with an extremist.

She actually came to my blog and made a long post which I can only assume was intended to back up the arugment I was making, that the ambient porn which men are subjected to is, in itself, a form of psychological pressure coercing men into sex, which would be rape by any feminist definition.

http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2009/12/oversaturation-of-female-flesh.html#comments

(scroll down, second to last comment.)

The fact that this could be defined as rape is an innovation of Denise, I can’t take credit for it. Kudos to Denise for her insight, and for taking up the cause for men for a change.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky from home January 10, 2010 at 08:24

@Welmer-

With all due respect, in my opinion, escalation of conflict is exactly what we need.

@Ms. Romano-

“Date rape is a sexual assault in which the victim is psychologically pressured, drugged or sedated before the rape.”

If this is true, why are men not capable of being raped in a heterosexual sense.

Are you saying I wasn’t raped when the above happened to me?

Surely arousal is not a sign of consent?

Please clarify.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky from home January 10, 2010 at 08:35

Below from Snark’s wonderful blog. (I didn’t know you had a blog.) I felt this was too good to just link to, as I agree completely. Who saturates men’s existence with sexual psychological pressure? Especially at men’s most vulnerable age when they are still psychologically developing and maturing and supposed to be focusing on their education? Women.

“Snark said…

I see your point, Denise – that the visual stimuli with which women intentionally provoke men into arousal is a form of psychological pressure, and thus, all women are rapists.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 10, 2010 at 08:44

@Jabberwocky

There are different kinds of battles, I think. One of them is where it is personal, and that is where women have the upper hand. If we escalate the conflict of ideas, that is a good thing, but a conflict that involves harassment, character assassination, and nitpicking is not one that men should be involved in. The truth is that we tend to lose those fights, so they are better avoided.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky from home January 10, 2010 at 08:56

I see your point. My real life and immediate well being isn’t on the line as is yours and others, so I must defer to your wisdom. But one day, some day, this stuff will bleed over into our real lives, and yes, it would be best that we do that on our terms, not hers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost January 10, 2010 at 12:11

I checked out that Ms Romano’s web site. She is crazy. But in todays world she is dangerous. You really can’t have a debate with people like that. Her only purpose in life is to attack maleness in general.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 10, 2010 at 19:47

Obsidian,

Please stop lying. You know that I have told responded to your badgering with at least four emails telling you that I’ve had work deadlines all week and deadlines for my publisher and that I *told* you that I would reply to you when those were done and AFTER I responded first to questions from others who asked those of prior to your letter.

For those who are interested, these posts appear on my blog and on Lady Raine’s blog.

And – for whoever asked, NO, arousal does NOT equal consent.

I am shocked at that question as well as the comments from posters here and on LR’s blog that have revealed a complete lack of knowledge both about what constitutes sexual assault under the law as well as how women are more prone than men to become infected with most sexually transmitted diseases resulting from unprotected sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt January 10, 2010 at 20:30

Denise,

It is unfortunate that when you say you are shocked, you do not mean in the electrical sense, as such an experience might give you an idea of the pain most of us feel while reading your posts.

However, to elaborate, allow me to make clear a couple of trivial points that should have been apparent to anyone with an IQ greater than that of slime mold, and possibly the upper 10-25% of slime molds as well:

1 – Obsidian is not really speaking to you. The purpose of an “open letter” is clearly not to dialogue only with the person it is directed at; that’s why it is open. You should, given your own predilections towards strawman arguments, grandstanding, and public stumping, have seen the point of his offers and maneuvers. Responding, via a comment on a blog where you are not likely to be well regarded in the first place, is the move of a rank amateur.

2 – It is always dangerous to argue about what is legal; there have been many points in history where many things we currently find socially acceptable (and in some causes laudable) were highly illegal! Clearly, there are many things “under the law” that may not be entirely just, as anyone who believes that legality equals justice is clearly deserving of neither justice nor a legal system. Besides, a quick scan of any of the articles on this site would reveal that many men have problems with both sexual assault and family law (which are often entwined, in the case of divorce and the common false accusations of assault or abuse). So you tell me – are you totally ignorant, or trolling, given that you were apparently unaware of that?

3 – Strawman arguments are not going to fly here. Nobody (who is a functional human being, at least) is arguing that arousal equals consent; they are, in fact, arguing that consent equals consent. Or, in short, if a woman doesn’t say no and does say yes, that’s pretty fucking likely to mean yes. Quit with your incredibly obtuse and asinine comments to the contrary. We see through them, and if you don’t, you may take your place at the back of the line with the other slime molds.

Now begone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech January 10, 2010 at 21:05

I’m getting a bit wary of engaging with this Romano character, to tell the truth. She appears to be one of those women who likes to escalate conflict, and to be honest I don’t think she’s worth the time.

Me too. She provided a good example of my point in my most recent post, but that’s it. Trying to talk to most women about game or what is happening to men is a complete waste of time. What is being accomplished with all of this arguing with her? She like most women is looking at this too emotionally to be convinced with facts. Plus the way Obsidian is constantly banging on this when Romano said that she didn’t have the time to respond until date X is just giving her ammunition against us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 11, 2010 at 00:59

“Date rape is a sexual assault in which the victim is psychologically pressured, drugged or sedated before the rape.”

These are not my words; they are part of the current legal and medical definition of rape.

If you did not give your consent, then you were raped.

Arousal does not equal consent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster January 11, 2010 at 02:00

Who cares how rape is defined? If feminists don’t care about men being falsely accused of rape, why should anyone care about what rape is defined to be? The communists in Russia defined lots of things to be illegal, as did the Taliban in Afghanistan, as did the Nazis in Germany and so on. Once a society’s definitions become too ridiculous, then it is time for that society to rise up and revolt.

Once we go down the road of defining consent, now that opens a can of worms. How do we define consent? Is it a court-prepared document with a watermark and a judge’s signature? There’s no end in sight.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 11, 2010 at 02:09

”””””If you did not give your consent, then you were raped.””””””

And these are your words and what would you consider consent?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 11, 2010 at 02:34

These are not my words; they are part of the current legal and medical definition of rape.

Maybe you missed the point where the legal and medical definition of rape was expanded by feminists with the sole intention of criminalising more and more men?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Elam January 11, 2010 at 02:42

@ Denise A. Romano

Kindly define “psychologically pressured.” And please source your quotes.

I am not buying for a minute that you wouldn’t tag the criminal justice system as a misogynistic branch of patriarchy that needed to be changed if you disagreed with the law. You and I both know that, don’t we?

Besides as much as you keep coming back to this “offensive” forum, you might as well answer the op and quit making up bullshit excuses about deadlines. You are here typing away, so type the answers you are avoiding, instead of sharing the fundamentals of bullshit rape law that the men here are already familiar with.

If that is all you have, here is my response:

False Accusation: A lie about forced sexual intercourse; sexual assault; sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor. Lies may be heterosexual (involving members of opposite sexes) or homosexual (involving members of the same sex). Lies involves insertion of falsehoods where the truth belongs. Legal definitions of false accusations don’t matter because they are not punished in reality.

Heterosexual false accusations usually refers to a fabricated assault in which a male and female actually engaged in consensual sex, and the male ends up fucked (raped) by the system.

Sexual intercourse between an adult and a minor is known legally as statutory rape. The adult can be found guilty of statutory rape even if the minor was a willing partner, and even if the sex never happened, or if the sex was between two consensual teens, but the boy happens to be a little older.

See Ricky Blackman

False allegation of gang rape is a fabricated sexual assault in which several persons have sex with a willing partner who later feels guilty and gets them charged with rape.

See Yawning at Hofstra
See Lies from the Duke Dancer and Other Whores

Date rape is a sexual assault in which the victim is psychologically pressured, drugged or sedated before the rape or says she was when she really wasn’t.

Date rape is so-named because it often involves a dating couple, and feminist university activists. The male may spike a female’s alcoholic beverage, making her unable to resist his advances or even unable to remember the rape. or she may go down on him like brand new Hoover, and then later charge him with rape because her jock boyfriend might find out what happened. Either way the guy is screwed.

Would-be date rapists have used sleeping pills to sedate their intended victims.
And would be accusers have used tears and lies to incarcerate their victims.

Victims of rape suffer physical and mental trauma. And so do those falsely imprisoned, like the trauma of being raped in prison while there for something they didn’t do.

Mental trauma may include overwhelming feelings of humiliation, embarrassment and defilement, but that is only if the false accuser is caught.

False accusers should seek treatment at a mental hospital. There, doctors and nurses can treat the pathology, administer psychotropics and use cognitive counseling to teach the patient to be a more effective liar.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu January 11, 2010 at 03:36

Everybody refer back to when snark outlined denise’s MO. She has followed it admirably. I ran into the same thing abou two weeks ago with a woman named Angie. Next step. I’m sorry I just don’t have the time to fix all of my logical errors, followed by the age old tactic of shifting the burdon of proof. You see snark set a trap out in the open and she fell right in. I’ll get the link to another perfect example of this after work. It’s at the niceguy forums under gender roles for those who don’t want to wait. Audios back to work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie January 11, 2010 at 07:37

“Denise A. Romano January 11, 2010 at 00:59

“Date rape is a sexual assault in which the victim is psychologically pressured, drugged or sedated before the rape.”

These are not my words; they are part of the current legal and medical definition of rape.

If you did not give your consent, then you were raped.

Arousal does not equal consent.”

Allright. Cool. So I can get a girl drunk, but as long as she gives me the go ahead, her consent in other words, then its not rape. We’re back to defining consent then. You’re not one of those idiots who think we should have verbal consent at every stage of sexual engagement.

Heres a little play entitled, “Feminist Romance”

Boy – “May I now place my fingers in your vagina?”

Girl – “How romantic. I hope my vaginal secretions don’t overly excite your enthusiasm. Remember, it is an unintended consequence of tactil stimulation, and not in and of itself a sign of consent.”

Boy – “What would you like me to do with my other hand? I want to make sure it doesn’t rape you.”

Girl – “How sweet. You may fondle my left breast with it. I would like moderate to mild pressure only.”

Boy – “Forget it. I’ll go rub one off.”

End.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
InternetWood January 11, 2010 at 08:17

Hello, Denise.

You are an evil, stupid, crazy woman, and I hope you have a miserable life!

And that, white-knights, is how you ‘respect’ and ‘reason with’ a woman like Denise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Obsidian January 11, 2010 at 18:47

Here’s an exchange between myself and Ms. Denise Romano, from Lady Raine’s blog:

I don’t know if it’s my pc or what, but the “Exposed! Roissy” thread’s comment window moves very slow, so I’m going to post my response to Ms. Romano in this thread, since it specifically deals with Q&A on Game:

DR: You are not undertsanding what I’m saying at all:

OBS: Then by all means, do help me understand…

DR: There is notwith a Man wanting a purely sexual relationship with a Woman – but there IS something very wrong with him not being honest and direct about him wanting that and only that – AND – in him using any deceptive, coercive, or manipulative methods to get that. The same is true for women.

OBS: I’m very pleased that you feel that way.

DR: There is not inconsistency. Try to keep up with what we’re saying.

OBS: OK.

DR: I agree that there IS no rationalization for Intimate Partner Violence.

OBS: Good.

DR: I’ve been thinking about this ALOT.

OBS: Lots of thought is usually a good thing.

DR: I do see what Elin did as wrong, HOWEVER, I also see that Tiger assaulted her on every level with his mulitple infidelities with multiple women.

OBS: What Tiger did at this point is irrelevant. It’s what Ms. Woods did that matters.

DR: He assaulted her emotionally, psychologically, verbally, physically, and sexually; AND, as far as I’m concerned ANY sex he had with her after he cheated on her w/o her consent was him raping her. Why? Because if she had known what he did, she would not have consented to having sex with him.

OBS: Uh-huh. Still doesn’t remove the fact that SHE PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED HIM, THUS BREAKING THE VERY CLEAR LAWS ON THIS POINT. Period, Ms. Romano. Now, you’re either for upholding the law, or you’re not. Which is it?

DR: do see her actions as understandable.

OBS: Then you justify IPV. Simple. As. That.

DR: Here’s the problem: YOU and many other men are not speaking out against specific instances of male violence against women. I’ve been doing alot of research and reading alot of MRA sites – I see statsitical distortions, speaking out against women’s violence against men, and in the most extreme cases absolute denial that women have ever experienced violence or oppression or marginalization from men.

OBS: Here’s the problem – you keep getting ish all twisted. First off, I am not an MRA, though I do think they have some worthwile goals. Second, my blogsite is singular for its speaking out on a wide range of issues. Third, while you were doing the Columbia thing, I was putting my life on the line to protect them from being abused, beaten to a pulp, raped and sexually harassed. See what happens when you really do not know what you are talking about, Ms. Romano? I was speaking out against many of Roissy’s views long before you and Lady Raine came along and before I even had a blogsite of my own. So you were saying?

These sites seem to forget many facts which inspired feminism to develop, such as:

women being considered the legal property of their husbands
women being blamed for having been raped
men hitting their wives being legal
women not being allowed to be educated as men are and have careers as men do, thus having financial indepednece.

women being defined entirely by their biology – as though every women aspires and ought to aspire to being a wife, mother, cook, maid, and sex kitten for her husband.

DR: I also see an alarming amount of unscientific and completely baseless assertions that women are not as intellectually capable as men.

OBS: Are you saying that I have said such things? If so, please provide the direct quotes, as I’ve done in my Open Letter in response to your Aug 1 2009 blogpost on your site? Thank you.

DR: When you start speaking out about all of that, then you can ask me to speak out against specific incidents of violence against men perpetrated by women.

OBS: My pleasure; please provide the direct quotes per your statements above? Thank you.

DR: I do oppose violence against men by anyone, and I’ve made that clear.

OBS: No, you have not; only when painted in a corner and forced to be logically consistent, did you relent. I suppose sense it was under a bit of duress, I and others like me can be brought up on charges of abuse, right?

YDR: ou seem to not understand at all that Tiger may have given Elin and her youngest breastfeeding child HIV or Hep C or any other STD. You do not seem to understand that infidelity is in and of itself, a form of intimate partner violence that is deliberate and that is abusive in every way possible.

OBS: What infidelity is or is not is moot, but what we DO know, is that Ms. Woods broke the law by commiting physical violence against her husband. Not only is this assault but it is IPV as well. Period. It should and MUST be condemed in very clear, unambiguous language as possible. I do. What say you?

If someone exposed you and your young child to HIV, Hep C, and every other STD, I think you’d be enraged also and probably want to hit them with something. That she did is unfortunate. But, I see it as no different as when a loved one lunges at a murder defendant at that person’s murder trial when they say “yeah, I killed her and 11 other people”.

OBS: My dear Madam, the law is indeed very clear on this point – NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PHYSICALLY ASSAULT SOMEONE ELSE. In this case, Ms. Woods clearly did indeed commit acts of physical violence. Fact. And there simply can be no justification of this. Period.

DR: I don’t think you have made one solid point, so I’m concerned with what you think of my credibility. You’ve proven that you make dishonest statements repeteadly.

OBS: Such as…?

DR: Again, as for “Game being inherently abusive” It is, and I will prove it.

OBS: Proof from you would be a welcome change.

DR: I think we DO need a clinical case study, and I will be following up with researchers to ask them to conduct one.

OBS: Please do keep us informed.

DR: Since I don’t think there are any clinical case studies, I cannot quote any.

OBS: Hmm; so, as a counselling professional, don’t you think you should be about the business of actually conducting said studies, peer-reviewed and approved? Hmm, Ms. Romano?

DR: But, I don’t need to. Mystery’s book and Savoy’s newsletters ALONE prove what I’m saying.

OBS: Please cite chapter and verse, since you are so intimately familiar with these works? Thank you.

DR: Again, I really find your ignorance exhausting. I realize this thread is long, but if you read just the posts LR and I have made, we frankly have proven that game is abusive, that the snake oil salesmen who sell it to men are wrongly exploiting those men, that men are being taught methods that are abusive, manipulative, and psychologically and physically coercive, which can easily lead to sexual assault and rape.

OBS: Well, with all due respect Ms. Romano, I would think you are the last one who should be talking about what is exhausting or not, given your penchant for posting long and meandering writings on your blog – and the Exposed Roissy thread is nearing 800 comments, the vast majority of which were not made by myself. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that you have not proven your assertions. Saying it’s so doesn’t in fact, make it so. I await your clinical studies.

DR: Again, you fail to understand the significant difference between LR and I informing our opinions of game from the personal opinions of other women here who agree with you versus the legal and medical definitions of:
rape
undue influence
psychological manipulation
physical coercion
sexual assault
abuse
violence
hate speech
hate groups
cult groups.

OBS: But what you must understand, Ms. Romano, is that I am not interested in the least in your or anyone else’s OPINIONS. I am interested in FACTS – which thus far, you have failed to produce. I wonder how your instructors at Columbia U would look on your performance in this regard. Hmm.

DR: Perhaps you should consider that those definitions hold much more weight than yours or the men and women you’ll find who agree with you; you have all chosen to completely disregard what we’ve clearly stated about these legal and medical definitions.

OBS: What I do or don’t consider is wholly irrelevant; you are the one making the argument that Game is inherently “abusive”. Alright – PROVE IT. By the way Ms. Romano, what clinical studies have you done, specifically on Game, in this regard, that PROVES that it is indeed inherently “abusive”? What top practitioners have been brought up on charges of abuse? You lumped in Neil “Style” Strauss in with known spousal abusers, murderers and rapists. What evidence do you have that justifies this inclusion of Style along with OJ Simpson, Mike Tyson and Scott Peterson? This is what you said on your Aug 1 2009 blogpost hit and run piece on Game, where you also conflate and lump in alot more things as well. Please explain – and show and prove?

DR: Instead of your longwinded and annoying emails when I’ve TOLD you I will reply to you when I’m able to do so – why don’t you use this time to read those legal and medical definitions and reconsider your position in an intellectually honest manner?

OBS: Careful, Ms. Romano, I keep a very detailed record of EVERY email I send (& receive), and can tell you that I haven’t emailed you in at least 72 hours, if not longer; I think I’ve sent, max, three? In the past week? How about this great idea – instead of bloviating on blogs and ducking my Open Letter, how about you actually read the books on Game you claim to have studied – by your own admission you don’t even know what most acronyms mean (for example – what’s PAS and how it operates? Hmm?) – and reconsider your position in an intellectually honest manner?

DR: Again, re: PERSONAL RESPONSBILITY on the part of Women: you clearly have not read anything posted here from NLP and hypnosis professionals as well as what has been stated about undue influence and psychological ad physical coercion.

DR: I would think for your own good, you’d want to fully understand these concepts – at the very least.

