RoR: Forum

Roosh V is an interesting blogger whose articles I enjoy reading occasionally. He is definitely not an Objectivist but is more than willing to confront the many mythologies of the cultural left. He engaged in a world tour this summer to speak in a number of different countries about his philosophy of "neomasculinity" and contends we are now in a state of perpetual "narrative warfare" among the ideologues. As you can guess, hard leftists tried to silence him violently in Canada but he prevailed and completed his speaking engagements anyway. The feminist assailant in this video faces formal assault charges as I write this.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/12, 12:38pm)

Post 1

Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 2:30pm

I went to Wikipedia to see what was said about Roosh V. Unlike Luke, I didn't find value. I really didn't like the guy they described. But, there are Wikipedia articles that are so biased as to be off by 180 degrees, so I went to his blog. Now I really don't like this guy or his views. That is where I ended up, anyone else can do the same thing... search for Roosh V on Wikipedia, then read a blog entry or so, perhaps one on his view of the nature of women.

Note: I agree that men are showing weaker personalities, that PC is toxic to a culture - politically, intellectually, and psychologically, and that feminism went off the track. But to say that this fellow is proposing intelligent cures for those ills, much less an intelligable view of the world or how to live our lives... that would be absurd.

----------------

In Wikipedia he is described like this:

"Daryush Valizadeh (born June 14, 1979), also known as Roosh V and Roosh Vorek, is an American writer and pickup artist known for his writings on seduction and antifeminism. ... Roosh has self-published 15 books, most of which offer advice to men on how to sleep with women in specific countries. ... he states that feminism has left a legacy of weaker men who are more androgynous. He went on to say that women abstain from having sex with them in preference for "bad boys". Roosh advocates adherence to traditional heteronormative roles for men and is against female promiscuity. He says that his rhetoric does not call for violence or hate against women, feminists, or any other group. Roosh encourages men to improve themselves, especially in physique and style, and become more masculine in order to be more attractive to women. In addition, he states that men and women are physically and mentally very different and that much of women's value comes from their fertility and beauty.
...
"In February 2015, Roosh was criticized for a blog post that he wrote titled "How to Stop Rape" in which he said that he advocated the legalizing of rape on private property in order to, in Roosh's opinion, force women to take greater responsibility for their own safety and security. Said Roosh in the post, "If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she’ll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied." [my emphasis]

- At this point I was starting to view him as someone with a Madonna/whore view of women, a high degree of insecurity that he walls behind a psuedo-philosophy of male superiority and female inferiority. His goal in life appears to be to experience a sense of superiority to combat his feelings of walled-away insecurities by fucking good girls and rejecting bad girls. Virtues in his view are improving his appearance, avoiding anything that isn't 'masculine' as he sees that, and building up his body, and becoming an expert at seduction.

His parents come from the middle-east and this isn't an unfamiliar blend of psychology and philosophy in that part of the world where women have very strict prescriptions to be followed or to be punished or seen as immoral and as inferior to men and must be controlled.

He is opposed to promiscuity in women, yet makes it his lifes work to screw women, and to teach other men to also be effective in seducing women into being screwed. Anybody that doesn't see that as twisted and shallow?
-----------------

One of his blog entries goes like this:

How To Choose The Best Prospects For Fast Sex

"This Saturday night I’m not going out not to practice my game, build my skills, make a girl laugh, entertain her friends, or have a good time. I’m going out to fuck. Everything I do after the moment I leave my door will be to find a girl who is open to having sex with me that same night. During the day I’m content with phone numbers, but at night I intend to go all the way, even on weeknights. Anything less than that is a complete, utter failure."

Or this one:

Feminists Are Successfully Creating A Society Of Shameless Sluts

"Before I reveal a piece of evidence that suggests American girls no longer feel ashamed for being sluts, it’s worth discussing why slut shaming became an issue that feminists hold dear to their pansexual hearts.