OBS: I know more than you give me credit for – and in any event, I have gone on record long before I even know who you were, about my stance wrt NLP. Next question?

“Afterall, no one can force a Woman to go home with a Man against her will, among a great many things.”

DR: Your statement above is untrue. Many women are forced to go home with men in rape situations. This is fairly common.

OBS: That may be, but you have yet to PROVE THAT GAME TEACHES THIS, nor have you PROVEN THAT HIGH PROFILE PRACTITIONERS OF GAME HAVE DONE THIS. Perhaps you’re compiling such evidence of late, and hence your greatr delay in responding to my Open Letter to you last week?

DR: And, when a man uses deception about who he is and what his intentions are, he is conning a woman to go home with him, whether it’s the first night or the tenth night. He is denying her the ability to make an informed decision because he has been deceptive, manipulative and coercive. This is abusive and psychologically violent.

OBS: Please point out specifically, the page number and book title/author, who specifically advocates this? I am aware of no such specific directive. Thanks.

“It is up to Women conduct themselves as full and free adults, which of course, comes with responsibilities.”

DR: Yes and men have the very same responsibility. Therefore, when men resort to deception, manipulation, psychological coercion, undue influence, physical coercin, and outright lying; they are NOT conducting themselves as adults, responsibly, or ethically.

Denise

OBS: I’m so glad you agree; then I look forward to your response to a real life scenario that happened to a friend of mine? I’ll post it soon. Stay tuned…

The Obsidian

codebuster January 11, 2010 at 19:30

@Obsidian

DR: Perhaps you should consider that those definitions hold much more weight than yours or the men and women you’ll find who agree with you; you have all chosen to completely disregard what we’ve clearly stated about these legal and medical definitions.

DR: Instead of your longwinded and annoying emails when I’ve TOLD you I will reply to you when I’m able to do so – why don’t you use this time to read those legal and medical definitions and reconsider your position in an intellectually honest manner?

When I first read DR’s emphasis on legal/medical definitions, in her most recent post, I didn’t understand why she was referencing them. I was wondering if she was threatening us, in the sense of “just do it, ‘coz we’ll getcha ‘coz we have the law on our side.” Now, all is clear. She makes the assumption that the very existence of those definitions by the medical and legal authorities of the State provides its own validity. These “validated” definitions have the stamp of approval of a legitimate authority… god bless her well-intentioned but misguided soul. More evidence that women have trouble with logic. They live amid assumed (validated) truths rather than analysed (questioned) truths. What she doesn’t get is that what we have emerging is a contemporary form of tyranny, no different to Communism, Nazism, Idi-Aminism, or any of the other horrors that have transpired throughout human history. That is to say, tyrannies impose whatever law that they want irrespective of truth, logic or reality. And when tyrannies emerge, it is time for decent men and women to rise up and overthrow them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 13, 2010 at 00:18

I suggest you all read up on what Consent means under various state laws:

http://www.spr.org/pdf/Rape%20by%20Fraud.pdf

Arousal is NOT consent.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 13, 2010 at 00:28

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the letters after her name, if slightly re-arranged, spell ‘Madam’?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 13, 2010 at 00:31

I think it’s funny that she’s posting here about arousal at 3:30AM her time. Must have been a frustrating day at the office.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 13, 2010 at 00:54

I wonder if feminists like Denise Romano would agree that :

a) It is just better for everyone if people film their sex acts. Then, consent is clearly recorded, and all possibilities of misunderstandings are eliminated. A clear record of consent is clearly valuable.

b) Mandatory Paternity Tests (MPT) should be enacted, so that a man can be sure that the child is his, and no longer has to worry about being cuckolded. 80% of men think being cuckolded would be worse for them than being raped, and the woman does not have to fear that her husband is suspicious of her if she has done nothing wrong.

So, Denise, how about it? Do you agree with the above? Both would make both men and women better off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 13, 2010 at 00:54

Yea she needs ignored along with obsidian. They should date each other.

Her with everything is rape and him with his “bad game” crap. Like it is a superpower.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious January 13, 2010 at 00:59

@Denise A. Romano

wow…
is it also rape when a woman cheats on her boyfriend/husband but continues sleeping with him?
Is it rape if she becomes emotionally distant from her husband (falls for a coworker for instance) yet continues sleeping with her partner imagining the other guy?
Is it rape if a woman is with a man because of his money and not out of love yet she is pretending she is in love with him (assuming she can provide for her basic needs)?
To take it to extreme, is it rape if a woman previously had plastic surgery to correct her nose yet she does not tell her partner and they have kids with huge noses as a consequence? Obviously she was dishonest, maybe he would withdraw his sexual consent if he knew about her nose?
Would wearing contact lenses, coloring your hair, wearing make-up and using extensions to get a man also constitute rape since the man might not consent if he knew the woman was not a blond with blue eyes, cherry lips and ivory skin?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuckles January 13, 2010 at 02:33
Denise A. Romano January 13, 2010 at 04:20
Jabherwochie January 13, 2010 at 10:16

Denise-

No one here said that arrousal equals consent. When I brought it up, it was a rhetorical question to further my point. Way to lash out against offensive words without really analyzing their context or purpose.

Evolutionary psychology explains why we are the way we are. It does not tell us we should be that way, or define these human attributes as moral or immoral. Science does not judge. Stereotypes also don’t just pop out of thin air. They point to trends. Many stereotypes are exagerated, but they all point to trends in behavior and ability that most often are quite real. We here, and evolutionary pschologist, willingly admit that exceptions exist, as humans are diverse in abilities and motivations, but this does not invalidate trends, especially in the context of scientifically studied phenomenon. All of psychology points to cognitive and emotional trends, not absolutes. No one consistently acts or feels a specific way all of the time. There will always be exceptions. Should all psychologist and psychiatrist resign because their treatments and medicines will not work 100% of the time on 100% of the people. Of course not. If most people act in way that predicts a normative behavior, but not everyone, you can’t just dimiss the normative behavior of everyone else to make the exceptions feel okay about themselves.

You do not argue in good faith. Your word is worthless. You have no honor. You have no business disputing or claiming scientific fact when you do not even understand the scientific method and its attempts to remove bias. Psychology is real. Evolution is real. Therefore, it is logical to infer that evolutioinary-psychology is a useful and predictive field of study.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 13, 2010 at 10:46

Posting links to articles penned by professors of Women’s Studies is not going to garner much support here, to be honest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 13, 2010 at 13:24

Denise,

So why aren’t you answering my two simple questions? Do you agree that both of the points above would be beneficial to both genders?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 14, 2010 at 02:03

Here is the cite for psychological coercion: If you are using PUA/Game/Seduction Techniques, you should read this link to educate yourself about laws concerning the use of Seduction, Deception, Manipulation, Fraud, and Psychological Coercion as those relate to risking being charged with Sexual Assault or Rape: http://www.spr.org/pdf/Rape%20by%20Fraud.pdf

Obsidian’s post above that he says is an exchange between he and I is an extremely edited (by him) cut and paste job – which is just more dishonesty from him.

Obsidian: You were warned to stop lying.

Your questions have already been answered three and four times very clearly and you still say they haven’t been. You are the one who is incapable of having a logical discussion or of understanding the most basic concepts.

Either you have a serious learning disability and are incapable of any reading comprehension whatsoever – or you’re intentionally distorting all of our statements to you which were made in good faith.

You’ve blown it and there is no more respect for you.

so adjourn your ass.

For the rest of you, I hope you’ll reconsider your illogical conclusions that all women want to hurt men, all women lie, etc. etc. etc.

Lady Raine and I have repeatedly said that we believe in gender equality and do believe any laws that are unfair to men should be changed.

We’ve also acknowledged repeatedly that not all men are terrible and not all women are wonderful. So stop saying all women think that or all feminists think that.

Get off the fucking pendulum.

There is a great deal of common ground to be found between men and women. There are men who’ve civilly and rationally shared credible information with me and others on my blog and on LR’s that has taught us things we didn’t know before, and we’ve been grateful for that.

We don’t hate men; we love most men. We are not on the pendulum – we’ve gotten off and that’s why we’re having this discussion.

What exactly is so terrifying to you about actually considering the possibility that not all women are evil, liars who want to make you miserable?

What exactly is so rewarding for you to believe that?

If you’ve been harmed by women – join the club. Many women have been harmed by men. So, don’t you see that men and women actually have a great deal in common?

I think it would be much more constructive to look at what defines abusive and harmful behavior and teach all humans that it is in all our interests to avoid it than it is to continue to conclude that half of the human race is evil.

And, we’re not reacting with blind hysteria b/c we’re somehow personally threatened by game.

We’ve identified aspects of it that we do find unethical and dangerous and we’ve tried to have a rational discussion about that.

We’ve learned that not ALL game is handled this way but that a majority of it seems to be.

I hope those of you who stubbornly cling to stubbornly polarized positions — while the rest of us are trying to learn from both men’s and women’s expericnces as well as from reliable and valid statistical analysis — will reconsider your views and join the discussion if you can do so in an intellectually honest manner.

Thanks
Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 14, 2010 at 02:16

We’ve learned that not ALL game is handled this way

Success!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 14, 2010 at 23:11

but that a majority of it seems to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX January 14, 2010 at 23:34

So, mz Romano, I can assume you are also on a full frontal assault on makeup, slutwear and “Rules” girls?

BTW Why is one of the first things the distaff defenders say after a man or boy has been raped by female/females is “Men can’t be raped – he had an erection”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Avinguda Diagonal January 15, 2010 at 00:03

“get off the pendulum”

– mrs malaprop, psy.d., ed.x., b.s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 15, 2010 at 00:16

3rd request :

I wonder if Denise Romano would agree that :

a) It is just better for everyone if people film their sex acts. Then, consent is clearly recorded, and all possibilities of misunderstandings are eliminated. A clear record of consent is clearly valuable.

b) Mandatory Paternity Tests (MPT) should be enacted, so that a man can be sure that the child is his, and no longer has to worry about being cuckolded. 80% of men think being cuckolded would be worse for them than being raped, and the woman does not have to fear that her husband is suspicious of her if she has done nothing wrong. A mandatory test makes everything transparent.

So, Denise, how about it? Do you agree with the above? Both would make both men and women better off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 15, 2010 at 00:42

”””””””What exactly is so terrifying to you about actually considering the possibility that not all women are evil, liars who want to make you miserable?””””””

It is not really that I don’t think. It is that all woman in us fall under laws of the us. Therefore it is a minfield for men when the divorce rate is so high and guys are the ones who are normally financially burdened and also lose the ability to raise their own kids. Also when you make insane laws up about rape then it is again another minefield that applies to all woman and all men are going to be able to be victimized by that. When you create laws that apply to a society it becomes very easy to paint with a broad brush doesn’t it because the laws are painting with a broad brush over everyone. So yea every woman is a potential time bomb under current legislation and every man a potential victim. It is what it is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 15, 2010 at 00:46

Therefore as the laws keep being increasingly worse in regards to treatment of all men. What do you think is going to be the reaction of men to that situation?
Do you think that the passing of even more laws that would be unfair to men would make life for a woman safer or more dangerous? If the penaly for just being a man becomes slavery at some point what do you think a man will do?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 15, 2010 at 00:54

””””””’For the rest of you, I hope you’ll reconsider your illogical conclusions that all women want to hurt men, all women lie, etc. etc. etc.””””

It is logical to conclude that all woman in us can take away the right of a father to raise his kids in a divorce.

It is also logical to conclude that all woman in us can make it so that a man can have the ability to say what he wants to do with his own money can be taken away from him.

It is logical to conclude that it would be safer not to deal with us woman at all but men wanting to have families is used against their own best interest and they get married and have kids anyway by using their biological drive to have kids that puts them in a situation where they can be abused by the system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 15, 2010 at 01:06

Yea sure if it was a free country people could just you know break up get divorced and move on with life. Sure it hurts to breakup but it has to hurt more to see the person you broke up with for the next 18 to 20 years because the government says you can’t break up. Same thing people supposedly claimed was wrong about the church right making people stay in bad marriages because they married for life. Saying it was bette to split up than have the kids see their parents unhappy and all that crap that was pushed out. Well now the government tells you your married for life and will keep having to interact with each other. A life sentence in prison is 20 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 15, 2010 at 09:16

I agree that divorce laws that are unfair to men should be changed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 15, 2010 at 09:16

I also agree that The Rules is just as bad as Game. And LR and I have repeatedly said this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 15, 2010 at 22:26

The irony of people who go on and on about people taking personal responsibility and yet blaming their own chosen behavior on distorted untrue theories:

The Fault, Dear Darwin, Lies Not in Our Ancestors, But in Ourselves
January 16, 2010 — Denise A. Romano, MA, EdM | Edit
Why Do We Rape, Kill and Sleep Around? The fault, dear Darwin, lies not in our ancestors, but in ourselves.

By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
Published Jun 20, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 29, 2009

Among scientists at the university of New Mexico that spring, rape was in the air. One of the professors, biologist Randy Thornhill, had just coauthored A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, which argued that rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, the 2000 book contended, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation.

That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.
The argument was well within the bounds of evolutionary psychology. Founded in the late 1980s in the ashes of sociobiology, this field asserts that behaviors that conferred a fitness advantage during the era when modern humans were evolving are the result of hundreds of genetically based cognitive “modules” preprogrammed in the brain. Since they are genetic, these modules and the behaviors they encode are heritable—passed down to future generations—and, together, constitute a universal human nature that describes how people think, feel and act, from the nightclubs of Manhattan to the farms of the Amish, from the huts of New Guinea aborigines to the madrassas of Karachi.

Evolutionary psychologists do not have a time machine, of course. So to figure out which traits were adaptive during the Stone Age, and therefore bequeathed to us like a questionable family heirloom, they make logical guesses. Men who were promiscuous back then were more evolutionarily fit, the researchers reasoned, since men who spread their seed widely left more descendants.

By similar logic, evolutionary psychologists argued, women who were monogamous were fitter; by being choosy about their mates and picking only those with good genes, they could have healthier children. Men attracted to young, curvaceous babes were fitter because such women were the most fertile; mating with dumpy, barren hags is not a good way to grow a big family tree. Women attracted to high-status, wealthy males were fitter; such men could best provide for the kids, who, spared starvation, would grow up to have many children of their own. Men who neglected or even murdered their stepchildren (and killed their unfaithful wives) were fitter because they did not waste their resources on nonrelatives. And so on, to the fitness-enhancing value of rape. We in the 21st century, asserts evo psych, are operating with Stone Age minds.

Over the years these arguments have attracted legions of critics who thought the science was weak and the message (what philosopher David Buller of Northern Illinois University called “a get-out-of-jail-free card” for heinous behavior) pernicious. But the reaction to the rape book was of a whole different order. Biologist Joan Roughgarden of Stanford University called it “the latest ‘evolution made me do it’ excuse for criminal behavior from evolutionary psychologists.” Feminists, sex-crime prosecutors and social scientists denounced it at rallies, on television and in the press.

Among those sucked into the rape debate that spring was anthropologist Kim Hill, then Thornhill’s colleague at UNM and now at Arizona State University. For decades Hill has studied the Ache, hunter-gatherer tribesmen in Paraguay. “I saw Thornhill all the time,” Hill told me at a barbecue at an ASU conference in April. “He kept saying that he thought rape was a special cognitive adaptation, but the arguments for that just seemed like more sloppy thinking by evolutionary psychology.” But how to test the claim that rape increased a man’s fitness? From its inception, evolutionary psychology had warned that behaviors that were evolutionarily advantageous 100,000 years ago (a sweet tooth, say) might be bad for survival today (causing obesity and thence infertility), so there was no point in measuring whether that trait makes people more evolutionarily fit today. Even if it doesn’t, evolutionary psychologists argue, the trait might have been adaptive long ago and therefore still be our genetic legacy. An unfortunate one, perhaps, but still our legacy. Short of a time machine, the hypothesis was impossible to disprove. Game, set and match to evo psych.

Or so it seemed. But Hill had something almost as good as a time machine. He had the Ache, who live much as humans did 100,000 years ago. He and two colleagues therefore calculated how rape would affect the evolutionary prospects of a 25-year-old Ache. (They didn’t observe any rapes, but did a what-if calculation based on measurements of, for instance, the odds that a woman is able to conceive on any given day.) The scientists were generous to the rape-as-adaptation claim, assuming that rapists target only women of reproductive age, for instance, even though in reality girls younger than 10 and women over 60 are often victims. Then they calculated rape’s fitness costs and benefits. Rape costs a man fitness points if the victim’s husband or other relatives kill him, for instance. He loses fitness points, too, if the mother refuses to raise a child of rape, and if being a known rapist (in a small hunter-gatherer tribe, rape and rapists are public knowledge) makes others less likely to help him find food. Rape increases a man’s evolutionary fitness based on the chance that a rape victim is fertile (15 percent), that she will conceive (a 7 percent chance), that she will not miscarry (90 percent) and that she will not let the baby die even though it is the child of rape (90 percent).

Hill then ran the numbers on the reproductive costs and benefits of rape. It wasn’t even close: the cost exceeds the benefit by a factor of 10. “That makes the likelihood that rape is an evolved adaptation extremely low,” says Hill. “It just wouldn’t have made sense for men in the Pleistocene to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up.”

These have not been easy days for evolutionary psychology. For years the loudest critics have been social scientists, feminists and liberals offended by the argument that humans are preprogrammed to rape, to kill unfaithful girlfriends and the like. (This was a reprise of the bitter sociobiology debates of the 1970s and 1980s. When Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson proposed that there exists a biologically based human nature, and that it included such traits as militarism and male domination of women, left-wing activists—including eminent biologists in his own department—assailed it as an attempt “to provide a genetic justification of the status quo and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class, race, or sex” analogous to the scientific justification for Nazi eugenics.) When Thornhill appeared on the Today show to talk about his rape book, for instance, he was paired with a sex-crimes prosecutor, leaving the impression that do-gooders might not like his thesis but offering no hint of how scientifically unsound it is.

That is changing. Evo psych took its first big hit in 2005, when NIU’s Buller exposed flaw after fatal flaw in key studies underlying its claims, as he laid out in his book Adapting Minds. Anthropological studies such as Hill’s on the Ache, shooting down the programmed-to-rape idea, have been accumulating. And brain scientists have pointed out that there is no evidence our gray matter is organized the way evo psych claims, with hundreds of specialized, preprogrammed modules. Neuroscientist Roger Bingham of the University of California, San Diego, who describes himself as a once devout “member of the Church of Evolutionary Psychology” (in 1996 he created and hosted a multimillion-dollar PBS series praising the field), has come out foursquare against it, accusing some of its adherents of an “evangelical” fervor. Says evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci of Stony Brook University, “Evolutionary stories of human behavior make for a good narrative, but not good science.”