"One of the unstated goals of feminism is to create guilt in men for finding some women more beautiful than others. Feminists, who happen to be on the ugly end of the beauty spectrum, want to redefine beauty so that they are found to be just as worthy as genuinely pretty girls. One way to take away value from those pretty girls is to tell them that what men find to be objectively beautiful is actually nothing more than a subjective social construction. Therefore, skinny is not pretty; fat blubber is pretty. Long hair is not pretty; Skrillex haircuts are pretty. Flawless, creamy skin is not pretty; tattoos are pretty. High heels are not pretty; flip flops are pretty. You get the idea."
------------

His website is a giant promotional for his books and newsletter which are either about him flying around fucking and talking about how other men can get lots of sex in otherwise empty relationships and criticizing women. He sells books, subcriptions to his newsletter, and all things Roosh V.

He has another website - Here are some oarticle titles from his Return of Kings website:
- Why Christianity is Not an Enemy to Neomasculinity
- Why Vladimir Putin May be the Last Guardian of Traditional Values
--------------

Higher levels of self-esteem, a solid dose of rational-egoism, with productivity and honesty as core virtues, will generate a man that is stronger than anything recommended by Roosh. I don't see what he offers to be more than trying to bury feelings of insecurity and anger at independent women, behind a purposely created narcissistic delusion and shallow goals. All that is offered is just a dressed-up, nuanced machismo. Real masculinity doesn't involve much more that a sense of fondness that being a man means appreciating women. Put another way, the best thing about being a man, is women.

Post 2

Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 4:00pm

His rape article was intended as satire of radical leftist proposals turned on their ear such as the old feminist trope that all sex is rape.

Too bad leftists have no sense of humor. Do they think Jonathan Swift actually advocated eating children in "A Modest Proposal"? One wonders.

As for the rest, my main point was the violent opposition he met against his freedom of speech. His critics agree that he had the right to speak his mind even if they despised his message. The attackers did not.

I agree with Steve's criticisms of the sleazier aspects of the author but still considered the original quote agreeable and worth sharing.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/12, 4:25pm)

Post 3

Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 4:31pm

Hi Luke,

I was harsh in my response about this fellow. Some people get my goat. He's one of them.

I should have started my post with something that made it clear that I wasn't trying to attack you for bringing material to the forum for us to view. Sorry if it seemed like I wasn't as respectful to you as I should have been. (But... the guy is a toad :-)

Post 4

Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 4:57pm

It is all good, Steve. :-)

Roosh has a degree in microbiology but left the field to pursue paid writing. As I learned from The Game by Neil Strauss, this "lifestyle" can become quite addictive. That book documented men quitting college and jobs to pursue pickup artistry. I actually pity them. They will never know the depth and warmth of long term commitment and monogamy that frees them from momentary urges to engage long term goals.

The best way to avoid sluts is to stop being a slut.

Post 5

Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 6:19pm

What do you bet this guy never scores?

Post 6

Saturday, September 12, 2015 - 6:28pm

What I would bet is that he has no respect for any woman that would go to bed with him, and despises those he can't get.

Post 7

Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 4:46am

I have no doubt he scores nor that he disrespects those slutty women. The thing is, they likely disrespect him, too. Their whole world is the inversion of ours. It is based on momentary urges rather than long range vision ... narcissism rather than egoism ... hedonism rather than happiness ... manipulation rather than respect.

That said, I invite readers to browse older archives on RoR to find advocates of casual sex right here in our midst. I confess my surprise at this attitude among "Objectivists." If any readers care to argue in its favor, now would be a good time (no pun intended).

I am on a smart phone so posting links is hard but search for my article "A Proto-Objectivist Argument for Lifelong Monogamy?" and my review of "Cathouse" for some of the aforementioned discussions.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/13, 6:47am)

Post 8

Sunday, September 13, 2015 - 2:45pm

Luke,

Their whole world is the inversion of ours. It is based on momentary urges rather than long range vision ... narcissism rather than egoism ... hedonism rather than happiness ... manipulation rather than respect.

That's very well said.

---------------

On the issue of "casual sex" I'd say that there are different ways of looking at that.

One is to say that a romatic relationship is best if it is built on deeply held beliefs, respect for your partner, enjoyment of them as person, and with the end in mind of a long term relationship. I'd agree with that completely. But the question arises, "Should one obstain from any sexual relationship at all if it doesn't meet that description?"

If someone says that romantic love doesn't exist, or is delusional, or undesirable, I'd strongly disagree and suspect some psychological issues were at play.

If one makes a lifelong pursuit of casual sex, I'd say that was strange given that sex inside of romatic love when added to all the intense values of romantic love itself makes a massively greater overall value.

If one says that their concept of casual sex is sex between two people who are still in the process of finding someone they love, but in the meantime they are with others, but only with a partner they find attractive and that they respect and are honest with... well, I don't disagree with that.

The idea of people being celibate as a kind of moral duty until they meet someone that they are romantically in love with doesn't meet my idea of being moral in a system of rational egoism. And I don't see a psychological value there. I'd say the only caution - of a psychological nature - was that the person stay firmly aware of the value of romantic love and to only be in 'casual' relationships with people they consider to be of very high quality as people because other wise life might end up being restricted to these casual relationships out of a kind of habit.

There is an argument that sexual pleasure that is possible in a future romantic relationship is diminished by a casual relationship in the present. Taken to an extreme that is too much like a warning that one never eat any meal that isn't of gourmet quality for fear that ones ability to enjoy truly special meals in the future will be ruined. I think that the sexual pleasure of a casual relationship is different from the sexual pleasure of a good romantic relationship and the only way that this difference would be harmful would be if casual sex were undertaken on the side by one or both parties in a romatic relationship - that, to me, would indicate something was awry in the romantic relationship.

I don't think it is good to view life-long monogamy as a value just because it is life-long. People grow and change - in sometimes different directions and different rates. Because of that they might grow apart. This might happen in 15 years or 30 years, or not at all. But if a couple grow apart, it might be better to separate and find new partners. This is because it is the value of being in love and being loved that matters, not the length of time. Our nature is such that serial monogamy is best, and the longer the periods the better, but it isn't the length of time that matters most.

When the phrase "until death due us part" was invented, the average life span was about 35 years or so, and marriage was an economical necesssity and both people worked apart from one another from sunrise to sunset and went to bed shortly after that. Life together, for that age, was tiny compared to people who might be in close quarters for large parts of the day for periods of up to 60 years or so.

Post 9

Monday, September 14, 2015 - 9:33am

Does anyone here dispute the claim that "if you already know the type of person you connect with best, it would be smarter to surround yourself with only those people"?

Post 10

Monday, September 14, 2015 - 10:55am

"if you already know the type of person you connect with best, it would be smarter to surround yourself with only those people"?

Some people connect best with exactly those people that are bad for them. Say those women who find themselves attracted to men that treat them badly.

-----------------------------

I was talking with Warren Farrell - this was a long, long time ago - and he was telling a young man who was despairing of finding a good romantic partner that his best advice was just to make friends with lots of high quality women - women who were happy, intelligent, and fun to be with. He told him to just be friends with them and in time he would get into a relationship and fall in love and it would be with a good woman. That might have been more a case of "Don't connect with the type of person you connect best with." And instead, "Surround yourself with the kind of people you would like to connect with better."

Post 11

Monday, September 14, 2015 - 12:36pm

Steve wrote:

I was talking with Warren Farrell - this was a long, long time ago - and he was telling a young man who was despairing of finding a good romantic partner that his best advice was just to make friends with lots of high quality women - women who were happy, intelligent, and fun to be with. He told him to just be friends with them and in time he would get into a relationship and fall in love and it would be with a good woman.