Like other critics, he has no doubt that evolution shaped the human brain. How could it be otherwise, when evolution has shaped every other human organ? But evo psych’s claims that human behavior is constrained by mental modules that calcified in the Stone Age make sense “only if the environmental challenges remain static enough to sculpt an instinct over evolutionary time,” Pigliucci points out. If the environment, including the social environment, is instead dynamic rather than static—which all evidence suggests—then the only kind of mind that makes humans evolutionarily fit is one that is flexible and responsive, able to figure out a way to make trade-offs, survive, thrive and reproduce in whatever social and physical environment it finds itself in. In some environments it might indeed be adaptive for women to seek sugar daddies. In some, it might be adaptive for stepfathers to kill their stepchildren. In some, it might be adaptive for men to be promiscuous. But not in all. And if that’s the case, then there is no universal human nature as evo psych defines it.

That is what a new wave of studies has been discovering, slaying assertions about universals right and left. One evo-psych claim that captured the public’s imagination—and a 1996 cover story in NEWSWEEK—is that men have a mental module that causes them to prefer women with a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7 (a 36-25-36 figure, for instance). Reprising the rape debate, social scientists and policymakers who worried that this would send impressionable young women scurrying for a measuring tape and a how-to book on bulimia could only sputter about how pernicious this message was, but not that it was scientifically wrong. To the contrary, proponents of this idea had gobs of data in their favor. Using their favorite guinea pigs—American college students—they found that men, shown pictures of different female body types, picked Ms. 36-25-36 as their sexual ideal. The studies, however, failed to rule out the possibility that the preference was not innate—human nature—but, rather, the product of exposure to mass culture and the messages it sends about what’s beautiful. Such basic flaws, notes Bingham, “led to complaints that many of these experiments seemed a little less than rigorous to be underpinning an entire new field.”

Later studies, which got almost no attention, indeed found that in isolated populations in Peru and Tanzania, men consider hourglass women sickly looking. They prefer 0.9s—heavier women. And last December, anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan of the University of Utah reported in the journal Current Anthropology that men now prefer this non-hourglass shape in countries where women tend to be economically independent (Britain and Denmark) and in some non-Western societies where women bear the responsibility for finding food. Only in countries where women are economically dependent on men (such as Japan, Greece and Portugal) do men have a strong preference for Barbie. (The United States is in the middle.) Cashdan puts it this way: which body type men prefer “should depend on [italics added] the degree to which they want their mates to be strong, tough, economically successful and politically competitive.”

Depend on? The very phrase is anathema to the dogma of a universal human nature. But it is the essence of an emerging, competing field. Called behavioral ecology, it starts from the premise that social and environmental forces select for various behaviors that optimize people’s fitness in a given environment. Different environment, different behaviors—and different human “natures.” That’s why men prefer Ms. 36-25-36 in some cultures (where women are, to exaggerate only a bit, decorative objects) but not others (where women bring home salaries or food they’ve gathered in the jungle).

And it’s why the evo psych tenet that men have an inherited mental module that causes them to prefer young, beautiful women while women have one that causes them to prefer older, wealthy men also falls apart. As 21st-century Western women achieve professional success and gain financial independence, their mate preference changes, scientists led by Fhionna Moore at Scotland’s University of St Andrews reported in 2006 in the journal Evolutionand Human Behaviour. The more financially independent a woman is, the more likely she is to choose a partner based on looks than bank balance—kind of like (some) men. (Yes, growing sexual equality in the economic realm means that women, too, are free to choose partners based on how hot they are, as the cougar phenomenon suggests.) Although that finding undercuts evo psych, it supports the “it depends” school of behavioral ecology, which holds that natural selection chose general intelligence and flexibility, not mental modules preprogrammed with preferences and behaviors. “Evolutionary psychology ridicules the notion that the brain could have evolved to be an all-purpose fitness-maximizing mechanism,” says Hill. “But that’s exactly what we keep finding.”

One of the uglier claims of evo psych is that men have a mental module to neglect and even kill their stepchildren. Such behavior was adaptive back when humans were evolving, goes the popular version of this argument, because men who invested in stepchildren wasted resources they could expend on their biological children. Such kindly stepfathers would, over time, leave fewer of their own descendants, causing “support your stepchildren” genes to die out. Men with genes that sculpted the “abandon stepchildren” mental module were evolutionarily fitter, so their descendants—us—also have that preprogrammed module. The key evidence for this claim comes from studies showing that stepchildren under the age of 5 are 40 times more likely to be abused than biological children.

Those studies have come under fire, however, for a long list of reasons. For instance, many child-welfare records do not indicate who the abuser was; at least some abused stepchildren are victims of their mother, not the stepfather, the National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect reported in 2005. That suggests that records inflate the number of instances of abuse by stepfathers. Also, authorities are suspicious of stepfathers; if a child living in a stepfamily dies of maltreatment, they are nine times more likely to record it as such than if the death occurs in a home with only biological parents, found a 2002 study led by Buller examining the records of every child who died in Colorado from 1990 to 1998. That suggests that child-abuse data undercount instances of abuse by biological fathers.

Finally, a 2008 study in Sweden found that many men who kill stepchildren are (surprise) mentally ill. It’s safe to assume that single mothers do not exactly get their pick of the field when it comes to remarrying. If the men they wed are therefore more likely to be junkies, drunks and psychotic, then any additional risk to stepchildren reflects that fact, and not a universal mental module that tells men to abuse their new mate’s existing kids. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson of Canada’s McMaster University, whose work led to the idea that men have a mental module for neglecting stepchildren, now disavow the claim that such abuse was ever adaptive. But, says Daly, “attempts to deny that [being a stepfather] is a risk factor for maltreatment are simply preposterous and occasionally, as in the writings of David Buller, dishonest.”

If the data on child abuse by stepfathers seem inconsistent, that’s exactly the point. In some circumstances, it may indeed be adaptive to get rid of the other guy’s children. In other circumstances, it is more adaptive to love and support them. Again, it depends. New research in places as different as American cities and the villages of African hunter-gatherers shows that it’s common for men to care and provide for their stepchildren. What seems to characterize these situations, says Hill, is marital instability: men and women pair off, have children, then break up. In such a setting, the flexible human mind finds ways “to attract or maintain mating access to the mother,” Hill explains. Or, more crudely, be nice to a woman’s kids and she’ll sleep with you, which maximizes a man’s fitness. Kill her kids and she’s likely to take it badly, cutting you off and leaving your sperm unable to fulfill their Darwinian mission. And in societies that rely on relatives to help raise kids, “it doesn’t make sense to destroy a 10-year-old stepkid since he could be a helper,” Hill points out. “The fitness cost of raising a stepchild until he is old enough to help is much, much less than evolutionary biologists have claimed. Biology is more complicated than these simplistic scenarios saying that killing stepchildren is an adaptation that enhances a man’s fitness.”

Even the notion that being a brave warrior helps a man get the girls and leave many offspring has been toppled. Until missionaries moved in in 1958, the Waorani tribe of the Ecuadoran Amazon had the highest rates of homicide known to science: 39 percent of women and 54 percent of men were killed by other Waorani, often in blood feuds that lasted generations. “The conventional wisdom had been that the more raids a man participated in, the more wives he would have and the more descendants he would leave,” says anthropologist Stephen Beckerman of Pennsylvania State University. But after painstakingly constructing family histories and the raiding and killing records of 95 warriors, he and his colleagues reported last month in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they turned that belief on its head. “The badass guys make terrible husband material,” says Beckerman. “Women don’t prefer them as husbands and they become the targets of counterraids, which tend to kill their wives and children, too.” As a result, the über-warriors leave fewer descendants—the currency of evolutionary fitness—than less aggressive men. Tough-guy behavior may have conferred fitness in some environments, but not in others. It depends. “The message for the evolutionary-psychology guys,” says Beckerman, “is that there was no single environment in which humans evolved” and therefore no single human nature.

I can’t end the list of evo-psych claims that fall apart under scientific scrutiny without mentioning jealousy. Evo psych argues that jealousy, too, is an adaptation with a mental module all its own, designed to detect and thwart threats to reproductive success. But men’s and women’s jealousy modules supposedly differ. A man’s is designed to detect sexual infidelity: a woman who allows another man to impregnate her takes her womb out of service for at least nine months, depriving her mate of reproductive opportunities. A woman’s jealousy module is tuned to emotional infidelity, but she doesn’t much care if her mate is unfaithful; a man, being a promiscuous cad, will probably stick with wife No. 1 and their kids even if he is sexually unfaithful, but may well abandon them if he actually falls in love with another woman.

Let’s not speculate on the motives that (mostly male) evolutionary psychologists might have in asserting that their wives are programmed to not really care if they sleep around, and turn instead to the evidence. In questionnaires, more men than women say they’d be upset more by sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity, by a margin of more than 2-to-1, David Buss of the University of Texas found in an early study of American college students. But men are evenly split on which kind of infidelity upsets them more: half find it more upsetting to think of their mate falling in love with someone else; half find it more upsetting to think of her sleeping with someone else. Not very strong evidence for the claim that men, as a species, care more about sexual infidelity. And in some countries, notably Germany and the Netherlands, the percentage of men who say they find sexual infidelity more upsetting than the emotional kind is only 28 percent and 23 percent. Which suggests that, once again, it depends: in cultures with a relaxed view of female sexuality, men do not get all that upset if a woman has a brief, meaningless fling. It does not portend that she will leave him. It is much more likely that both men and women are wired to detect behavior that threatens their bond, but what that behavior is depends on culture. In a society where an illicit affair portends the end of a relationship, men should indeed be wired to care about that. In a society where that’s no big deal, they shouldn’t—and, it seems, don’t. New data on what triggers jealousy in women also undercut the simplistic evo-psych story. Asked which upsets them more—imagining their partner having acrobatic sex with another woman or falling in love with her—only 13 percent of U.S. women, 12 percent of Dutch women and 8 percent of German women chose door No. 2. So much for the handy “she’s wired to not really care if I sleep around” excuse.

Critics of evo psych do not doubt that men and women are wired to become jealous. A radar for infidelity would indeed be adaptive. But the evidence points toward something gender-neutral. Men and women have both evolved the ability to distinguish between behavior that portends abandonment and behavior that does not, and to get upset only at the former. Which behavior is which depends on the society.

Evolutionary psychology is not going quietly. It has had the field to itself, especially in the media, for almost two decades. In large part that was because early critics, led by the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, attacked it with arguments that went over the heads of everyone but about 19 experts in evolutionary theory. It isn’t about to give up that hegemony. Thornhill is adamant that rape is an adaptation, despite Hill’s results from his Ache study. “If a particular trait or behavior is organized to do something,” as he believes rape is, “then it is an adaptation and so was selected for by evolution,” he told me. And in the new book Spent, evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller of the University of New Mexico reasserts the party line, arguing that “males have much more to gain from many acts of intercourse with multiple partners than do females,” and there is a “universal sex difference in human mate choice criteria, with men favoring younger, fertile women, and women favoring older, higher-status, richer men.”

On that point, the evidence instead suggests that both sexes prefer mates around their own age, adjusted for the fact that men mature later than women. If the male mind were adapted to prefer the most fertile women, then AARP-eligible men should marry 23-year-olds, which—Anna Nicole Smith and J. Howard Marshall notwithstanding—they do not, instead preferring women well past their peak fertility. And, interestingly, when Miller focuses on the science rather than tries to sell books, he allows that “human mate choice is much more than men just liking youth and beauty, and women liking status and wealth,” as he told me by e-mail.

Yet evo psych remains hugely popular in the media and on college campuses, for obvious reasons. It addresses “these very sexy topics,” says Hill. “It’s all about sex and violence,” and has what he calls “an obsession with Pleistocene just-so stories.” And few people—few scientists—know about the empirical data and theoretical arguments that undercut it. “Most scientists are too busy to read studies outside their own narrow field,” he says.

Far from ceding anything, evolutionary psychologists have moved the battle from science, where they are on shaky ground, to ideology, where bluster and name-calling can be quite successful. UNM’s Miller, for instance, complains that critics “have convinced a substantial portion of the educated public that evolutionary psychology is a pernicious right-wing conspiracy,” and complains that believing in evolutionary psychology is seen “as an indicator of conservatism, disagreeableness and selfishness.” That, sadly, is how much too much of the debate has gone. “Critics have been told that they’re just Marxists motivated by a hatred of evolutionary psychology,” says Buller. “That’s one reason I’m not following the field anymore: the way science is being conducted is more like a political campaign.”

Where, then, does the fall of evolutionary psychology leave the idea of human nature? Behavioral ecology replaces it with “it depends”—that is, the core of human nature is variability and flexibility, the capacity to mold behavior to the social and physical demands of the environment. As Buller says, human variation is not noise in the system; it is the system. To be sure, traits such as symbolic language, culture, tool use, emotions and emotional expression do indeed seem to be human universals. It’s the behaviors that capture the public imagination—promiscuous men and monogamous women, stepchild-killing men and the like—that turn out not to be. And for a final nail in the coffin, geneticists have discovered that human genes evolve much more quickly than anyone imagined when evolutionary psychology was invented, when everyone assumed that “modern” humans had DNA almost identical to that of people 50,000 years ago. Some genes seem to be only 10,000 years old, and some may be even younger.

That has caught the attention of even the most ardent proponents of evo psych, because when the environment is changing rapidly—as when agriculture was invented or city-states arose—is also when natural selection produces the most dramatic changes in a gene pool. Yet most of the field’s leaders, admits UNM’s Miller, “have not kept up with the last decade’s astounding progress in human evolutionary genetics.” The discovery of genes as young as agriculture and city-states, rather than as old as cavemen, means “we have to rethink to foundational assumptions” of evo psych, says Miller, starting with the claim that there are human universals and that they are the result of a Stone Age brain. Evolution indeed sculpted the human brain. But it worked in malleable plastic, not stone, bequeathing us flexible minds that can take stock of the world and adapt to it.

With Jeneen Interlandi
© 2009

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
SteveinTX January 15, 2010 at 23:02

I also agree that The Rules is just as bad as Game.

O.K. Denise — don’t just say so — take it to them. Same with divorce laws.

After you have had an impact on the women — a measureable impact
( e.g. laws changed , lifeboat feminism denouced by the MSM) then come back, we’ll talk.

Until then, you are just another entitlement princess that wants men to change so that women don’t have to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Julius Ray Hoffman January 16, 2010 at 00:17

I am very disturbed that you comment so much, and so approvingly, on “Lady Raine’s” site in this post:

http://ladyraine.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/exposed-roissy-in-dc/

That post is, first of all, intended to harass another person who has expressed a clear desire to remain anonymous. But that’s not why I’m raising the issue with you. What I specifically want to mention is that the post previously identified the person as “Jimmy-the-Jew” and referred to him as a “finance-Jew”, both in a derogatory, harassing, anti-Semitic way. Those references have now been replaced by the phrase “Jesus-Jimmy”. I have retained a PDF printout of the page with the original anti-Semitic comments.

I cannot understand how someone such as yourself can tout your academic qualifications and advertise yourself as a “coach” while at the same time participating in such an anti-Semitic attack. While you and “Lady Raine” may have justified complaints about this person, there is absolutely no need to engage in downright offensive and gratuitous anti-Semitic rhetoric. I realize that this might not be your blog, or perhaps it is and you yourself are the pseudonymous “Lady Raine”, but either way you comment extensively and approvingly and so the distinction (if there is one) between you and the original author of the anti-Semitic comments is quickly lost.

If you require an occupation license to work as a “coach”, I think the licensing authorities out to take a look at these anti-Semitic attacks and determine if you are qualified to continue in your profession. Personally, I cannot understand how someone can be an effective “coach” while at the same time referring to someone else in a derogatory context as “Jimmy-the-Jew” and a “finance-Jew”.

I raised this issue myself in the comments to that post. Here is Lady Raine’s (your??) response:

LR EDIT: *rolls eyes yet AGAIN* Seriously, if you posted that comment that means you don’t understand why it’s funny….why it is a joke AGAINST Roissy and NOT “random Jews” and that I openly mock every race, creed, culture, and religion….including my own.

If you are looking for “Politically Correct” you are not going to find it here. I believe political correctness is a way for people to ignore the truths about themselves. See, the things about stereotypes is that they come from SOME tiny grain of truth. Otherwise they wouldn’t be so “offensive”, so if you are looking for some kinda Mel Gibson style apology, you won’t get it.

I don’t care if Jews take over the earth….or if they disappear entirely….that’s my attitude about pretty much everyone who is NOT me, my family, or my son. If labeling me as a Jew-Hater makes you feel better and will shut you people up and teach you to have a goddamn backbone and STOP playing the freaking VICTIM voluntarily….then I’d be MORE than happy to be labeled as “Anti-Semitic”…..even though in order to call me THAT you’d also have to call me Anti-White, Anti-Black, Anti-Hispanic, Anti-Men, Anti-Woman, Anti-Religion, and Anti-Aethism.

Whichever your pick, I don’t care because what Jews do or don’t do isn’t important to me. Neither is what Blacks or Whites do or don’t do. If you want to continue to play victim because you are a Jew….or a woman…..or a Black….or a White Male….be my guest. But I’m not going to help you make those false claims.

So basically: Take your crying elsewhere because you CLEARLY have no knowledge of WHAT my views are about anyone at all…..including the Jews.

(PS: Last I checked “Jew” is the CORRECT term to describe a Jew-Ish person. If you find it offensive, then it’s because you are offended by WHAT you are….not what I call you. Do you see Mexicans losing their mind over being called what they are? Which is “Mexican”?? Do you see Whites being offended by being called “White”?)

It’s not like I went off on some “side rant” about Jews as a people, as a religion, or anything at all other than using it for a play on words…..so go cry to your Jewish Leaders or something about getting the term “Jew” changed to something else if you don’t like it…..but your false victimhood is falling on deaf ears here. Sorry.

So go ahead, tell the WHOLE WORLD that “Lady Raine hates Jews” as much as you’d like. It won’t make me like, dislike, or even think about them anymore than I do now (which is not at all).

You comment extensively in the post after Lady Raine’s rant. But in none of your comments do you even suggest that it is inappropriate to refer to someone as “Jimmy-the-Jew” or a “finance-Jew” in a derogatory way.

You do, however, offer the following definition of “hate speech” in one of your comments:

Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.

I think your use of, or at least your implicit support of, the terms “Jimmy-the-Jew” and “finance-Jew” in the context of the post meet the requirements of hate speech. How can you be an effective coach when you support hate speech yourself?