I sanctioned your post but would caveat those relations with quality women as "acquaintances" rather than "friends." There is a common saying in the manosphere about LJBF -- "Let's Just Be Friends" -- as a woman's death knell to any man regarding the possibility of sexual relations with her. The "friend zone" is the "dead zone" in that regard. As you learned from my article "Houseguests from Hell," I have learned to cast a cold shoulder and fishy eye toward anything remotely resembling a close yet platonic relationship with a woman.

So in a social setting I might say, "This is my friend Steve and my acquaintance Jill."

"Can't we just be friends?"

"No."

See also "JOE versus SAM" about this attitude, to wit:

When a woman says, "Let's just be friends," Joe agrees in the hopes that she will change her mind once she gets to know him. Sam agrees and tells her to set him up with her friend Mary, whom he finds quite attractive.

Oh, yes, I almost forgot "Thunderous Replies to Thoughtless Remarks":

This calls for, not one, not two, but three—yes, three—possible responses, three thunderous replies to this thoughtless remark.
Number One
“Why can’t we just be friends?”
“Next!”
Number Two
“Why can’t we just be friends?”
“Honey, I have enough friends already!”
Finally, Number Three, my personal favorite
“Why can’t we just be friends?”
“Of course we can just be friends—and the first favor I’d like to ask of you, as my friend, is for you to fix me up with your friend Mary over there! She looks pretty hot!”

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/14, 12:53pm)

Post 12

Monday, September 14, 2015 - 1:00pm

Luke

There is a common saying in the manosphere.....

Beware of all this manosphere stuff and these little prescriptions for using this or that word and thinking that men or women are automatons that will always react in these predictable ways. That stuff only works on a shallow manipulative surface. A person who is able to think in principles is never bound by these.

A romantic relationship that is built on solid, essential qualities is not going to be stopped by the couple having been friends. It is true that a woman holds a man in a kind of mental category and that might be something that has to be changed to move forward.... but keeping that category is just a convienience while finding someone really special is far, far more than that.

------------------

"Let's Just Be Friends" -- as a woman's death knell to any man regarding the possibility of sexual relations with her.

This should be put in perspective. She has already decided that she has no sexual or romantic interest in a guy when she says that. And it isn't the saying of those words that puts a man into some category - he's already been put there in her mind, and the words are just how she announces it. Some of the time she might not even want him as friend and knows that these words will get rid of him altogether.

There are women who are attracted to a man (who isn't coming on to her), and will be happy to accept being friends as a way to stay close enough to, hopefully, allow a romantic or sexual relationship to start. Again, this is that "seductionist" "manosphere" manipulative and shallow understanding (often more like misunderstanding) that does more to reduce peoples chances of having good relationships. I see it and I see dishonesty, misunderstanding, and a failure to get any real emotional intimacy. Those guys might as well stay at home and masturbate.

Post 13

Monday, September 14, 2015 - 1:15pm

Steve, I guess I would take what you say more seriously if not for so many counterexamples I have seen in real life. The sexual attraction between men and women sets a limit on how close they can get asexually. The worst experience is that of unrequited love. Men and women need to learn to attenuate their interactions to stay in an emotional state of "non-contradiction." Since men tend to remain the pursuers even in this "liberated" age, it behooves them not to waste time on dead end pursuits. As they say in sales training when pursuing leads, learn to say, "Next!"

As for being "friends," well, what I have learned is that men and women think so differently that much too often such "friendship" becomes more effort than it is worth.

I can hardly blame today's young men for the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement in the face of what awaits them.

Sexual tensions in a Russian simulation of a Mars mission with a mixed gender crew led the Russians to declare that any such mission would be "male only"!

Post 14

Monday, September 14, 2015 - 5:35pm

Luke,

We often see what we expect to see. We find ourselves identifying those things that are in the world that we happen to be interested in noting how the world is ordered just about as we think it ought to be. After I bought my first motorcycle, I was amazed at how many motorcycles were out there. If we see the differences between men and women as the crucial element to focus on rather than the similarities between men and women, it isn't a surprise that they fit into this sexually charged viewpoint you mention.
---------------

Since men tend to remain the pursuers even in this "liberated" age, it behooves them not to waste time on dead end pursuits.