I have also left this comment on your blog here:

http://eqwithdenise.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/please-join-an-ongoing-discussion-about-pua-pick-up-artist-and-mra-mens-rights-advocates-groups/

and on Lady Raine’s blog at the original post address above.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Julius Ray Hoffman January 16, 2010 at 00:19

That last comment was intended for DENISE A. ROMANO, MA, EdM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 17, 2010 at 03:19

Hoffman:

I’ve already replied to you on LR’s blog, but to summarize:

I did comment on her use of “Jimmy the Jew” and I asked her about it. You must have missed that. I believed (correctly) that LR was intentionally satirizing the rampant anti-semitism and racism found on Roissy’s blog.

I also said that if it was my blog (which it isn’t), I would have called him “Jimmy the Jerk” instead. I also emailed LR about this privately.

To her credit, LR’s diplomatically and graciously chose to respond to concerns posted by people who didn’t get the satirization of Roissy’s blog, and she changed it to “Jesus Jimmy”.

You obviously did not read all the comments, and you really should before you start throwing around accusations. You’re mistaken on every point.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 17, 2010 at 03:22

Oh, and LR and I are completely separate people.

If you had actually read both of our blogs with any thoroughness, you’d know that.

Did you also send an accusatory letter to Roissy and his commentors or the other extremist MRA sites that are filled with racism and sexism and homophobia?

That would be a much better use of your time.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 17, 2010 at 03:36

I believed (correctly) that LR was intentionally satirizing the rampant anti-semitism and racism found on Roissy’s blog.

Apparently you didn’t get that that was satirical in the first place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 17, 2010 at 04:46

Victims of rape suffer physical and mental trauma.

Physical trauma may include cuts, bruises and abrasions in the pelvic area as well as elsewhere on the body.

Mental trauma may include overwhelming feelings of humiliation, embarrassment and defilement.

Rape victims should seek treatment at a hospital. There, doctors and nurses can treat the injuries, administer antibiotics to prevent sexually- transmitted diseases, and provide counseling or any other additional therapy (mental or physical) that the patient requires.

I have to admit to taking issue with the definitions of rape.

I find the eternal victimisation of every person who has been raped to be frustrating.

I was raped years ago, and you know what? I got over it. Not everybody does, but enough of us do that this characterization gives me the dry rots. (I’m trying to give up swearing for Lent).

I have friends who were assaulted/molested/raped, and funnily enough, they got past it, too. Without all spending a fortune on counsellors.

Some did, some didn’t.

I didn’t.

Now that I’ve got that off my chest, back to the topic.

Is Game dishonest as Denise seems to believe? I’m going with the guys on this one – it’s just a tool you use.

Women have other tools that they use. I might not wear makeup to work, for example, but I sure as hell wouldn’t dress up for a formal do without making sure I look hot to trot. That means the high heels, the makeup.

I don’t wear the skimpy little tight dresses any more because I can’t think of anything worse than mutton done up as lamb, and my hips have proven their child-bearing worth.

But I do look good.

It’s what you do with the tools in your arsenal that matters. With some blokes, Game is all about getting laid, for others it’s a way to achieve harmony.

It works. I lived long enough with a Gamer to pick up on how it worked, and I’ve seen it in action too many times. The guys that reckon they can get into a woman’s pants within minutes? I’ve seen that happen, too.

And you know what? A lot of the women came back for seconds and thirds.

But actions have consequences, and what goes around comes around, to shout out a few cliches. In the case of the fellow I lived with, he was extremely immoral and had no compunction about using and abusing women. Last I heard, he’s pissed off so many people he has to stay overseas.

No way he’d come back here – he’s living in Asia spending what little money he has left on cheap grog and cheaper hookers. Living off his glory years.

Game wasn’t what reduced his circumstances – he’s a horse’s arse.

Denise, you can complain about this place being inhospitable to women, but so many women’s sites are likewise inhospitable to men.

The complaints of men here of the double standard are valid. When we women get together for whine and crackers, we’re bonding. When men get together and actually articulate stuff of emotional nature (like us women apparently want them to do), then they’re being a bunch of sooks.

Make up your mind.

You mentioned hurt and anger, absolutely, and it’s right that men can speak their mind, too.

I don’t comment often precisely because it’s not my territory, but sometimes, I’m happy to stick my head up and suggest you pull yours out.

Oh, and Obsidian’s right – regardless of what Tiger did, his wife should be in jail about now for domestic violence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Scattered January 17, 2010 at 05:17

Bottom line, this definition of rape is absurd, taken to its logical conclusion rape occur’s either during all sex or whenever either man or women says it is. Your using an immoral not to mention unlawful definition as grounds for classifying Game tactics as being a form of rape.

This definition infringes on a humans right to free speech, privacy and also to lie (believe it or not it is not a criminal offense to lie). Your emotions be damned, words do not have power to influence other’s unless the listener allows them, violent threats aside anyone who acts according to the words of others is doing so at their own discretion. Its all part and parcel of being a free and responsible human being.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 17, 2010 at 06:07

Throwing pearls before swine, guys.

This person is disingenuous in the extreme for claiming that sex in marriage after infidelity is rape.

Not worth the time of effort to expend any energy at all discussing anything with this person.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed January 17, 2010 at 06:07

@nilk

Wow. I wish there were a lot more women like you in this world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 17, 2010 at 12:31

…sex in marriage after infidelity is rape.

Agreed, Nova. In my book, sex in marriage after infidelity is……. sex in marriage after infidelity.

If one party has gone outside the marriage and the other doesn’t know, how is that rape? Sorry, that’s bulldust.

Technical definitions aside, I consider rape to be when I say no, I don’t want to do this, it hurts, and get told to shut up and get over the pain.

Rape is when a woman is dragged into a car by four guys at 2am on a rainy night ( let’s not get into wtf she was doing there in the first place, and no, it wasn’t me).

Rape is when your brother forces himself onto you and you find your first sexual experience happening when nobody is around.

Rape is when the man your mother has taken in as a boarder to make money while your father is away in the war corners your little brother and does things to him. Your mother comes home early one day and finds out what’s been going on and beats the living daylights out of him with a broom, but you know what? That still didn’t save your brother and he committed suicide at 30.

Those are some of my definitions of rape, Denise.

All of those are true, and only the first happened to me.

Sex after infidelity is nothing but sex if it’s consensual, and if you like to think of that as rape, then you’ve got far too much time on your hands and need to get out of your ivory tower.

/rant off. I just get totally p!ssed off with ever-expanding definition of “rape”.

Too many women are whiny little children. Something doesn’t go your own way? Change your situation or your attitude. It’s a no-brainer.

I guess, though, too many people don’t have brains any more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 17, 2010 at 12:43

You’re right, nilk. The whole post.

One of the worst slurs against MRAs is that our agenda involves ‘bringing back’ the ‘right to rape’.

Which is completely, utterly untrue.

For instance, I don’t think there is an MRA who would not agree that the situations you described above are indeed rape, and that nobody should do these things to another.

Those who make the accusation against us know this all too well, but it’s very convenient for them to pretend that our objection to the enlarging of the concept of ‘rape’ to include things which patently are not rape translates into rape apologia.

If ‘rape’ is called such for no other reason than the woman was drunk (even if she pursued sex and clearly consented), then yeah, I’m a HUGE rape apologist.

If ‘rape’ is defined as such because the woman consented and later had regrets, then god damn, they’re right, I’m a rape apologist 100%.

But if we define ‘rape’ as ‘rape’ – i.e. forced sex – then of course I’m not. But feminists certainly like the idea of sending more and more innocent men to prison, where some of them may be raped.

And do they care? Do they speak out against this?

No, they keep on pushing for more and more punitive laws, to imprison more and more men.

Who are the rape facilitators, one may wonder …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 17, 2010 at 12:58

Zed, there are very few of us around, because the female brain is wired differently to men’s, and therefore discussions like this are difficult.

I can’t talk Game or evo psych or a lot of this stuff with my women friends because they just can’t get their heads around it. We can skim across the surface, but when I start getting to the meat of the matter, they switch off.

I’ve been reading Roissy for years, for example, but there are times when I still have to walk away for a break because what is expressed there in his posts and comments are hard for me to process. It’s just the way our minds work, and a lot of women don’t like to hear that.

Not after years of being told that we can do anything. Helen Reddy needs a smack upside the head for her piece of crap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 17, 2010 at 20:52

it’s not *my* definitition of rape; it’s the legal/medical definition.

I have no problem with men disucussing their feelings, but take a long at these discussions. I see irrational misogyny on more than 50 MRA websites and I *do* see men bragging about having raped women or how they plan to do so when society collapses.

I know there are good MRAs and men who’ve studied PUA out there, but when these good men do not speak out about the rampant misogynistic violent comments on these sites and on roissy’s, it doesn’t give either group very good PR and it makes it difficult to consider that they’re not *all* horrible haters.

If Elin Woods should be in prison for assault, then should Tiger? After all, adultery is emotional, verbal, psychological, sexual and physical abuse all at once.

And he endangered her life and the life of their child.

As for women’s brains being wired differently, the latest neuroscience brain imaging research says there is alot more that men and women have in common than we don’t.

I agree that it’s very unfortunate that there are any websites that are so filled with hatred and hostility that men and women do not feel or are not welcome.

I have been saying repeatedly that I think there is a great deal of common ground and that men and women need to be held to exactly the same behavioral standards.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster January 17, 2010 at 21:33

I posed this question before, and seeing as the “legal” definition of rape is raised yet again by Ms Romano, it looks as though I’ll have to pose this question yet again. If the legal system has become corrupt and unconstitutional (which ours has), then why should anyone give a flying toss about the “legal” definition of rape? Does not civil disobedience, as a justified moral stand in relation to ridiculous, unconstitutional laws, invalidate any pretence to legitimacy that stupid laws aspire to assert?

Or is this resurrection of the definition of rape simply an assertion that we should do as we’re told because IT’S THE LAW?

My previous comment:

Who cares how rape is defined? If feminists don’t care about men being falsely accused of rape, why should anyone care about what rape is defined to be? The communists in Russia defined lots of things to be illegal, as did the Taliban in Afghanistan, as did the Nazis in Germany and so on. Once a society’s definitions become too ridiculous, then it is time for that society to rise up and revolt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 17, 2010 at 21:45

Denise Romano:

As for women’s brains being wired differently, the latest neuroscience brain imaging research says there is alot more that men and women have in common than we don’t.

David: A few citations for this would be nice. Most of the recent evidence I have seen reported has confirmed that men and women are different in many neurological respects. I read New Scientist, the evolutionary psychology discussion group on the Internet, and so on. I have a doctorate in biology. What have you been reading?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 17, 2010 at 21:49

Denise Romano Madam wrote :

If Elin Woods should be in prison for assault, then should Tiger? After all, adultery is emotional, verbal, psychological, sexual and physical abuse all at once.

And he endangered her life and the life of their child.

Note the moral relativism. Of course, there is no chance that Denise Romano, MA, EdM would agree that if the genders were reversed (i.e. a man beating a woman for serial adultery), that the woman should be jailed.

Denise Romano, MA, EdM,

Your writings show that you are not even remotely equitable in applying the same standards to male and female behavior. We are highly experienced in detecting this sort of double standard. For this reason, we have no reason to take you seriously. You have a long way to go, entailing a lot of hard work, before we would have any reason to conduct a dialog with you.

I noted that even Susan Walsh condemns you (over on Obsidian’s blog). She was once like you, but introspected and worked hard to earn a rehabilitated image.

It will take hard work to build a track record of balance, only after which we would have any interest in your opinions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Scattered January 17, 2010 at 22:33

it’s not *my* definitition of rape; it’s the legal/medical definition.

This is why we cannot argue from within the system, it is a legal/medical definition not a lawful one. Even if I were to give this definition the due respect of a proper law, why is it any more valid than the law that defined women as having the rights of children. Certainly the womens movement didn’t consider that law an absolute then, so why should you and I or anyone for that matter consider (with respect to a moral debate) this one any differently.

Your argument is based on a premise that is yet to be validated, culture defines laws not the other way around.

it makes it difficult to consider that they’re not *all* horrible haters.

You speak out against sweeping generalization’s do you not? So how is not generalizing difficult for you?

If Elin Woods should be in prison for assault, then should Tiger? After all, adultery is emotional, verbal, psychological, sexual and physical abuse all at once.

Hes only criminally liable due to a breach in his marriage contract (assuming the thing is worth more than the paper its written on), period. If she was to contract a STD as consequence then he would be liable for damage’s, not before. Your using a socialist rationale that seeks to regulate behavior in order to prevent the possibility of crime occurring.

Your living in a fantasy land if you think that through non violent social interactions people are responsible for other peoples emotional state.

the latest neuroscience brain imaging research says there is alot more that men and women have in common than we don’t.

This statement is meaningless, I could just as well say I have more things in common with a dog than I don’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 18, 2010 at 00:36

it’s not *my* definitition of rape; it’s the legal/medical definition.

Perhaps not, Denise, but you obviously agree with it, or else you wouldn’t have posted it.

Having had a quick squiz over your blog, I notice there’s a lot of advice on how men should change their ways, but nothing apparently for women to learn.

That’s the old double standard, again, and I suspect you belong to the Biting Beaver School of Rapist Detectors.

I used to read BB before she locked her blog down, and while I didn’t agree with a lot of her views on men, she was spot on when it came to her postings on trafficking in women and prostitution.

As for women’s brains being wired differently, the latest neuroscience brain imaging research says there is alot more that men and women have in common than we don’t.

I can’t speak for anyone else here, but my mind is not just a lump of animated meat. There is more to us as men and women, as humans, than mere flesh.

A large part of our humanity is also what makes us different and complementary.

And looking at the Tiger and Elin situation, you blame him for the issues, and have decided that he’s the one who’s at fault, who is endangering everyone else in the family.

How do you know he had unprotected sex? Were you there? And since you appear convinced that he’s potentially carrying stds, then you’re accusing the women he’s sleeping with of being most likely diseased also.

That’s not a good look.

When you consider that women are more likely to carry and harbour bacteria anyway (that’s basic biology and no slander on women, btw), it doesn’t say much for how you view them.

We can play this game until the cows come home, but the bottom line is this: after 4 decades of Feminist dogma being honed and rammed through our education systems, you still think the problem is Men.

It’s not. The problem is People.

I don’t know what went on in Tiger’s marriage, and I really could give two shites.

People will be People. We’re human and flawed, and these days there’s not a whole lot of incentive for us to rise above our shortcomings. Why should there be?

Men can get women knocked up and do a runner, and the State will help her provide for the child.

Women can get a man turfed out of his home and barred from seeing his children and the State encourages it – check out the Social Security provisions for States that provide Federal money to match the Child Support collected. That’s a powerful incentive there to take advantage of a man’s shortcomings.

Hence Game being seen as a viable tool for some guys. If they can get what they want from women without being left in a position of potential ruin, why wouldn’t they?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 18, 2010 at 16:29

I don’t think the problem is men.

I think the problem is a lack of emotional intelligence among both men and women. I think there are plenty of reasons for humans to want to improve themselves, and I’m sorry you are so cynical about this.

I also think that men who think all women are horrible and women who think all men are horrible are not seeing clearly.

While I’m sure there are unfair laws that need to be changed, I would rather see men and women work together to change them than to irrationally hate each other.

Tiger admitted to having unprotected sex with many of his “mistresses”. And doing so endangered the health of his young breastfeeding child as well as Elin’s.

I think that seeing men as victims of feminism is a narrow, unrealistic view. Why don’t you look at how all people are victimized by one unfair thing or another and work towards justice and fairness for all instead of irrationally hating all women?

Laws and institutions that marginalize groups of people have certain conceptual mechanisms in common. THAT is the real enemy; not women, not men, and not feminism.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 18, 2010 at 16:35

4th request :

I wonder if Denise Romano would agree that :

a) It is just better for everyone if people film their sex acts. Then, consent is clearly recorded, and all possibilities of misunderstandings are eliminated. A clear record of consent is clearly valuable to both parties and the legal process.

b) Mandatory Paternity Tests (MPT) should be enacted, so that a man can be sure that the child is his, and no longer has to worry about being cuckolded. 80% of men think being cuckolded would be worse for them than being raped, and the woman does not have to fear that her husband is suspicious of her if she has done nothing wrong. A mandatory test makes everything transparent.

So, Denise, how about it? Do you agree with the above? Both would make both men and women better off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 18, 2010 at 16:38

Ah, the “let’s work together, now that you’re starting to get pissed off” shtick.

Yes, I understand, Denise.

I truly do – sincerely.

You want to limit the damage which has been a long time coming and is now inevitable … poised to strike within the next ten years.

That’s not a bad thing to wish for, in and of itself.

But then there are guys like me, who are so far gone that we won’t settle for anything less than witnessing women reap in full what they have sown! And there’s not much you can do about that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 18, 2010 at 18:21

why don’t you see that not all women have “sown” damage and that men have also sown a great deal of damage?

It’s the damaging behavior that is the problem, not the gender of those who do it (unless they intentionally

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 18, 2010 at 18:21

unless they intentionally do damage in the name of gender and based on gender. that’s another issue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jeff January 18, 2010 at 18:27

“unless they intentionally do damage in the name of gender and based on gender.”

You mean like feminist hero Andrea Dworkin?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anon January 18, 2010 at 18:28

why don’t you see that not all women have “sown” damage and that men have also sown a great deal of damage?

Because that is simply not true, you uneducated cretin.

Your inability to hold men and women to equal standards of conduct is itself telling. Even WOMEN are opposed to you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow January 18, 2010 at 18:43

Denise says: “If Elin Woods should be in prison for assault, then should Tiger? After all, adultery is emotional, verbal, psychological, sexual and physical abuse all at once.”

How is adultery physical and sexual abuse?

By your reasoning, there should be a lot of women in prison then, right? Of course, the reality is, instead of prison, she is actually awarded with cash, assets and the children….the polar opposite of what should occur! Right dearie…right???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech January 18, 2010 at 18:58

Denise, do you realize you’re incapable of answering a simple direct question with a simple direct response? Try answering The Fifth Horseman’s questions for a start instead of avoiding them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jeff January 18, 2010 at 18:59

“How is adultery physical and sexual abuse?”

It’s not, she’s grasping for any straw she can find to make this clear-cut example of a female abusing a man fit the feminist-approved box of “man bad-woman good” that all situations involving both genders must fall into in order for the world to make sense to a female.

I wonder how long before she’s comparing “poor Elin Woods” the spousal abuser’s plight to that of a Holocaust survivor:

“God, she’s so brave for having the courage to hit an unarmed man with a potentially deadly weapon as he attempted to flee! Just think of all that SHE went through!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed January 18, 2010 at 19:13

“God, she’s so brave for having the courage to hit an unarmed man with a potentially deadly weapon as he attempted to flee! Just think of all that SHE went through!”