But, a man who owns himself, rather than just being a container that his sexual urges manipulate inorder to get laid, isn't always blindly pursuing sex. He will have a great many other interests.

----------------

The sexual attraction between men and women sets a limit on how close they can get asexually.

But one presumes that he won't always be without a partner. When he has a partner, then he has even fewer problems enjoying the company of other women. And I'm here to tell you that I have average testosterone levels yet I have no problem enjoying the company of a woman without finding myself a helpless slave to a sexual drive. I put it back in its box, or maybe its better to say I dial it down some, so that it is a pleasant attraction that adds to anything else that if enjoyable.

------------------

...men and women think so differently that much too often such "friendship" becomes more effort than it is worth.

We certainly see things differently. Women have minds, emotions, personalities, experiences, and ways of looking at the world. Just as there are many men I have no interest in spending any time with - too boring, or nothing in common, there are many women, for the same reasons, that I wouldn't want to spend much time with. But it is the differences between men and women, usually fairly minor, that, for me, make women more interesting, on average, for me to listen to. If you are a man, then you should find women interesting - because they are different.

Post 15

Monday, September 14, 2015 - 6:00pm

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, Steve.

Post 16

Monday, September 14, 2015 - 7:10pm

I wish that some women would post their impressions.

Post 17

Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 9:00am

Only for you, Steve.

Regarding the original quote, I find it valid in a limited context. For instance, if success at your job requires you to be comfortable/familiar/engaged with people who are unlike you, then it's probably not wise to avoid them. Also, it's more difficult to experience deep growth of any kind - emotional, intellectual, professional, personal - if you are never or rarely challenged by people and ideas that do not align with your own. That said, if we're talking about mature adults in their own familiar environments such as home, family, close personal friends, and such then yes it's probably a waste of time if you don't have deep connections there.

Regarding the rest of the discussion, my thoughts are mostly in alignment with Steve's.

I have lots of male friends (yes, friends not acquaintances). I can't think of any of them who would consider me an acquaintance and not a friend. Some of them are married or in committed relationships, some of them are single, some are gay, some are straight, some I've been romantically involved with in the past, some I would never consider being romantically involved with, some I would if circumstances were different. The common thread with them all is that they are all mature, emotionally stable men with high self-esteem. There is a lot of respect in these relationships.

I can't state much of an opinion about Roosh V specifically. I find him too perplexing. I can't reconcile his denigration of "shameless sluts" with the fact that he is, himself, a shameless slut. Does that also make him a feminist since according to him feminism's goal is to create a society of shameless sluts? I dunno. Gives me a headache to try to make sense of this kind of thinking, so I take his advice by not surrounding myself with people like him.

Casual sex, hmm. It seems two very different definitions of that have been proposed here. Until there's some agreement on what the definition is, I'll keep my thoughts to myself. hahahaha

Post 18

Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 9:19am

I can handle a casual social setting like a Mensa games night with mixed genders, at least until the overeating and cigarette smoking by too many participants get to me and I have to leave. Even there, I would likely introduce them as "fellow Mensans" rather than "friends." But after the "Houseguests from Hell" incident I swore I would never get into a "surrogate sibling" relationship with a woman again, meaning no more "just pal around" time with a woman. "You're one of those guys with whom I feel 'safe' because I wouldn't date you. ... Why aren't you howling at the girls on the street like I howl at the guys? You must be asexual!" Unforgivable ... period. I need a lady friend like that like I need a hole in my head. Now that I am married, I have no need for any other woman, anyway. If I were single, well, you can guess where I would focus my efforts.

Roosh and the manosphere are definitely a package deal of contradictions with no single integrated philosophy guiding them, which is too bad, since Objectivism would help them enormously if they were open to it.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 9/16, 9:51am)

Post 19

Wednesday, September 16, 2015 - 10:16am