Almost as brave as Mary Winkler shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun while he was sleeping. Of course, she is the primary victim because now she is a widow!

Women make such exquisite victims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jeff January 18, 2010 at 19:25

Women make such exquisite victims.

No shit,man. No wonder feminists are always talking about women getting shafted. I wouldn’t be surprised if they actually BELIEVED what they say in these ridiculous cases where they claim a female was the primary victim,like when a man is shot to death in his own home by a woman while he’s sleeping.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 18, 2010 at 20:32

We believe that women should be held to the same standards of accountability as men.

Denise Romano Madam does not.

Therefore, Denise Romano Madam does not think women are just as capable as men.

Therefore, Denise Romano Madam is a misogynist.

Shame on you, Denise, for your misogyny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 18, 2010 at 21:37

Adultery is sexual and physical abuse: this has already been explained about 25 times on Lady Raine’s blog.

And if you don’t know this already, you obviously don’t understand how STDs are transmitted.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden January 18, 2010 at 21:46

Denise A. Romano doesn’t understand language ideologies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry January 18, 2010 at 22:45

@Denise

“Adultery is sexual and physical abuse: this has already been explained about 25 times on Lady Raine’s blog.”

I presume, therefore, that when women smoke or drink when pregnant or, in fact, when they do anything that MIGHT harm their offspring, then they should be prosecuted for child abuse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Scattered January 18, 2010 at 22:51

Its only physical abuse if she actually contracted anything, if not then nothing criminal has happened.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry January 18, 2010 at 22:52

Perhaps we should also prosecute women who do not bring up their children properly for harming their futures – and ours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 18, 2010 at 22:57

Adultery is sexual and physical abuse: this has already been explained about 25 times on Lady Raine’s blog.

She has time to blog?

That dizzy broad hasn’t even brought me my sandwich yet!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry January 18, 2010 at 22:58

@Denise

““Adultery is sexual and physical abuse: this has already been explained about 25 times on Lady Raine’s blog.””

Perhaps we should also prosecute women for encouraging adultery by the manner in which they dress themselves, and for rewarding men who engage in it – with sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 18, 2010 at 23:49

Untrue. She would not have consented to sex with him if she knew he cheated on her.

Hiding infidelity denies the person who was cheated on an ability to even give consent.

Therefore, it is sexual assault. There are laws that address this and there have been prosecutions.

And, even if there is no STD contracted, there is at least 3 months of agony waiting to learn if infection – and what with – has occurred.

This is true regardless of the gender of either party.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 19, 2010 at 00:05

She would not have consented to sex with him if she knew he cheated on her.

How do you know that? His cheating was happening for a long time.

You have a long way to go before you learn how women think.

Hiding infidelity denies the person who was cheated on an ability to even give consent.

Which means every cuckolded man has been raped (actually, worse).

So why do you oppose mandatory paternity testing*? By your logic, MPT should be the natural standard at the time of childbirth.

*Actually, we know why.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 19, 2010 at 00:14

Perhaps we should also prosecute women who do not bring up their children properly for harming their futures – and ours.

Successful societies have always had some degree of this, in the form of shaming/poverty/low status.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry January 19, 2010 at 01:03

@Denise

“Hiding infidelity denies the person who was cheated on an ability to even give consent.”

No, it doesn’t.

It simply means that she consented to have sex with a person about whom she did not know everything.

And that would have been HER choice.

Frankly, I can barely believe the depth of man-hatred emanating from your posts. You seem to have no concept of gender equality and fairness.

For you, it’s all about women being victims.

Have you really got no idea of where all this stirring up of male-hatred is eventually going to take you?

Believe me, you are heading for a big fall in the not-too-distant future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David January 19, 2010 at 01:18

Denise Romano:

“Hiding infidelity denies the person who was cheated on an ability to even give consent. Therefore, it is sexual assault. There are laws that address this and there have been prosecutions.”

David: Nonsense. Feminists are like Humpty Dumpty, who said that words meant whatever he wanted them to mean. It is infidelity, not “sexual assault”. This is typical feminist tripe, a typical attempt to broaden a term (“sexual assault”) to mean whatever a feminist wants it to mean. You are a Stalinist.

By your “logic” every man whose wife was ever unfaithful would have a right to beat her with a golf stick. I cannot believe that you are being this illogical and dishonest.

I notice too that you did not cite any studies to back up your claims about the “latest” neurological evidence supporting few differences between male and female brains.

I really doubt that you are a serious academic. I think you are an advocate, pure and simple. Where is your doctorate?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Epoxytocin No. 87 January 19, 2010 at 01:33

david:

I really doubt that you are a serious academic

There are precious few of those left.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 19, 2010 at 01:41

Untrue. She would not have consented to sex with him if she knew he cheated on her.

Yeah, right.

More likely she would have ranted and raved and pitched a fit, and then after he had expressed a suitable amount of contrition, she’d show him the best sex he’d ever had.

There are plenty of women who will stay with a man she suspects of infidelity. They do this for any number of reasons – sex, money, security, habit. Sometimes, they really do just love the man and want to be with him.

A person will stay in a situation that is not optimal for them a lot of the time; it’s only when the shit outweighs the sunshine that they’ll make the move out.

That goes for men as well as women.

What you call “hiding infidelity” I call “lying”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 19, 2010 at 01:48

Hiding infidelity denies the person who was cheated on an ability to even give consent.

Therefore, it is sexual assault. There are laws that address this and there have been prosecutions.

That’s a remarkably twisty path you travel along, Denise.

I have a question for you:

Have you ever been cheated on?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Scattered January 19, 2010 at 02:48

Untrue. She would not have consented to sex with him if she knew he cheated on her.

Consent was given. The motivations for doing so are completely irrelevant unless a written contract was signed which stated certain conditions as the basis for her consent. Otherwise she gave consent with the knowledge that people can and have the freedom to lie as well as privacy, that is her responsibility.

there is at least 3 months of agony waiting to learn if infection – and what with – has occurred.

Ill say this again, people through non violent social interactions are

not

responsible for other peoples emotional state. Apart from restricting the sovereign rights of all humans beings it is completely dependent on the mental character of the individual. Perhaps I should sue you because your comments make ‘unhappy’.

All emotions good or bad are a part of life, all you can do is try to make good choices and hope you don’t get unlucky. Utopia and rigid conformity contradict each other and yet this seems precisely what your arguing for.

Successful societies have always had some degree of this, in the form of shaming/poverty/low status.

Exactly TFH, cultures will regulate their behaviors using these means.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Scattered January 19, 2010 at 02:49

oops quote instead of bold

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 19, 2010 at 10:51

marriage vows to be monogamous are a contract.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 19, 2010 at 10:54

when you make ridiculous statements excusing fidelity b/c marriage is not a “legal” contract (though it is – with mutually agreed upon monogamy), you create an environment wherein women will not marry men without an additional legal contract outlining specifics.

You also fail to realize that it would NOT have been sexual assault had he said to her “I fucked someone else, just so you know. I want you to know this before you have sex with me again, so you are able to fully consent”.

Then, if she had consented, it would not have been sexual assault, though it would still have been emotionally, verbally, and psychologically abusive as well as a violation of their marriage vows and thus the marriage contract.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 19, 2010 at 10:56

you *are* aware they had a detailed pre-nup, right?

pre-nups almost always have monogamy clauses.

and this bs nilk puts forth about how she would have given him the best sex of his life – you ARE delusional.

No woman with any self-respect is going to give him anything other than contempt for that kind of selfish betrayal.

what planet do you live on?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 19, 2010 at 10:58

fifth:

I believe all parents should have to get licenses to have children since we make people get them to own dogs.

And BOTH parents are responsible for raising children; not just women/mothers.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 19, 2010 at 10:59

“marriage vows to be monogamous are a contract.”

I agree with this completely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 19, 2010 at 10:59

i never said I opposed mandatory paternity testing. Where are you getting this?

i have no problem with that at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 19, 2010 at 11:02

Harry,

You obviously have no reading comprehension. There is no man-hating coming from me at all.

I’m all about finding common ground and equality.

I have said repeatedly that I believe very strongly that both men and women need to be held to the same standards behaviorally.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 19, 2010 at 11:03

“i never said I opposed mandatory paternity testing. Where are you getting this?

“i have no problem with that at all.”
__

Very good Denise!

Totally agree, since this would be an effective way to prevent cuckolding, which I am sure you are against as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nilk January 19, 2010 at 11:54

when you make ridiculous statements excusing fidelity b/c marriage is not a “legal” contract (though it is – with mutually agreed upon monogamy), you create an environment wherein women will not marry men without an additional legal contract outlining specifics.

Courtesy of no-fault divorce, adultery is no longer considered as breaching the terms of the contract, so your statement falls down.

When you factor in the ability of women to walk away from a marriage with the bulk of the assets via alimony and child support, then you are giving men very good reasons to not want to proceed in that direction.

This is a no brainer.

Regarding women who will consent to sex with a philandering husband, there are women out there who will do so, just as there are women out there who will kick him to the curb.

People come in all shape and sizes and motivations.

Hillary Clinton springs to mind immediately – in her case I doubt she stays with Bill for the sex; there are other dynamics at play.

I have said repeatedly that I believe very strongly that both men and women need to be held to the same standards behaviorally.

Yes they do, but the Law does not do agree with this statement, and niether do your comments.

I have yet to see you writing that Elin should be in jail pending a domestic assault case.

I also find your definition of “assault” to be a bit wobbly.

“He gave me a few too many drinks” is not “assault”. That’s very poor judgement and lack of a spine.

Whatever happened to saying no and meaning it? Always worked for me, regardless of how drunk I was.

Then again, I live on Planet Earth.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 19, 2010 at 11:58

marriage vows to be monogamous are a contract.

Right, Denise. That’s why a spouse who breaches the contract by committing adultery nevertheless can end the contract for no reason at all, and, if female, be awarded custody of the kids and support regardless of her adultery.

Marriage *used* to be a contract. Contract law is very simple — if you breach, the *other* party (not you) gets to terminate the contract and sue *you* for damages caused by your breach. In Marriage 2.0, a party can breach the contract with impunity — such that the breaching party, if female, can essentially sever the contract on terms that are very favorable to her. So at the present point in time, it is not a contract at all — or is the only contractual relationship where the breaching party can walk away scot-free regardless of their breach and the damage that it causes.

And how did we get to Marriage 2.0? Feminism. The feminist movement counts no-fault divorce and the entire current system of family law as one of its main victories in the cultural revolution. And currently it is the institutional keepers of the feminist flame that vocally oppose any attempts to reform the system — NOW regularly campaigns against initiatives in various states that would make custody determinations more equitable and less slanted towards women, for example. Which is to be expected, given that NOW is about *women’s* interests only.

But, in any case, to suggest that Marriage 2.0 is a contract and that the monogamy element is enforceable just reflects a very poor understanding of how family law works in most states (yes I know NY does not have no-fault, for now — it appears that it will, soon enough).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 19, 2010 at 12:20

“Totally agree, since this would be an effective way to prevent cuckolding, which I am sure you are against as well.”

Denise,

ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST MEN HAVING RIGHTS BEFORE THE STATE IN BEING CUCKOLDED???

Please answer.

Thanks,
Kulak

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner January 19, 2010 at 12:20

Novaseeker –
“…to suggest that Marriage 2.0 is a contract…”

I suppose one could still see it as a contract – between the man and the state, and, in some case, between the woman and the state as well.

Men enter into the contract with the state to be responsible – for the women, her happiness, her well-being (real & imagined), her/their children, and the liability for same following the dissolution of the marriage.

All that other “stuff” is just “vows”, for which there are no legal consequence for breaking.[/snark]

But, I do give Denise some partial credit. Reading back through some of her recent comments, we find:

”i(sic) never said I opposed mandatory paternity testing”,
“I believe very strongly that both men and women need to be held to the same standards behaviorally.”,
“…BOTH parents are responsible for raising children(*); not just women/mothers.”, and
“… even if there is no STD contracted, there is at least 3 months of agony waiting to learn if infection – and what with – has occurred. This is true regardless of the gender of either party.”

All of this interacting with men, getting the male perspective on things, and having to address the logical questions posed to her seems to have her thinking more equitably. She may even yet come to realize that infidelity cuts both ways, and that what ever “contractual violations” it would entail would also apply regardless of gender.

(*) assuming that raising children to mean interacting and mentoring as opposed to just sending a monthly check.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 19, 2010 at 16:32

I have ALWAYS thought equitably, and I’ve always interacted with men. And I have ALWAYS believed that men and women need to be held to the same standards.

I have NEVER heard of men who think and feel as this group does, however.

There is an eagerness in this group and on other MRA sites to believe that all women are evil, that feminism is a terrible thing, that all women are out to get men, etc.

THAT is illogical.

Don’t give yourselves any credit for beliefs I’ve held my entire life.

Of course infidelity cuts both ways. You’ve obviously not read anything I’ve written. I have repeatedly said that both men and women need to be held to the same behavioral standards.

And, marriage is a legal document; if you want to argue that monogamy is not legally expected from marriage vows, then you’ve just contributed to the growing desire for all women to create legal contracts for any intimate relationship they enter with men (not because we think all men are awful – we don’t – but because we now know that some of you cowardly use fake names to closet your hatred of women and your double-standards as applied to so many things – especially adultery).

The lack of logic in your (an especially obsidian’s) arguments is astonishing. Truly. Hugh Ristik and a handful of others have made cogent points; the rest of you make me hope that you’re all on the marriage strike.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 19, 2010 at 16:41

And, marriage is a legal document; if you want to argue that monogamy is not legally expected from marriage vows, then you’ve just contributed to the growing desire for all women to create legal contracts for any intimate relationship they enter with men (not because we think all men are awful – we don’t – but because we now know that some of you cowardly use fake names to closet your hatred of women and your double-standards as applied to so many things – especially adultery).

You’re misreading, as I’ve often noted you do.

None of the men writing here are talking about excusing men from marital infidelity. What we are talking about is the current legal system which effectively excuses *women* from marital infidelity by allowing an adulterous wife to divorce her husband for no reason other than that she wants a new man or doesn’t want to be married to her husband any longer, retain custody of the kids and the family home, and get payments from her ex-husband as her boyfriend moves into his former house. That’s what we’re talking about Denise. And it is happening all over America, really.

The fact is that at this point in time monogamy is not enforced by the state. It just isn’t. Regardless of what you or I might want, the laws about this were changed. And even pre-nups are generally *not* enforced on that issue, because doing so would contradict “public policy” in the language of the courts (I am a lawyer btw). Pre-nups are often voided in their entirety, but the most common enforcement of them comes with respect to asset separation and caps on asset distribution to exclude pre-marital assets and assets that are disproportionately generated by one spouse (and even then it’s often not enforced due to the result being considered to be “inequitable” by the family court, which is a court of equity, meaning it is a results-oriented, rather than a rules-oriented, environment).

So you can go on and on about monogamy and the like — it’s dead from the legal perspective. I am not advocating non-monogamy — I think being unfaithful to one’s spouse is a grave sin. But what I am pointing out is that the legal system laughs at adultery today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 19, 2010 at 16:42

(not because we think all men are awful – we don’t – but because we now know that some of you cowardly use fake names to closet your hatred of women and your double-standards as applied to so many things – especially adultery)

-DR

Apologize for implying that we are adulterers or you’re done here. Yes, it is personal for me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 19, 2010 at 16:45

Apologize for implying that we are adulterers or you’re done here. Yes, it is personal for me.

I tried to point that out as well. I think, Welmer, she often reads things with rose-colored glasses and/or sees things that aren’t being said, really. I noticed the same over at LR’s blog a few times.

We’re not justifying male adultery. Far from it. Why not? Because many of us think that if a man commits adultery and gets hosed for it by the courts that isn’t necessarily unjust. It’s the converse situation where women are rewarded for their adultery that is crazy and totally unjust. And, yes, a very real issue for many of us who post here who have been married.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner January 19, 2010 at 16:56

Denise A. Romano –
“You’ve obviously not read anything I’ve written. I have repeatedly said that both men and women need to be held to the same behavioral standards.”

There’s what people say, then there’s what people do. You “say” you’ve always been for equity, yet one need only look at the side-bar at your site to see that you “aim” your negative comments at men:

* 10 Things Men Can Do To End Men’s Violence Against Women
* Excellent Education for Men Who Want to End Gender Violence and Abuse
* Men and Women Ending Violence Against Women
* Websites Supporting Men and Boys to Learn Healthy Relationship Skills

Do women suffer any pathologies, or are they all selectively concentrated in men? What of the violence perpetrated by women – even deadly violence? It’s as if you would prefer to believe it doesn’t even exist. And, teaching men and boys to have better relationships!? Women are at least as culpable for the sorry state of relationships, yet you seem to but into the idea that all women are infallible by virtue of gender.

You claim that men here hate and distrust women, yet you seem to peddle the standard “all men are rapist” & “rape is whatever a woman says it is”. I don’t see where you challenge such notions. Do you?

You say your not against mandatory paternity testing, but would you also support deobligating men of the financial obligations for children their cheating wives bear with their lovers, but which the duped husband doesn’t find out about until years later? Or, do you parrot the “best interest of the child(s mother)” to justify the continued injustice against the cuckolded man?

Frankly, Denise, there’s as much you haven’t said, as there is that you have said.

BTW, I’ve been married 25 years and have two adult daughters among my three children. I don’t hate women, nor think all women are out to get men. That’s just a another mistake you made.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 19, 2010 at 16:57

@Nova

I don’t go into my personal life much, but it’s hard to forget the times I turned down very attractive women because I believe in honoring my vows. In fact, now that I’m divorced I still turn women down, because I think sex simply for the sake of getting off is destructive whether one believes in the hereafter or not. Everything has its price, and I’d rather not gamble with my soul (not to mention the rest of my life) if I can help it.

Ms. Romano seems to think adultery is simply a male transgression, which says to me that she is fundamentally stupid. Even if one ignores the fact that many – if not most – female partners in adultery are married themselves, the single tramp that sleeps with a married man bears some responsibility herself. It takes two to tango, as we know, and simple mathematical laws dictate that for every cheating husband there is a willing whore.

Somehow, though, I think Ms. Romano would prefer to ignore that side of the equation. 2+2=5 indeed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 19, 2010 at 17:11

(not because we think all men are awful – we don’t – but because we now know that some of you cowardly use fake names to closet your hatred of women and your double-standards as applied to so many things – especially adultery)

Sometimes the projection is so absolute that if a man wanted to shill as a feminist, he could scarcely write anything differently.

Denise Romano Madam, your hatred of men is far more than male hatred of women of any man here. That you can’t see this is why you have not earned the right to be taken seriously by us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Scattered January 19, 2010 at 20:27

No woman with any self-respect is going to give him anything other than contempt for that kind of selfish betrayal.

Exactly, contempt perhaps. Jail no.

I think the nature of the marriage contract has been sufficiently discussed.

emotionally, verbally, and psychologically abusive

What is this crap?

As an aside perhaps you could tell us all the the benefits for an atheist man to marry, why would a silly little ceremony make a relationship any more meaningful? Think about it and then try to deny its not a contract into slavery.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 19, 2010 at 23:12

“Totally agree, since this would be an effective way to prevent cuckolding, which I am sure you are against as well.”

Denise,

ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST MEN HAVING RIGHTS BEFORE THE STATE IN BEING CUCKOLDED???

Please answer.

Thanks,
Kulak
_____

Hmm, you, who, in your own words, have stated:

***
“I have ALWAYS thought equitably, and I’ve always interacted with men. And I have ALWAYS believed that men and women need to be held to the same standards.”

***

… cannot seem to answer a SIMPLE QUESTION posed to you in good faith on whether men should have any meaningful, legal civil and reproductive rights before The Courts and The State.

Like with another bad-faith commenter on this site, ‘Null’ (who has just recently been ‘Null-n-Voided’), I ask you to provide real-life, CONCRETE EXAMPLES of just *how* men and women should be held to similar standards of justice, not just some ABSTRACT statements on your part that you *think* it would be a ‘good idea’.

Otherwise, you come across as just saying this to MERELY APPEAR to be “evenhanded”, and not in any meaningful way genuine in this assertion.

Henceforth, unless proven or shown otherwise, you should be considered by all as a deceitful manipulator — and no amount of shaming language on your part about us ‘not listening’ to you will matter.

We hear you very clearly, Mz. Romano — ALL TOO CLEARLY!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 19, 2010 at 23:35

I wrote this on Jan 17 at 21:49, and will repeat it again :
__________________________

Denise Romano, MA, EdM,

Your writings show that you are not even remotely equitable in applying the same standards to male and female behavior. We are highly experienced in detecting this sort of double standard. For this reason, we have no reason to take you seriously. You have a long way to go, entailing a lot of hard work, before we would have any reason to conduct a dialog with you.

I noted that even Susan Walsh condemns you (over on Obsidian’s blog). She was once like you, but introspected and worked hard to earn a rehabilitated image.

It will take hard work to build a track record of balance, only after which we would have any interest in your opinions.
________________________________

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry January 20, 2010 at 00:16

@Denise

“Harry, You obviously have no reading comprehension. There is no man-hating coming from me at all.”

You are wrong to think that I do not understand where you are coming from, nor where you are heading towards.

I understand it very well indeed.

Your WORDS often sound good. And some of your pronouncements sound good.

But I’ve seen it all before.

And the result of YOUR type of thinking leads, IN PRACTICE, to the following, …

1. Men are punished more and more for behaviours that are trival, not malicious and, in many cases, they are falsely accused – with the hysteria being pumped up and up against them;

e.g. smacking child on butt = CHILD ABUSE

e.g. saying, “Hello gorgeous” = Sexual Harassment

2 BOTH men and women are further curtailed and divided from each other by the state – which takes every opportunity to damage people’s intimate relationships.

“He cheated on me” = “He raped me”

Can you really not see where such things take us? – and have taken us.

Let me put it this way.

If YOUR type of thinking begins to prevail AND the MM eventually becomes much more powerful (which it will) then your type of thinking will backfire hugely on women.

For example, we will have women prosecuted for wearing a short skirt; perhaps on the grounds that wearing a short skirt is, an Incitement to Rape, Obscene, Sexual Harassment of Men, Encouraging Prostitution, Corrupting Minors etc etc.

Right now, the government’s increasing interference with our personal relationships has hurt women and hurts men MUCH more.

In the future, this will backfire on women.

And it is WOMEN who will mostly pay the price.

Your problem is that you are not politically sophisticated enough to see what harm people like you are doing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Scattered January 20, 2010 at 00:28

@Harry

Even though I heartily agree I think as things get worse our cultural institutions will still maintain a female bias and as such I am not as optimistic about future backfire.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Scattered January 20, 2010 at 00:31

If you can call it optimism that is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry January 20, 2010 at 00:44

@Scattered

“Even though I heartily agree I think as things get worse our cultural institutions will still maintain a female bias and as such I am not as optimistic about future backfire.”

Well, that might be true – and most men and MRAs could probably live quite contentedly with an institutional female bias.

But there is a big difference between a ‘female bias’ and the appalling prejudices against men that we see today.

However, I suspect that ‘wimmin’ might have now gone too far, and that men will react by turning the tables – as outlined in my piece,

http://www.angryharry.com/esMenhavebreddogsandcattle.htm

… which, basically, suggests that the male backlash is going to come at the worst possible time for women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 20, 2010 at 01:19

which, basically, suggests that the male backlash is going to come at the worst possible time for women.

Oh yes. I say 2020. I say the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation cause it by 2020.

The Misandry Bubble is indeed a bubble, that is not too far from peaking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 20, 2010 at 01:39

Yet the level of reasoning and simple investigative research into the basic of issues surrounding Game by these and other Women is, I have to say, a slap in the face to all that the Academy stands for.

The dynamite sentence, this was.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu January 20, 2010 at 03:56

Denise,

Appeal to authority is not proof. Legal/medical definitions are not a priori knowledge. These seem to be your authorties, but when applied to say Elin you then resort to the double standard fallacy. This is more commonly known as hypocrisy. The rest of your arguments begin with an appeal to authority and then red hearings are piled on until wading through the rotten fish becomes a pointless task.

You deserve credit for not building strawmen, but you should probably re-acquaint yourself with what a priori knowledge is, and how it is discovered. Good luck with that.

Oh and go back and read snark’s prediction.

You some sort of prophet snark?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 20, 2010 at 04:06

Not a prophet … it’s important to know thy enemy.

I have been watching people like Denise (not her specifically) very closely for a long time.

Further, I have become convinced that the majority of women, and especially feminists, do not hold logical argument in the same regard as do the majority of men.

Rather, they argue on a whim, picking and choosing what they shall respond to, picking and choosing different justifications for consecutive points: an appeal to authority one minute, an appeal to equality the next, an appeal AGAINST authority (labelled ‘patriarchy’) the next, etc.

People like Denise respond only to those points which they can comfortably make counter-points against, and disregard the inconsistency of their own positions.

Then they typically make some slur or allegation against their opponents, placing their (more consistent and sincere) opponents on the defensive once again, before anyone has the chance to call them out for their inconsistency and insincerity.

Denise’s conclusions are written in stone before she argues her way to them. This is important to realise: she, and all other feminists, argue backwards from a conclusion. This necessitates the inconsistency of justification.

It’s always useful to step back from the argument itself, and to look at the meta-logic through which the argument is being conducted. There we find dishonesty. She is unable to stick to a straight argument; one which goes back and forth, point by point. Instead, half the time she simply reiterates (in other words, spams) the same initial point, in complete disregard of the counter-arguments. The other half of the time, she cherry-picks her positions, which are inconsistent with each other, but all consistent with her foregone conclusion.

In sum: there is no use arguing with someone like Denise, who is not capable or not willing to engage in rational argument at an adult level.

That is all I have to say regarding her.

Though I will add that those who tarnish the idea of objective truth and objective logic are those who tend to fare badly when subject to its enquiries. Quite coincidental, I am sure.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 20, 2010 at 05:21

I ended up turning the above into a blog post.

I thought it was just that good!

http://remasculation.blogspot.com/2010/01/feminist-assault-on-logic.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 20, 2010 at 19:28

That’s funny; I see you describing yourselves.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 06:34

MENS REA – see “recklessly and negligently” below to see how Game does teach men to sexually assault women by teaching them that No means Yes and using concepts such as ASD and LMR.

Furthermore, the many doublespeak emails in this and other threads PROVE that – in many of your own words – you believe you have the right to do whatever you can to get laid when that is your goal. See “willful blindness and deliberate ignorance” below.

See also “Malice” – and then review the many comments here that do two things: 1. insist that men dating women have no ethical obligations to anyone and 2. Wilfully ignore the definitions of sexual assault and rape we’ve repeatedly given you all for everyone’s good.

§ 5.01 Common Law Principle and Definition

Simply put, “mens rea” refers to the mental component of a criminal act. However, there is much ambiguity inherent in this term. The doctrine has been defined in two basic ways:

[A] “Culpability” Definition of “Mens rea” – In the early development of the doctrine, many common law offenses failed to specify any mens rea. Mens rea was defined broadly in terms of moral blameworthiness or culpability. Thus, at common law and in jurisdictions that still define the doctrine broadly, it was and is sufficient to prove that the defendant acted with a general culpable state of mind, without the need to demonstrate a specific state of mind such as “intentionally,” “knowingly,” or “recklessly.”

[B] “Elemental” Definition of “Mens rea” – Much more prevalent today is a narrow definition of mens rea which refers to the particular mental state set out in the definition of an offense. In this sense, the specific mens rea is an element of the crime. Note that a person can be culpable in that he was morally blameworthy yet lack the requisite elemental mens rea.

§ 5.02 Specific Mens rea Requirements

[A] “Intentionally” – A person “intentionally” causes the social harm of an offense if: (1) it is his desire (i.e., his conscious object) to cause the social harm; or (2) he acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct.

The doctrine of “transferred intent” attributes liability to a defendant who, intending to kill (or injure) one person, accidentally kills (or injures) another person instead. The law “transfers” the defendant’s state of mind regarding the intended victim to the unintended one.

[B] “Knowingly” or “With Knowledge” – Sometimes, knowledge of a material fact – an attendant circumstance – is a required element of an offense. A person has “knowledge” of a material fact if he is aware of the fact or he correctly believes that it exists. Most jurisdictions also permit a finding of knowledge of an attendant circumstance when the defendant is said to be guilty of “wilful blindness” or “deliberate ignorance,” i.e., if the defendant is aware of a high probability of the existence of the fact in question, and he deliberately fails to investigate in order to avoid confirmation of the fact. An instruction in this regard is sometimes called an “ostrich instruction.”

[C] “Wilfully” – “Wilful” has been held in different jurisdictions to be synonymous with other terms, e.g., “intentional,” “an act done with a bad purpose,” “an evil motive,” or “a purpose to disobey the law.”

[D] “Negligence” – Criminal negligence (as opposed to civil negligence) ordinarily requires a showing of a gross deviation from the standard of reasonable care. A person is criminally negligent if he takes a substantial, unjustifiable risk of causing the social harm that constitutes the offense charged.

Three factors come into play when determining whether a reasonable person would have acted as the defendant did:

1.) the gravity of harm that foreseeably would result from the defendant’s conduct;
2.) the probability of such harm occurring; and
3.) the burden to the defendant of desisting from the risky conduct.

[E] “Recklessness” – A finding of recklessness requires proof that the defendant disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which he was aware.

[F] Distinction Between Negligence and Recklessness – The line between “criminal negligence” and “recklessness” is not drawn on the basis of the extent of the defendant’s deviation from the standard of reasonable care — the deviation is gross in both cases — but rather is founded on the defendant’s state of mind. Criminal negligence involves an objective standard – the defendant, as a reasonable person, should have been aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk he was taking); recklessness implicates subjective fault, in that the defendant was in fact aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk he was taking but disregarded the risk.

[G] “Malice” – A person acts with “malice” if he intentionally or recklessly causes the social harm prohibited by the offense.

§ 5.03 Statutory Interpretation of Mens rea Terms

It is sometimes necessary to determine the precise elements that the mens rea term is intended to modify. For example, in United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., [513 U.S. 64 (1994)] the defendant was convicted of violating a federal statute that made it a felony to knowingly transport, receive, or distribute in interstate or foreign commerce any visual depiction “involv[ing] the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” Although the defendant admitting to trading in sexually explicit materials, he claimed that he was unaware that such materials depicted a minor. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the term “knowingly” modified the attendant circumstance element (relating to the age of the person depicted in the video) in addition to the obvious modification of the conduct elements (“transport, receive, or distribute”).

The Supreme Court determined that the legislature intended to require knowledge of the age of the person in the video since distribution of sexually explicit, but non-obscene, videos of adults was lawful. It was therefore the knowledge that the video depicted child pornography that was criminal.

§ 5.04 “Specific Intent” and “General Intent”

The common law distinguished between general intent and specific intent crimes. Today, most criminal statutes expressly include a mens rea term, or a particular state of mind is judicially implied.

[A] Specific Intent – Generally speaking, a “specific intent” offense is one in which the definition of the crime:

1.) includes an intent or purpose to do some future act, or to achieve some further consequence (i.e., a special motive for the conduct), beyond the conduct or result that constitutes the actus reus of the offense, e.g., “breaking and entering of the dwelling of another in the nighttime with intent to commit a felony”; or

2.) provides that the defendant must be aware of a statutory attendant circumstance, e.g., “receiving stolen property with knowledge that it is stolen.”

[B] General Intent – An offense that does not contain one of the above features is termed “general intent,” e.g., battery, often defined statutorily as “intentional application of unlawful force upon another.” This is a general-intent crime, for the simple reason that the definition does not contain any specific intent beyond that which relates to the actus reus itself. The only mental state required in its definition is the intent to “apply unlawful force upon another,” the actus reus of the crime.

§ 5.05 Model Penal Code

[A] General Principle – Model Penal Code § 2.02(1) provides that, except in the case of offenses characterized as “violations,” a person may not be convicted of an offense unless “he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.” The Code requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed the actus reus of the offense—in fact, each ingredient of the offense—with a culpable state of mind, as set out in the specific statute.

Thus the Code:

· eschews the “culpability” meaning of “mens rea”;

· discards the common law distinction between “general intent” and “specific intent”;

· limits mens rea to four terms: “purposely”; “knowingly”; “recklessly”; and “negligently”;

· requires application of mens rea to every material element of a crime, including affirmative defenses.

[B] Mens Rea Terms

[1] “Purposely” – In the context of a result or conduct, a person acts “purposely” if it is his “conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.” [MPC § 2.02(2)(a)(i)] A person acts “purposely” with respect to attendant circumstances if he “is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.”

[2] “Knowingly” – A result is “knowingly” caused if the defendant “is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.” [MPC § 2.02(2)(b)(ii)] With “attendant circumstances” and “conduct” elements, one acts “knowingly” if he is “aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such [attendant] circumstances exist. Furthermore, the Code states that knowledge is established, if “a person is aware of a high probability of . . . [the attendant circumstance’s] existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.” [MPC § 2.02(7)]

[3] “Recklessly” and “Negligently” – The Code provides that a person acts “recklessly” if he “consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.” A risk is “substantial and unjustifiable” if “considering the nature and purpose of the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.” [MPC § 2.02(2)(c)]

A person’s conduct is “negligent” if the defendant “should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.” [MPC § 2.02(d)] The definition of “substantial and unjustifiable” is the same as that provided for in the definition of “recklessness,” except that the term “reasonable person” is substituted for “law-abiding person.”

As in common law, “negligence” and “recklessness,” therefore, require the same degree of risk-taking: “substantial and unjustifiable,” and the difference between them lies in the fact that the reckless defendant “consciously disregards” the risk, whereas the negligent defendant’s risk-taking is inadvertent.

[C] Principles of Statutory Interpretation – A single mens rea term — of whatever specific type — modifies each actus reus element of the offense, absent a plainly contrary purpose of the legislature.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 22, 2010 at 06:40

But, Denise Romano, IDC, TL;DR, the law is a phallic-shaped instrument of the patriarchy used to hold down women. It should be torn down!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
J. Durden January 22, 2010 at 06:49

Here we see Denise Romano propagating language ideology on behalf of feminism, clinging desperately to feminist interpretations of language and defending their imposition through law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 11:23

I believe that all laws should be fair to both men and women. If you think laws are unfair, I hope you’re working to change them via legal means.

I also think that amount of hatred toward half the human population that I’ve seen on this and other sites is really tragic, unnecessary, and warrants psychological treatment.

There is such a thing as racial psychosis, and much of what is written here looks to me to be gender psychosis.

Most women are not evil and out to get men. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 22, 2010 at 11:25

I also think that amount of hatred toward half the human population that I’ve seen on this and other sites is really tragic, unnecessary, and warrants psychological treatment.

Seriously, Denise, go look at some feminist sites and blogs.

You will find REAL hate – much more than the harmless venting you find here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 22, 2010 at 11:32

I wonder if Denise makes sandwiches. Raine is obviously a slacker, as I’ve been waiting for weeks for my sandwich, so I can sit down and actually read what she writes, rather than just the responses to what she wrote.

Seriously. A sandwich! A sandwich! My kingdom for a sandwich!

Then I can sit down and figure out what these women are trying to say.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 22, 2010 at 11:32

I believe that all laws should be fair to both men and women. If you think laws are unfair, I hope you’re working to change them via legal means.

I also think that amount of hatred toward half the human population that I’ve seen on this and other sites is really tragic, unnecessary, and warrants psychological treatment.

There is such a thing as racial psychosis, and much of what is written here looks to me to be gender psychosis.

Most women are not evil and out to get men. What is so difficult to understand about that?

Changing the laws to be less unfair for men is as likely as establishing a colony on Mars later this afternoon. Not going to happen. The cultural distaste for men is too great at this point in time for significant legal reforms to be possible.

Women are not evil, that’s true. But, being human beings, women will (and do) take advantage of regimes that are in their favor. Many of us have lived through this, in fact. I agree that this doesn’t mean all women are evil and hate men, but it does mean that if you hand someone (man or woman) a legal bazooka that is designed to be used when you are upset or angry, the results are predictable, and the impact this has on how one views the world — whether on the delivering or receiving end — is substantial.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns January 22, 2010 at 11:46

Denise A. Romano, TL;DR

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner January 22, 2010 at 12:02

Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 06:34
"… you believe you have the right to do whatever you can to get laid when that is your goal."

 
Denise,
 
I’m curious. Given your views on men "lying" to get laid, and your seeming to equate that with date-rape (despite consent being given); I’d like to know if you would apply similar criminal liabilities to some dating/mating behavior seen primarily in woman (in keeping with your assertions of seeking equality)?
 
Many women will merely pretend to interested in a man, and may even make allusions to the promise of sex with that man, in an attempt to gain something from that man – for whom they hold no actual romantic nor sexual interest.
 
We see this with women continuing to date men they know they have no interest in just for the advantage of having food and entertainment provided for them. We also see it in women who fain interest so as to obtain a man’s labors on her behalf (fixing things for her), and/or to entice him into providing her with material needs (clothes, jewelry, financial aid, etc.).
 
Now, just as women "gamed" into consenting to sex, men freely provide these things to the women. Yet, the women have, in reality, been running a confidence game on these men – and thus committing a fraud?
 
Shouldn’t they then be criminally and civily liable for their deceitful, and ultimately criminal acts?
 
Further, many women will go so far as to have sex with men they had no romantic/sexual desire so as to obtain the same sort of benefits.
 
Isn’t that really just prostitution? Should they not also face criminal charges for these behaviors?
 
Are you really for equality, or would you prefer to simply overlook such bad behaviors in women, and declare unto the dupe and defrauded men, "caveat emptor"?

 

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner January 22, 2010 at 12:07

Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 06:34

“… you believe you have the right to do whatever you can to get laid when that is your goal.”

Denise,

I’m curious. Given your views on men “lying” to get laid, and your seeming to equate that with date-rape (despite consent being given); I’d like to know if you would apply similar criminal liabilities to some dating/mating behavior seen primarily in woman (in keeping with your assertions of seeking equality)?

Many women will merely pretend to interested in a man, and may even make allusions to the promise of sex with that man, in an attempt to gain something from that man – for whom they hold no actual romantic nor sexual interest.

We see this with women continuing to date men they know they have no interest in just for the advantage of having food and entertainment provided for them. We also see it in women who fain interest so as to obtain a man’s labors on her behalf (fixing things for her), and/or to entice him into providing her with material needs (clothes, jewelry, financial aid, etc.).

Now, just as women “gamed” into consenting to sex, men freely provide these things to the women. Yet, the women have, in reality, been running a confidence game on these men – and thus committing a fraud?

Shouldn’t they then be criminally and civilly liable for their deceitful, and ultimately criminal acts?

Further, many women will go so far as to have sex with men they had no romantic/sexual desire so as to obtain the same sort of benefits.

Isn’t that really just prostitution? Should they not also face criminal charges for these behaviors?

Are you really for equality, or would you prefer to simply overlook such bad behaviors in women, and declare unto the dupe and defrauded men, “caveat emptor“?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma January 22, 2010 at 12:16

Denise – What are your thoughts on long settled divorces being overturned, and lifetime alimony being slapped on old geezerly men, 27 years after the original divorce?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.html

Denise – What are your thoughts on cuckolded men being ordered by Family Courts, to not only pay child-support for children that were sired by their wife’s adulterous lover, but being ordered to continue paying after the wife divorces him, and marries her lover? I.e. biological dad, the wife, and biological kid all living under the same household as biological intact family, receiving weekly checks from her cuckold ex-husband:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine

Denise – Do you think the “family” laws are fair to men?

How about the supposedly equality seeking National Association of Women (NOW) lobbying many states to block/crush family law reform bills? …… such as NOW’s derailing the Shared Parenting bill in Michigan?
http://www.glennsacks.com/enewsletters/enews_11_28_06.htm

Why are your sisters at NOW doing such a thing? Tell me it’s easy to change the laws with likes of NOW/WBA fighting reform at every turn?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner January 22, 2010 at 12:27

Puma -

“Denise – What are your thoughts…”

Good questions. I might add to that list the question of whether or not girls/women who engage in “ball tapping” should be charged with sexual assault and have to register as sex offenders?

[Why do I get the feeling that she isn't going to answer any of these questions?]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 13:04

I believe that men and women should share expenses when they’re dating unless someone wants to treat someone for a special occasion or if there is a temporary financial hardship – and then I think when that is over, there should be awareness of that to restore financial balance between them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 13:06

We see this with women continuing to date men they know they have no interest in just for the advantage of having food and entertainment provided for them. We also see it in women who fain interest so as to obtain a man’s labors on her behalf (fixing things for her), and/or to entice him into providing her with material needs (clothes, jewelry, financial aid, etc.).

Now, just as women “gamed” into consenting to sex, men freely provide these things to the women. Yet, the women have, in reality, been running a confidence game on these men – and thus committing a fraud?”

If that can be proven to be fraud, then yes I think such women should be charged with fraud.

I think both men and women need to be held to the same standards. How many times do I have to say it?

d

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 13:10

I think the case you cite above of the alimony is an outrageous injustice to that man, and I don’t understand the decision.

I do *not* think – as I’ve already said several times here – that men should have to be financially or in any way responsible for a child fathered by another man with his wife – with the one exception of if the child is the result of a rape.

I am not sure that I consider Glenn Sacks to be a reliable source of information – so I will withhold comment on the last one. I acknolwedge that I have very little knowledge of family law as I have very little experience with it and also only have experience with it in NYS.

But I will say that I do believe that family laws should be fair to both men and women, and I’ve also said that repeatedly here.

I don’t keep up with what NOW does, so please do not unfairly assume that I agree with them on everything.

Thanks
Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 13:12

I consider “ball-tapping” to be both sexual and physical assault. There should be preventative education and yes, criminal charges for anyone who does this not in self-defense, regardless of gender.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner January 22, 2010 at 14:16

Denise A. Romano

“I think both men and women need to be held to the same standards. How many times do I have to say it?”

Denise,

First, thank you for answering those questions.

All too often women “say” they seek equality, but, when put into practice, they demonstrate that they only meant that in a limited sense – they only wanted equality in those areas that they perceived themselves (as women) be disadvantage in, but where unwilling to extend the same to men in areas where women are already advantaged.

I (as I’d assume of numerous others here) was never quite clear if by wanting men and women held to the same standards, you were specifically addressing the area of sexual dynamics (which is what you seem primarily to have focused on), where women like to believe that men are somehow at an advantage; or if you would, in fact, extend that into the entire spectrum on (potential) gender issues.

It’s nice to see that you would. Many of your fellow feminists clearly do not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 22, 2010 at 14:22

I’m slightly warming to you, Denise.

You’re nowhere near as crazy as that Lady Raine character, anyway.

What you must understand about the term “Game” is that it covers such a huge spectrum of behaviour. It does not necessarily include lying.

Most of what I have seen, related to Game, involves the way to talk to a woman – not exactly what to say, but ways to say things, body language, etc. – which are likely to make her more attracted to you, as a man.

Honestly, at that level, it’s no different than women wearing make-up, high heels, etc.

It’s possible that there are some Game types who advocate things like coercive sex, but not any that I have seen – which is why I had to react so strongly against your insistence that Game equates to rape.

Fact is, ‘Game’ is such an extremely broad term, that what I have read and seen covers only a small portion of what can be considered within the ‘Game’ spectrum. The same goes for you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 14:34

This is what is so odd for me to see in this blogosphere, which is a whole new world (for me). I have *never* met feminists like those I’ve seen described here.

I’ve been taught since I was very young that feminism is simply a lack of sexism and that it is a term that can be applied to *any* human being – regardless of gender and that it applies to any issue – regardless of gender.

I have never met men who think and feel as many of you on this site do, and I’ve never met women who hate men, scheme against men, or deceive men (except for one woman who I can think of, and I hate her for her behavior and always assumed she was an outlier).

What I think of all of this hatred that I see is that it’s good that the internet provides a place for people to find community, blow off steam, and perhaps organize and take action to change whatever needs to be changed.

However, what I find extremely troubling is the amount and extent of absolute irrational hatred of women. I don’t understand how a man can generalize one or even a few bad experiences to all women.

I don’t do that with men and neither do the women I know. Neither do the men that I know.

I can understand conluding that a law is terrible and needs to change or that an individual is abusive, criminal, or pathological – but I do NOT understand these sweeping generalizations about women and men.

It makes no sense whatsoever to me, and I think it’s very unhealthy.

I can deal with saying all men have a Y chromosome, all men have penises, and most men have more upper body strength than most women. But that’s about it.

There is alot more that men and women have in common than is different. I find it disturbing that there is such a zealous insistence that women are not as capable or intelligent as men or that a distorted version of portions of Evo Psych are absolutely true, when in fact, they aren’t.

I also find it ironic that a group of people so focused on evolutionary theories seem to refuse to evolve and want to stay static at one point in time millions of years ago.

This is 2010 and our brains are much more capable than those of cave men. There is excellent brain research happening now as well as reserach into EI and other human potential knowledge.

Why not evolve instead of insisting that we’re all just cave-people driven by a desire to reproduce?

I never intend to give birth. Have you seen childbirth live? No thanks. There are many children all over the world who need loving families and need to be adopted.

I think humans face very serious problems and we’ll be more likely to solve them if all humans’ brains are involved in that. Certainly, any unfair laws need to be changed, and I would argue that consent needs to be much more clearly defined since there is apparently such confusion about what is and is not consent.

But, I also think that men and women hating each other is bad for everyone, especially children and needs to stop.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 14:43

I don’t think I ever said that Game equals Rape. What I said is that if there is such diversity in the types of game out there, where are the men who are *not* coerciing and deceiving women and why aren’t they speaking out against the gamers who *are* doing that?

I also asked several trainers of Game what they teach to men in terms of laws around consent, sexual assault and rape to protect those men and also to make sure their services are responsible and not negligent. I only got very hostile resposnes and no actual answers to my questions.

I’ve done ALOT of research on Game for about 2 years now and I’ve been extremely disturbed by what I’ve learned.

There is an attitude of “well, it’s up to each guy”. This is ridiculously irresponsible, and I would think that those men who do act responsibly would not want to be grouped in with men like roissy or the lovesystems newsletters that tell men that it is natural for them to have impulses to rape and murder.

It is also irresponsible for lovesystems to teach their students that 90% of women have rape fantasies (a number I seriously question) but fail completely to mention that 1 in 3 women actually are raped and probably don’t want a man their dating to raise the idea of a rape fantasy with them.

There is also a failure to teach these men that even if a woman has had rape fantasies, that doesn’t mean she’ll have that fantasy about YOU or want to act it out with you or at all.

The level of ignorance I’ve seen in most of the PUA and MRA communities about STDs, Consent, Non-Consent, and how infidelity is abusive in every single way, has been disturbingly astonishing.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry January 22, 2010 at 14:53

@Denise

“However, what I find extremely troubling is the amount and extent of absolute irrational hatred of women. I don’t understand how a man can generalize one or even a few bad experiences to all women.”

Tell me Denise. When the mainstream media and the people find it acceptable to openly tell Bobbit jokes, what do you deduce from this – given all your training in psychology, eh?

I’ll give you a clue.

It suggests that men are so hated that people, in general, even find the severe mutilation of men to be funny.

THAT’S how hated men are – courtesy of a number of groups including feminists.

Have you ever heard acceptable mainstream jokes about women’s private parts being sliced off?

No. You haven’t.

So, when people like you start suggesting that misogyny somehow infects the ether more so than does misandry, you really make me feel sick. Your blindness, your stupidity, your ignorance and your over-inflated sense of self-importance disgust me.

The amount of misogyny out there is as of nothing compared with the misandry that men face.

As one psychologist to another.

You are utterly pathetic and, quite frankly, not very bright.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 22, 2010 at 15:08

You are utterly pathetic and, quite frankly, not very bright.

And not very good at making sandwiches, either!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
CMPitts January 22, 2010 at 15:11

I mean really, Denise, how hard is it to remember to put on the lettuce before the Mayo?!?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 22, 2010 at 15:12

Why not evolve instead of insisting that we’re all just cave-people driven by a desire to reproduce?

Well, I think that MGTOWs are already doing this!

Indeed, a large part of what MRAs try to do is to place less value on female sexuality, and by association, sex itself.

And though you may not have seen radical feminists, Denise, let me assure you that I have. And that they are every bit as horrible as people here say.

I don’t think I ever said that Game equals Rape. What I said is that if there is such diversity in the types of game out there, where are the men who are *not* coerciing and deceiving women and why aren’t they speaking out against the gamers who *are* doing that?

Fair enough … maybe it was LR who said that Game is rape.

1 in 3 women actually are raped

They aren’t. The methodology for that number is completely unsound, and according to what I read wouldn’t have indicated 1 in 3 anyway. The actual number is somewhere closer to 1 in 300, but that’s including all the ‘non-traditional’ (i.e. not actual) rapes which are reported.

There is also a failure to teach these men that even if a woman has had rape fantasies, that doesn’t mean she’ll have that fantasy about YOU or want to act it out with you or at all.

Well, I think this is just blindingly obvious, don’t you Denise?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 22, 2010 at 15:17

There is also a failure to teach these men that even if a woman has had rape fantasies, that doesn’t mean she’ll have that fantasy about YOU or want to act it out with you or at all.

I have a sandwich fantasy that I wish Denise and/or Raine would fulfill for me.

RrrrrRRRRrrrr!!! Baby!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry January 22, 2010 at 15:21

@Denise

“1 in 3 women actually are raped”

‘Ollocks. There is no valid evidence for this ANYWHERE.

@Snark

Denise is someone who simply believes all the PC anti-male nonsense that her feminist friends spew forth.

ANY psychologist who makes the bold claim that some phenomenon is true based on questionnaire evidence is not fit to be a psychologist. You have got to be dumb beyond belief to believe in such weak evidence particularly when it emanates from people who benefit from hyping up the figures.

Denis is one of these non-thinkers who has simply decided to attack men.

She probably believes that 1 million Americans have been abducted by aliens.

If it was PC to believe this, she would believe it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 22, 2010 at 15:23

The two of them together for a sandwich threesome!

***shudders with pleasure***

Really ladies, if you can’t even muster up a couple of sandwiches, what good are you to us men at all?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snark January 22, 2010 at 15:28

Really ladies, if you can’t even muster up a couple of sandwiches, what good are you to us men at all?

He does have a point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Richard January 22, 2010 at 15:47

Denise does not stand for equality – I have perused her web-site – it is the usual dribble I have come to expect from modern day women.

I remember when I was in college – all the rotten, mean, ugly and uncalled for things I read about in “The SageBrush” – the school newspaper.
All of it came from women authors – some getting degrees in journalism, some in women’s studies.
just ONE example was something like, The reason there are so few women engineers, is because engineering is a sexist field. The professors are sexist, the students are sexist – it was usually very slanderous, and totally incorrect.

Good examples of hate-speech if I ever heard it.

Strangley, at the University, the archives of the school newspaper between 1991 and 1993 have strangley disappeared…

The ultimate slap in the face TO ALL MEN:

What we are doing in retaliation to the blatant INSANITY prevalent in women today – triggered and activated by feminism – is being called:

A Hate Movement – yes, a hate movement.

What WE say – is being called “hate speech”.

It is absolutely unbelievable,

If Roissy is EVER ARRESTED for a HATE CRIME…
The Link to my web-site is above.
SOMEBODY CONTACT ME, I WILL PAY HIS BAIL.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I am off to donate $500 to “The Innocense Project” http://www.theinnocenceproject.org” – a foundation that helps to get men out of prison having been wrongly accused of sex-crimes – they use DNA to re-assert innocence of such men.

If you have extra money – you might want to consider doing the same.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Richard January 22, 2010 at 15:49

sorry, its

http://innocenceproject.org

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll Detector January 22, 2010 at 16:21

Denise Romano,

Do you realize how much of an INSANE, DANGEROUS PSYCHOPATH you’ve teamed up with? If lighting cars on fire wasn’t enough to convince you, how’s this one -

However, yes of course. I have always loved/studied Crime, Psychology, the Human Mind, and Law. All those things sort of invoke an interest in the other. I absolutely LOVE studying the Human Mind and especially the mind of a brilliant Psychopath or Sociopathic Killer. They ARE brilliant (most of the ones who get away with it for awhile at least) and if they weren’t already killers they’d be geniuses would could have changed the world.” — LR, “Consent: What’s the Confusion?

Really Lady Cumstain — they would have ‘changed the world’??? You are unfit to be a mother making statements like this!!

She is an absolute danger to society — and her family as well.

She needs to be locked up for her own good, and for her son’s good as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathy Farrelly January 22, 2010 at 17:25

“Really ladies, if you can’t even muster up a couple of sandwiches, what good are you to us men at all?” Lol!

Something a little easier for them, perhaps, fedrz.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/bar%20wench%20pics/gotprayer/beer_carrying_wench.jpg ;)

What say you?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 21:50

Harry – I’m not a psychologist, one needs a PhD in NY to be a psychologist.

I am primarily a writer, and a scholar of issues concerning the use of power, control, autonomy, and authority as those relate to issues of identity, conflict, conflict resolution, and systems in various spectrums from open to closed.

I’ve looked at your site and I find it hard to believe you’re a psychologist, but if you are, that’s disturbing. Have you heard of race psychosis? You (and many others here) sound like you have gender psychosis.

For those of you who claim to have looked at my site, you obviously haven’t actually read it based on what you’re saying here. Stop making incredibly stupid assumptions.

And for the rest of you: I’m much too busy to cook.

And for the person who commented on Lady Raine: You’re not even getting her point. She is not celebrating killers – she is saying that it would be so much better if they used their obvious intelligence for something good rather than evil — a sentiment I feel about most of the men who post here.

I really don’t see how any of you can celebrate the dehumanization of women when you claim that the dehumanization of men is so terrible.

Why don’t you see that the dehumanization of any human being is tragic, unacceptable and unnecessary?

Why don’t you try being part of a solution instead of perpetuating a problem?

Women and men have much more in common than we don’t. Make your own fucking sandwiches and become part of a solution.

You could all really learn something from the men at the feministcritics blog.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 22, 2010 at 21:54

I am primarily a writer, and a scholar of issues concerning the use of power, control, autonomy, and authority as those relate to issues of identity, conflict, conflict resolution, and systems in various spectrums from open to closed. — Sandwich challenged one.

Me Too!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise A. Romano January 22, 2010 at 22:01

Here is more education for you on what NYS law says about Consent and Lack of Consent:

http://www.svfreenyc.org/survivors_legal.html#A1

(Pertinent parts excepted below):

Some Factor Other Than Incapacity to Consent: Rape 3 and Criminal Sexual Act 3 have recently been modified with a “no means no” clause. In cases of intercourse only, if the victim expressed that he or she did not consent to the sex act in such a way that a reasonable person would have understood those words or acts as expressing lack of consent, this would be prosecutable as Rape in the third degree or Criminal Sexual Act in the third degree. This makes a case easier for the District Attorney to prosecute because it is based on a reasonable person standard, and not on the specific interpretation of a defendant.
What constitutes a sexual offense?
If any of the following acts are perpetrated against a victim “without his or her consent,” as defined above, it is a crime under New York State Law:

Sexual Intercourse: the penetration of the penis into the vagina, however slight– in other words, if the penis goes into the vagina just a little, not in its entirety, that is considered completed “sexual intercourse”. (There is no requirement of physical injury and usually there is no requirement that ejaculation or orgasm have occurred.)

AND/OR

Criminal Sexual Act (Oral or Anal Sexual Conduct): does not require any penetration and occurs upon contact between penis and mouth, penis and anus (rectum), mouth and anus, or mouth and vaginal area.

AND/OR

Sexual Contact: any touching of the sexual or intimate parts of the body whether over or under clothing:
done for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party
includes the touching of the victim’s sexual or intimate parts by the perpetrator AND the touching of the perpetrator’s sexual or intimate parts by the victim
AND/OR

Forcible Touching: the intentional and forcible touching of another
done for the purpose of degrading or abusing another person or done for the purpose of gratifying the defendant’s sexual desire
includes squeezing, grabbing, or pinching
AND/OR

Aggravated Sexual Contact: insertion of a foreign object (e.g. coke bottle, broom handle, etc.) into the vagina, urethra, penis or rectum.
Insertion of a finger into vagina, urethra, penis or rectum causing injury, constitutes 2nd degree sexual offense
If the insertion of the object causes physical injury, this constitutes a 1st degree sexual offense
If no injury occurs, this constitutes a 3rd degree sexual offense

This is not my language or “feminist language”; it’s the law.

No means no.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 22, 2010 at 22:06

Sandwich means sandwich!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 22, 2010 at 22:09

Denise,

Stop cutting-and-pasting so damn much!

We know where to look for the applicable laws if we wish to.

Besides, it shows a lack of creativity on your part. Just say what you have to say.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 22, 2010 at 22:29

And for the person who commented on Lady Raine: You’re not even getting her point. She is not celebrating killers – she is saying that it would be so much better if they used their obvious intelligence for something good rather than evil — a sentiment I feel about most of the men who post here.

How pathetic on both your parts. Serial killers are not necessarily intelligent, they are morally depraved and are the epitome of satanic evil, and this is probably why “Lady” Vain admires them so much — cause she is cut from the same kind of cloth as they are. (Roissy was so right about these, er, ‘types’ of women lusting after evil and violent men — this is probably why she hates him so — he shines light on her dark, blackened soul.)

This is also the likely reason why the likes of her are against ‘game’ — she doesn’t just want any ol’ ‘Joe Schmo’ learning how to be attractive to women — noooo waaaay, this may deprive her of finding the ‘real deal’ — a full blown socio-path like herself.

Is this what you have been reduced to, Ms. Romano, teaming up with, and defending, the lifestyle and behaviors of the “former” stripper Wendy Schwartz? She is an inveterate liar making up all sorts of tall tales to make herself feel “important”, and seems to spend 24/7 of her time online with her attention whoring lifestyle (gosh, do I feel sorry for her poor son).

I ask you emphatically: Do you wish to defend someone who makes comments such as this -

“Ohhhh, I see….you’re confused. See I personally have no worries about that because no matter what I have been “charged with” legally, I have always and will always get out of anything/everything with no conviction.

“That’s something that I’m glad I have available to me. I lit a guy’s car on fire and danced around it while he watched and I got nothing. No charge, nothing. There’s tons of events like that so don’t mistakenly think that I am somehow “concerned” about the Law…..lol”

And many, MANY MORE like this as well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 22, 2010 at 23:11

Is this what you have been reduced to, Ms. Romano, teaming up with, and defending, the lifestyle and behaviors of the “former” stripper Wendy Schwartz? She is an inveterate liar making up all sorts of tall tales to make herself feel “important”, and seems to spend 24/7 of her time online with her attention whoring lifestyle (gosh, do I feel sorry for her poor son).

I ask you emphatically: Do you wish to defend someone who makes comments such as this -

Or comments such as these, Ms. Romano:

There’s nothing that relaxes me like setting something on fire….oh…wait, nevermind. 11/22/09

“…is it wrong to spend thanksgiving dinner fantasizing about punching my mother in the face?” — 11/26/09

“thinks someone might get stabbed soon….” — 9/2/09

“I’ll pull said teenager/girl aside and pull a Rebecca DeMornay in “The Hand That Rocks The Cradle” and threaten to cut her fucking throat if she so much as LOOKS in my son’s general direction ever again” —
12/9/09 “think twice young man”

“I am better educated than most and went to better schools, too. I have very good income and am independent of any financial sources.” — 1/15/10

“Basically, I get paid for X amount of hours (usually about 10 per day) and usually have whatever programs done that they need in about 2 hours. The rest of the time I’m doing this…..dicking around, blogging, and spinning around in the Boss’s chair when I’m supposed to be working.” — 12/8/09 “think twice young man”

(I have been “in love” with 2 people and neither of them were my son’s father. He was sort of the snake eyes in the roll of my life at the time). — 8/10/09

“You’re like a bunch of old Jew-Ladies.” — 6/30/09

And, the Pièce de résistance:

“… In my mind the best thing to come out of Nazi Germany and The Holocaust was the sign that hung above the gates of Auschwitz: “Hard work shall set you free.” — 12/18/09

Denise, what do you think Jackson KATZ would feel after reading that one, hmmm?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 24, 2010 at 02:27

There is such a thing as racial psychosis, and much of what is written here looks to me to be gender psychosis.

You mean ‘racial psychosis’ like this kind, Denise:

Seriously, by the ridiculous and “sensitive” whining I’ve gotten here, I’m starting to SEE why people hate the Jews though. Look at how you people act? So what if people don’t care about the freaking Holocaust and your “previous oppression”???

Every culture on earth has been oppressed and slaughtered at some point and it seems to me you want a cookie and a lifetime pass for it. Nope, sorry. Suck it up, shut up, and move on.

Keep digging your professional/career grave there, Ms. Romano.

Boy, I hope you don’t have too much student loan debt outstanding. (Oh well, you can always make sandwiches ;) )

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden January 24, 2010 at 02:59

When Denise is backed into a corner, she cites the standing language ideology. This is not a defense of her position; it is admittance of defeat. She guises it as an attempt to “educate” us on the “laws” (note again that the five primary enforcers of language ideology are public education, news media, the entertainment industry, corporate culture and the legal system) because she can’t defend herself using sound rational arguments. She is basically asserting that things should be the way that they are because this is the way that they are. Not a very good argument.

It’s funny that she keeps harping on racial and gender psychosis, considering that racism and sexism are the byproducts of language ideologies that encourage them. In this way, she’s only adding fuel to the fire that is burning up trust and camaraderie among the sexes in our society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathy Farrelly January 24, 2010 at 05:22

“Boy, I hope you don’t have too much student loan debt outstanding. (Oh well, you can always make sandwiches )”

Or get a job as a beer wench. lol!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 24, 2010 at 18:49

“Boy, I hope you don’t have too much student loan debt outstanding. (Oh well, you can always make sandwiches )”

Or get a job as a beer wench. lol!
__

Well Kathy, Denise says she doesn’t cook, so if she loses her, um, ‘job’ as an ‘activist’ — and more importantly, a writer by palling around and collaborating with the psycho-pathological hater and ‘former’ stripper Wendy Scwartz, aka Insane Lady Shame (less), let’s just hope she gets a job in a delicatessen, or as you say, in a pub, cause then maybe she could eat for free, or at least get an employee discount.

*Better stay away from the chain restaurant establishments, however – they only give something like a20-30% discount on employee meals, from what I have heard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 24, 2010 at 19:09

Why don’t you try being part of a solution instead of perpetuating a problem?

Women and men have much more in common than we don’t. Make your own fucking sandwiches and become part of a solution.

You could all really learn something from the men at the feministcritics blog.

Because when a war is on, you don’t go collaborating with the enemy, like you, Denise. We wage war in response to the war waged against us. Yes, there are quisling sites like that one .. they pander to your vagina and your pathetic need for power over men. But don’t expect us to ever agree with you. Oh, and before you dismiss us, don’t underestimate our power in the armed forces. I think underestimating that will be your undoing as a class. But I digress ….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Clarence January 29, 2010 at 10:17

Um Nova?

How can the Feminist Critics blog be a “quisling” site, when it doesn’t claim allegience to one side or another, is often disowned by both sides, and , more to the point, is far more critical of feminism than servile to it?

Personally, I find it to be a fair and well run blog.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise Romano February 1, 2010 at 21:18

I thought this might clarify things for those of you who are still so confused:

Only Men Can Prevent Rape — By Not Raping Women

A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defense. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn’t have long hair and women shouldn’t wear short skirts. Women shouldn’t leave drinks unattended. Hell, women shouldn’t dare to get drunk at all. Instead of that bullshit, how about:

If a woman is drunk, don’t rape her.

If a woman is walking alone at night, don’t rape her.

If a woman is drugged and unconscious, don’t rape her.

If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don’t rape her.

If a woman is jogging in a park at 5 am, don’t rape her.

If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you’re still hung up on, don’t rape her.

If a woman is asleep in her bed, don’t rape her.

If a woman is asleep in your bed, don’t rape her.

If a woman is doing her laundry, don’t rape her.

If a woman is in a coma, don’t rape her.

If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don’t rape her.

If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don’t rape her.

If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don’t rape her.

If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don’t rape her.

If your step-daughter is watching TV, don’t rape her.

If you break into a house and find a woman there, don’t rape her.

If your friend thinks it’s okay to rape someone, tell him it’s not, and that he’s not your friend.

If your “friend” tells you he raped someone, report him to the police.

If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there’s an unconscious woman upstairs and it’s your turn, don’t rape her, call the police and tell the guy he’s a rapist.

Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, sons of friends it’s not okay to rape someone.

Don’t tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape.

Don’t imply that she could have avoided it if she’d only done/not done x.

Don’t imply that it’s in any way her fault.

Don’t let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he “got some” with the drunk girl.

Don’t perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can, too, help yourself.

–Author unknown

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Toby February 1, 2010 at 21:20

To: Denise Romano

Please die you psychotic cat lady.

Thanks :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz February 1, 2010 at 21:29

Only Women Should Make Sandwiches!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GrimmNoir February 1, 2010 at 21:32

Denise “Nipples” Romano said:

“Don’t perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions”

Ahhhh……

Projection.

The Weapon X of the Feminist Arsenal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GrimmNoir February 1, 2010 at 21:35

Sammiches rock!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 1, 2010 at 21:40

Denise Romano – So long as I am having consensual heterosexual sex with women, I may always be raping them, if we are to believe (and legislate) definitions like these:

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”

Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating.
Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love… Rape, then, is the logical consequence of a system of definitions of what is normative. Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake–it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it.

…the prisons for women are our homes. We live under martial law. We live in places in which a rape culture exists. That is a women’s home, where she lives. Men have to be sent to prison, to live in a culture that is as rapist as the normal home in North America. We live under what amounts to a military curfew. Enforced by rapists. And we say usually that we’re free citizens in a free society. We lie. We lie, we lie everyday about it… We live in a police state where every man is deputized…

..the private (family) is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women’s exploited labor.

In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.

[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.

Your rhetoric is loaded and dishonest and until you engage in an honest debate with your opposition, you will not have my respect, nor I dare say the respect of many readers of this site. I’ll leave you with another quote from those in “your camp” that expresses the callous disregard for men or negotiation about these very important terms and realities:

Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sharpcool February 1, 2010 at 21:58

Why is this idiot still posting here about rape. What does this have to do with anything on this site? Denise, you’re sick. You need help. Try to read these words slowly and ponder them. You need mental help.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathy February 1, 2010 at 22:03

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQiuj8bJSeQ

This girl can’t make a sandwich either, Fedrz! :D

Peter Chao, is Canadian btw ..
Just love that exaggerated accent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise Romano February 1, 2010 at 22:07

J. Durden – I don’t know where you got those quotes, but do not insinuate they’re from me, b/c they’re not.

But, I realize the spearhead boys just love to lie.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
GrimmNoir February 1, 2010 at 22:11

Denise “Just Being Male Is Rape” Romano said:

“But, I realize the spearhead boys just love to lie.”

Weapon X just got deployed……

AGAIN!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz February 1, 2010 at 22:26

J. Durden – I don’t know where you got those quotes, but do not insinuate they’re from me, b/c they’re not.

But, I realize the spearhead boys just love to lie. — OverTheHill Denise Can’t Get a Man Cause She Can’t Even Make a Sammich!

The Quote List.

Seriously Denise. Learn some skills that get you off your back!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Laikastes February 1, 2010 at 22:29

Good grief! This freakshow is still going on?

Why is this Romano idiot being allowed to post here without at least making all of us a sandwich for every post?

Make mine on rye, Denise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon February 1, 2010 at 22:47

A woman like Denise Romano, who is not attractive to any man, sure is obsessed with men having consensual sex with women.

Plus, I think Welmer did ban her, but she is now posting from a new IP address. She is that committed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 1, 2010 at 22:47

I don’t know where you got those quotes, but do not insinuate they’re from me, b/c they’re not.

I’m not insinuating they are from you. In fact, I linked directly to the page I found the quotes on. Here’s another link to the same page.

Your “definitions” and legal posturing regarding rape are heavily influenced by the rhetoric I have linked to, and is thusly dishonest and loaded. Until you give up this rhetoric in favor of your honest opinions and deliberate reason, few people here will be willing to take you seriously.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Steezer February 1, 2010 at 23:01

“Gender psychosis” — how apt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak February 1, 2010 at 23:04

Fedrz,

To all of yours (and Kathy’s) responses to Madame ‘OCD’ Romano –

LMFAO :D

*This should be your avatar:
http://www.dula.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/i-fucking-love-sandwiches.jpg

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak February 1, 2010 at 23:08

Plus, I think Welmer did ban her, but she is now posting from a new IP address. She is that committed.

Or should be committed — to an institution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise Romano February 2, 2010 at 00:52

same IP address.

go ahead ban me.

I have a new blog post since you keep posting lies about me and others.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Denise Romano February 2, 2010 at 01:02

Dearest Spearhead Cretins:

I love men – who are not like you and your little toddler friends here.

I love EVOLVED men like these:

Jackson Katz
Todd Denny
Lundy Bancroft
Robert Jensen
Charles Whitfield
Terence Gorski
Ian Kerner
John Gottman
Howard Halpern
Daniel Goleman
Steve Stein
Howard Book
Srini Pillay
Marshall Rosenberg
Paul Kivel
Evan Stark
David Caruso
John Mayer
Peter Salovey
Peter Singer
Stephen Carter

and many others, including my partner.

I think all of you would make much better use of your time becoming volunteers who make sandwiches for homeless people.

Denise

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Get Real February 2, 2010 at 01:15

Denise,

Like I said on a previous thread, I don’t mind you (or Lady Raine) staying here to genuinely debate and discuss things with us… it is just unacceptable with the ad-hominum generalized attacks-disguised-as-dialogue, with the sickenly libelous insinuation of ‘rape’.

This is NOT a ‘PUA’ site here — and while I cannot speak for all, I feel confident enough after reading many individual stories here that we are primarily a bunch of former husbands and fathers who have been utterly sh-t upon by the misandric ‘Family Law’ court system, a system upon which a man is ‘presumed guilty’ with no chance of even ‘proving innocence’ — an exact inversion upon which Western concepts of justice and ‘equal treatment before the law’ have been since the days of the Magna Charta.

What makes (not all, but many) of your accusations even more baseless and sickening is that many of us as well actually like the concept of traditional monagamous marriages, the way it protected the family and provided real sanctions against the adulterous behaviors that lead to a marriage and family’s dissilution — something that you say you also are against (or are for strengthening – i.e. lwas against adultery).

So, think before you speak – or slander. Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anon February 2, 2010 at 01:16

Her ‘partner’?

What does he do when you are commenting on blogs at 3 AM your time?

Does he know that you consider him to be your ‘partner’?

BTW, it seems that Roissy is posting away happily. Your attempt to shut him down was futile. Now what?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
David February 2, 2010 at 01:23

I’d ban her for using stupid, loaded expressions like “partner” and “evolved”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer February 2, 2010 at 01:28

Again, Denise, please stop spamming this site now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slumlord. February 2, 2010 at 01:40

She looks the type that suffers from irritable bowel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 2, 2010 at 01:52

Denise –

I have stated several logical arguments which you have failed to respond to in an appropriate manner, opting instead for insults and shaming language. I will not be dragged down to a, frankly, childish shouting match, as it goes against all good decorum and civility. If you would like to engage in honest and vigorous intellectual debate, then by all means, pick up the strands you have abandoned. Otherwise, I will correspond with you here (and elsewhere) no longer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer February 2, 2010 at 01:57

@J. Durden

I IP banned her for spamming (for the second time — she had another IP this time).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak February 2, 2010 at 02:01

I think all of you would make much better use of your time becoming volunteers who make sandwiches for homeless people.
__

If you join us!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak February 2, 2010 at 02:04

I think all of you would make much better use of your time becoming volunteers who make sandwiches for homeless people.

If you join us!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
J. Durden February 2, 2010 at 02:07

@ Welmer

Just as well, I suppose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak February 2, 2010 at 02:13

I think all of you would make much better use of your time becoming volunteers who make sandwiches for homeless people.

If you join us!
__

Sorry guys, I meant to say that we may join her if Denise ‘volunteers’ some of her precious time away from slandering others and actually do something productive.

That’s better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real February 2, 2010 at 03:21

Another thing Denise,

Sandwich jokes aside, please, pleeeeaaaase stop with the ‘cut-n-pasting’ of other people’s work. It betrays an utter lack of creativity and depth of the issues on your part.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster February 2, 2010 at 03:43

It was with considerable interest that I read Assanova’s interview with LR. It’s a good thing that I saved it to my hard drive, because the reference to her fantasy with respect to grease-covered mechanic has now been removed. This is relevant, because if DR is going to keep on haranguing this site with her anti-rape agenda, she would do well to ensure that her buddies maintain a consistent message, and not make suggestions, however remote, with respect to illicit fantasies. Well, the Assanova interview is still available, sans said reference to grease-covered mechanic:
http://www.realassanova.com/2010/01/guest-post-how-to-game-lady-raine.html

Clearly, there is a lack of consistency between DR’s obsession with rape and her buddy’s fantasies. So a grease-covered mechanic is ‘hot’, eh? Does a lawyer or financier provide the same sort of tingle? Can an art-admiring mangina friend of The Lady ever be ‘hot’ in the same way that a grease-covered tradie is? What is it about a grease-covered mechanic that does it for the likes of a Lady? Or are there different kinds of ‘hot’, depending on the mood you’re in, and whether you want to fantasize about being raped or being provided for?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Scattered February 2, 2010 at 04:21

I very much dislike dealing with unreasonable people because the effort required to pick apart their meaningless arguments is enormous, and yet after all that work they still don’t have a clue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: