In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
• Sasha Castel
• AC Douglas
• Out of Lascaux
• The Ambler
• PhilosoBlog
• Modern Art Notes
• Cranky Professor
• Mike Snider on Poetry
• Silliman on Poetry
• Felix Salmon
• Gregdotorg
• BookSlut
• Polly Frost
• Polly and Ray's Forum
• Cronaca
• Plep
• Stumbling Tongue
• Brian's Culture Blog
• Banana Oil
• Scourge of Modernism
• Visible Darkness
• Seablogger
• Thomas Hobbs
• Blog Lodge
• Leibman Theory
• Goliard Dream
• Third Level Digression
• Here Inside
• My Stupid Dog
• W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
• Andrew Sullivan
• The Corner at National Review
• Steve Sailer
• Samizdata
• Junius
• Joanne Jacobs
• CalPundit
• Natalie Solent
• A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
• Rational Parenting
• Public Interest.co.uk
• Colby Cosh
• View from the Right
• Pejman Pundit
• Spleenville
• God of the Machine
• One Good Turn
• CinderellaBloggerfella
• Liberty Log
• Daily Pundit
• InstaPundit
• MindFloss
• Catallaxy Files
• Greatest Jeneration
• Glenn Frazier
• Jane Galt
• Jim Miller
• Limbic Nutrition
• Innocents Abroad
• Chicago Boyz
• James Lileks
• Cybrarian at Large
• Hello Bloggy!
• Setting the World to Rights
• Travelling Shoes

Miscellaneous
• Redwood Dragon
• IMAO
• The Invisible Hand
• ScrappleFace
• Daze Reader
• Lynn Sislo
• The Fat Guy
• Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Hopes for Barack; Worries About Barack | Main | Seattle Central Library Revisited »

March 04, 2008

 Roissy Sums It Up

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Never one to favor moderation or self-restraint, Roissy finally lays it all on the line. My main worry: Does he now have anything left to say? Roissy points out some videoclips -- here, here, and here -- that those who are curious about this whole "game" thing won't want to miss. That "Cajun" dude is good! I've got the hots for the female announcer myself.

Best,

Michael

UPDATE: In celebration of Serge Gainsbourg -- an uber-player of a previous generation -- here's a video for his immortal "Je t'aime ... moi non plus." It was recorded in 1969 -- and I do mean "69":



The Telegraph reports that at 61 Jane Birkin -- Gainsbourg's muse -- still has the magic. Nice line: "The less Birkin tried to do with her voice, the better she sounded." Did you know that Jane Birkin is the mother of pixie-sexpot actresses Charlotte Gainsbourg and Lou Doillon?

posted by Michael at March 4, 2008




Comments

Roissy is always entertaining, but I suspect he's a little off-base with this latest screed. In my experience at least, people who try to play the angles rather than live by the rules seldom succeed. They are more likely to end up as pathetic malcontents than as self-confident winners.

Posted by: Peter on March 4, 2008 12:26 PM

Roissy is wrong here because he discounts guys' attractiveness when it comes to "gaming" women. Looks do matter for guys.

As the hilarious Saturday Nite Live skit pointed out, the same behavior that gets a male hottie dates gets a male fattie fired for sexual harrassment.

Game only works when you look like Patrick Dempsey. And you're white. And tall. And have nice clothes. And all the things that make Roissy Roissy, but elude his followers.

It's nice he gives people hope for hope's sake, though. Kinda like Obama.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on March 4, 2008 1:29 PM

Confidence, can it be acquired? Maybe partial confidence, on and off confidence, yes. But as a core character trait? I doubt it. Some have it and some don't. Unfair. Like everything else.

In the videos the guy who supposedly has the knack right off the bat starts touching the girl he's just met. In my experience that's more likely to get you a rejection than an invitation to go further.

Posted by: ricpic on March 4, 2008 2:13 PM

Peter -- Solution, I guess: live fast, die young.

Days -- Are there pix of Roissy on the web? Curious to know what he has going for himself lookswise.

Ricpic -- But maybe fake confidence can be acquired. And maybe that's enough, at least to get a guy thru those initial first couple of minutes. Not that I'd know myself, of course ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 4, 2008 2:42 PM

Days -- Are there pix of Roissy on the web? Curious to know what he has going for himself lookswise.

Some time ago a commentor posted a link to a picture of Roissy. He deleted the comment within a day or two.
Roissy has been described as looking something like David Duchovny. I'd sort of agree, though I looked very briefly at his picture.

Posted by: Peter on March 4, 2008 3:08 PM

In my experience, it is far more difficult to get out of a woman's pants than it is to get into them.

So, beware players!

The game has many twists and turns. What seems like a victory today might well prove to be a disastrous defeat in the future.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 4, 2008 3:14 PM

Conventional wisdom is that a man's looks have to be unusually good to help him to any real extent or unusually bad to hurt him to any real extent. For most men, in other words, looks are a relatively unimportant factor. There's no male equivalent to the famous 1 - 10 scale used for rating women.

Personality, in contrast, is a much bigger factor for men. It's a truism that if you are overweight you're much better off being a man, while if you are introverted you're much better off being a woman.

Posted by: Peter on March 4, 2008 3:53 PM

Good looks for a man are also more flexible. A man who has a plain face but an impressive build - tall and muscular - is likely to do quite well for himself, and if he radiates masculine charisma, so much the better. But male charisma, as I tried to explain in my comments on the post, is subject to fashion and cultural influences, just like women's appearances are, only more so, as there isn't an underlying standard to ground them.

The man who calls himself Cajun would have looked hysterical and hyperactive to a generation of young men and women whose screen heroes, and models of masculinity, were Redford, McQueen, and Jack Nicolson (though he was a model for many younger actors today and seems less dated).

Posted by: alias clio on March 4, 2008 5:06 PM

while if you are introverted you're much better off being a woman.

If that were a "truism," then women would be more introverted than men. However, across all cultures, men are more introverted than women.

An introverted guy can still focus to do well at work and offer himself as a good dad. Women will notice him, and will do most of the approaching if he's worth it, or play matchmaker on his behalf.

An introverted woman is screwed: she won't want to go out like most women, so she'll never get hit on. And unless she's really good-looking, guys won't magically show up at her door. Plus, being able to focus in order to get stuff done isn't so attractive in a woman.

Posted by: agnostic on March 4, 2008 5:06 PM

I have to admit, Charlotte Gainsbourg was pretty sexy in Science of Sleep.

Posted by: Thursday on March 4, 2008 8:34 PM

An introverted woman is screwed

Wow, not my experience at all. I'm an introverted woman & I've often thanked my lucky stars that I'm not a man. Because if I were, I'd never get a date.

Most of my male & female friends who are also introverts concur - men will approach us introverted women (none of us are stunningly attractive), blithely pierce that veil of solitude, & take on the burden of reaching out to us and initiating romantic relations. We don't have to "work" for male attention beyond making slightly prolonged eye contact. We can just sit there like lumps. Introverted men can rarely rely on women to do the same for them.

Also, introversion does not equal hermit or pathological social anxiety. Introversion makes it unlikely that we'll be seen hanging out in clubs or at loud parties, but we do leave the house rather regularly! So far this week, I've gone to work, school, the park, cafes, a museum, etc. Luckily, there are always many men in all these places (and me being alone certainly seems to embolden them to approach me)and thanks to their biological imperative, they will continue to ensure that I have a romantic social life.

Posted by: tina on March 4, 2008 9:14 PM

An introverted guy can still focus to do well at work and offer himself as a good dad. Women will notice him, and will do most of the approaching if he's worth it, or play matchmaker on his behalf.

Few women are going to approach a man unless he's really outstanding. Which doesn't help an introverted man who's just an ordinary decent guy. Playing matchmaker? Well maybe, but it's not common enough for a man to be able to count upon it.


An introverted woman is screwed: she won't want to go out like most women, so she'll never get hit on. And unless she's really good-looking, guys won't magically show up at her door.

All she has to do is muster up enough courage to place an ad on Craigslist or join eHarmony, and she'll be positively inundated with responses from men.

Posted by: Peter on March 4, 2008 10:37 PM

I've read Roissy's site once or twice due to pointers from here and was enormously disappointed. (Although it should be clear I'm talking about his on-line personae. The real person may be completely different.)

To be honest, I don't get any feeling that Roissy *likes* women. They're simply a mechanism for him to achieve sex. No doubt he has amazing charm, but it feels a lot like overhearing a man boasting about the seniors that he's managed to fleece. There's no doubt it's a talent, but it's not necessarily a brag-worthy one.

I quite vividly remember his statement about how life was unfair to women when commenting about the differences between the body of 20 and 30 year olds. The only thing I could think of us someone talking about how mother nature was unfair to seals as it's only the baby seals that the beautiful white pelts worth killing them for.

If the main advantage of a 20-year old body is to attract the attention of rogues like Roissy, it's not much of an advantage to the possessor.

(And yes, there are no doubt women interested in empty sex. But if that was the case with most of his victims, there'd be no need for "the game". It would resemble much more closely the environment of the mid-70's homosexual culture that Michael described which at least had the advantage that everybody was up front about what they wanted. Unless part of his pleasure comes from deceiving his victims, maybe both he and his partners would have been better off if he had been homosexual.)

Also, the blog comes across as coming from someone who is enormously insecure. It's all "I've got what you don't" and "everybody *has* to want what I have (they're lying if they don't)". To be honest, almost the antithesis of what I think of as alpha-male.

Posted by: Tom West on March 4, 2008 11:13 PM

Proof Roissy is right: http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com/

Posted by: Bryan on March 5, 2008 12:53 AM

I came to Roissy's path of enlightenment but from a totally different angle. In my youth(early 80's) I wanted to get into a pretty girls pants just as much as the next guy. I tried all the things women told me would work: manners, gifts, drinks, talks, romance, understanding, etc. Zero luck. God knows how many times girls wanted to be "just friends" with me. I also had standards even though I wanted sex, I wasn't prepared to go to bed with anything: must be a minimum of 7 plus brains on Roissy's scale. Fussy and desperate. BTW I would rate myself a 6 in the looks scale, however continual rejection certainly made me feel unattractive.

I got religion in my early 20's--bad time, I know--and premarital sex was off the table. I also really got stuck into my studies, art, philosophy, etc and was pretty indifferent to women for a while. (No, I'm not gay) I suppose once you strip a womans sexual allure away from her(by whatever method) many don't have much else. But in being indifferent to women, having my own opinions and not trying to please them to get into their pants I was suddenly getting offers :) , most of all from the feminists on the campus!

Being a right wing student in a left wing university meant that I frequently had to argue my beliefs, often aggressively. Any girl who argued left wing shit got put down really fast, I was as sure as Hell of my beliefs. Guess what? More attraction. Talk about confusion and temptation. Cock teasing to get what they wanted didn't work on me and I was too poor to buy drinks for a girl unless I established that she was really cool. I sort of ended up doing the things that an alpha male did by accident. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Upon objective reflection it became apparent that what women said they wanted and what the actually went for were two different things. Observed female behaviour is more accurate that self reported behaviour. Women may not like Roissy's description of their behaviour but thats how they behave. The only point that I would disagree with Roissy is his statement that a woman in her 40's does not look as good as a woman in her early 20's. I would disagree as I married one who is hotter now than she was then. Definitely a 10.

Posted by: Slumlord on March 5, 2008 7:12 AM

Upon objective reflection it became apparent that what women said they wanted and what the actually went for were two different things.

So true. And it works both ways. An important thing to understand is that no one, men or women, ought to listen to the opposite sex's romantic advice. Don't even listen to well-meaning friendlies such as siblings.

If you need love advice, always go to someone more experienced and successful of the same sex.

Posted by: PA on March 5, 2008 8:11 AM

Roissy indeed has little use for women past their mid- to late-20's. While he's never mentioned his own age, based on things he's written about his past I get the impression that he's over 30, quite possibly well over.

I also suspect that Roissy dislikes older women not so much because of their "flaccid assmeat," to use one of his memorable phrases, but because they're more resistant to his seduction attempts.

Posted by: Peter on March 5, 2008 9:46 AM

To Slumlord, and all those other men who insist that being nice got them nowhere: Once and for all, "niceness" is a social quality, not a moral virtue, and it isn't an especially appealing one, either. But - and here's the critical point - the fact that being "nice" isn't good doesn't mean that it's necessary to become a nasty, mean-spirited, abusive jerk, either.

I never had any great fondness for the kind of men who call themselves "nice guys" because so often their niceness was the result of little more than, first, timidity, which is not an attractive quality in a man, though human and understandable; second, excessive eagerness to please, which usually indicates a man who has not broken free of his mother yet; and third, a cover for a wish to have sex with many women.

So, Slumlord, I imagine the reason that those left-wing women found you more attractive, once you began to argue with them, was not that you had become a jerk, but that you had developed a moral conscience and showed that you were an independent-thinking man, someone both more attractive and more virtuous than a sycophant with sex on the brain. Perhaps finding God didn't do you so much harm after all...

Posted by: alias clio on March 5, 2008 10:08 AM

Clio -

You are so right about how women don't like men who are excessively eager to please. Been there, done that. Thinking about some of the boneheaded mistakes of that sort which I made in the past, I want to kick myself. What a clueless moron I was!

I'm not quite sure, however, that an excessive eagerness to please necessarily means that a man hasn't broken free of his mother. It really wasn't that case with me. Though the cause doesn't matter so much as the consequences.

Posted by: Peter on March 5, 2008 11:41 AM

"Nice" is just game, and not very good game. "Bad" is just game, and not as effective as its cracked up to be on Spike TV. Confidence is the key. Confident nice guys, confident bad boys, they all get laid. It's confidence that does it. Saith the preacher:

Roissy’s Blogpost to the Washingtonians:

For now, we men see women as through a glass darkly; but with proper game we shall know them face to face: without game, I know women in part; but with game then shall I know women even as I am known by them (and how!). And now, dudes, abideth the heart of game: confidence, looks, and money, these three. But I say unto thee, o guys, that the greatest of these is confidence. Though I speak with the tongue of money and have the looks of an angel, but have not confidence, I have become a sounding brass or a tinkling ringtone, and shall not get laid.

And that's the whole truth and nothing but it. Preach it, brother!

Posted by: PatrickH on March 5, 2008 12:26 PM

Well, Peter, I did write "usually", not "invariably".

I think I'd re-phrase that previous comment and say that eagerness to please is often a synonym for "niceness", in a man, and that it is itself a mask for timidity and a forlorn hope that women will respond with their sexual favours. When this doesn't happen, the "nice" man often becomes resentful, so that his niceness is often false as well as counter-productive.

Anyway, my main point was that niceness is not synonymous with goodness or virtue. Men, don't make this mistake. Learn to be virtuous, not nice, and don't confuse the two.

Posted by: alias clio on March 5, 2008 12:40 PM

clio:
but that you had developed a moral conscience and showed that you were an independent-thinking man

oh lord.
no, the reason they were newly drawn to him was because he began to challenge them and in so doing exhibited the traits of dominance. it wouldn't have mattered whether he was right or wrong. the moral conscience of a man plays no part in arousing women.

someone both more attractive and more virtuous than a sycophant with sex on the brain.

trust me, the assholes have sex on the brain too. they're just more up front about it than the betaboys, and that makes all the difference.

you, like many women ashamed of their true animal natures, want to wave away the very real phenomenon of genuinely decent niceguys getting the shaft in the dating market by falsely claiming these rejected niceguys as victims of their own defective characters, instead of facing up to the truth that your loins simply burn more brightly for dominant, emotionally unavailable (at least at first), cocky jerks.

do as me and embrace your id! it's exhilarating! bonus: god approves, else he wouldn't have created us this way, right clio?

executive summary:
niceguys - lets just be friends.
assholes - pick up girls.
confident dominating men - girls pick up them.

Posted by: roissy on March 5, 2008 12:42 PM

Roissy, you've missed my point. Certainly there are decent men who can't attract women because they haven't learned how to express their dominance. There are also horrible men who attract women because they have learned how to use a mixture of dominance and charm to do so. But not all "nice" men are good men, either. Often enough, they are as I describe them.

I was addressing decent men who would like to be able to attract women, and saying that it isn't necessary for them to become ***holes in order to do so. Simply learning to express themselves forthrightly is enough.

And I know as much about my own id as anyone, Roissy, and the reason I refuse to give in to it is not self-deception, or false modesty, but plain simple self-protection and the knowledge of how much damage bad relationships can do. I won't go there again, even if it means accepting permanent chastity.

Posted by: alias clio on March 5, 2008 1:33 PM

clio - your attempts are valiant but ultimately irrelevant with this audience. Once people are strongly invested in certain beliefs, Internet comment boxes are unlikely to do much to change or prompt re-examination of them. Your time & talents are better spent elsewhere.

Posted by: dg on March 5, 2008 2:53 PM

Based on his many impressive conquests, I'd say he does have the key to success, if success is defined as being a serial slut bagger. It's fun no doubt, but it sounds like it's a bit wearing as a steady diet. But then I'm the shy retiring type.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on March 5, 2008 5:40 PM

Bang on, Todd. Just ask yourself, would any sane man want to be living Roissy's lifestyle when he's fifty? Sixty? Seventy? You don't grow older living like that...you grow deader. And if you can't grow old with certain values, that says something about their universality, their "naturalness", doesn't it?

Posted by: PatrickH on March 5, 2008 6:20 PM

Clio: Roissy is right.

I was never a dweeb. I was a decent all round guy who treated women well. While I wanted to get into their pants, I wasn't needy. Even in my pre enlightenment days I was more romantic than too eager to please. I did what women told me was a recipe for success and repeatedly failed. I had been taught old fashioned manners and when conflict arose I deferred to the woman out of courtesy, not submission. To use old fashioned language, I tried to "court" girls, however the result was repeated failure. I did note however that the asshole jocks got the pick of the bunch: repeatedly

I imagine that there are millions of similar men who could repeat the same story.

Certainly there are decent men who can't attract women because they haven't learned how to express their dominance

Huh? Decency then is obviously not enough. Though it does not necessarily follow that a man must be a bastard to attract women, rather a mans moral character is reasonably irrelevant to his chances of picking up. Unless a man hath dominance, all else is in vain. Women are attracted to alpha males of whatever moral persuasion. In the period of great confusion before I got enlightenment, I could never understand why a intellectually strong and opinionated girl with a totally different set of beliefs to my own would want to go out with me. Many times the more disinterested I became the more she wanted to prove herself to me. From a male point of view that was totally confusing.

There is a fine line between being an asshole and being confident, the distinction is usually made be the woman in question. Some women are happy to put up with a lot of bad behaviour some less but the bottom line is that a male must have potential capacity to assert himself--even if not executed--in order to turn a woman on. A womans head may want an equal but her heart wants a potential if not actual master. The results speak for themselves.

I'd say he does have the key to success, if success is defined as being a serial slut bagger

Whatever the merits of Roissy's lifestyle, what Roissy does with women after he has picked them up is their business, the point is that he picks up the women he wants regularly, something a majority of guys can't do and hence envy him for. His success is based on a better understanding of female psychology than women themselves have. Most of these "sluts" are normal girls looking for love--some for sex/experimentation--who provide sex on the first date because it is expected of them in the current cultural milleu. He is taking advantage of the current situation he hasn't caused it.

Sorry for the long post

Posted by: Slumlord on March 5, 2008 7:33 PM

Saying he's a "serial slut bagger" is an observation of fact, not a moral stand. Clearly the women are willing, eager even, so I don't see anything wrong with what he does.

I'm just saying it's a lifestyle that has only one appealing aspect to it, namely the parade of ever-fresh, young femaleness. If I could have that for $15.95 a month, and no repercussions to myself or my family, I'd be there. Honestly, who wouldn't?

But make it the object of my life as Roissy seems to have done? Not for me, even if I had a tenth of the game to make it happen, which I don't - just ask my wife.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on March 5, 2008 10:32 PM

Slumlord, really, I didn't say you had to be a virtuous man in order to attract women. I said that it wasn't necessary to be a jerk in order to do so. I wanted to encourage those legions of men who think it is to give up the idea.

And once again: there are a great many "nice" guys who are really not that nice, and not very virtuous either. I've known too many of them myself to doubt it.

Posted by: alias clio on March 5, 2008 11:44 PM

Todd: Saying he's a "serial slut bagger" is an observation of fact, not a moral stand.

Sounds kinda moral to me. There's a point beyond which aesthetic disdain becomes indistinguishable from moral condemnation, and I think you're well beyond it.

In any case, while I still find Roissy perceptive and funny, his schtick has worn out my interest in visiting his blog. There’s a real air of the ageing roué about him, this claustrophobic miasma of jadedness, exhaustion and self-loathing that so few of his younger commenters seem to notice. The skull’s been grinning in at Roissy’s banquet for a while now, and it’s only going to get worse. It doesn’t matter any more if he’s had anything like the amount and quality of conquests he’s been claiming. Even fables wear out their entertainment value, if they’re the kind that only kids enjoy.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 6, 2008 11:12 AM

Roissy can always get a conversation going.

MB is right. The blog world is too small for his talents. No irony. The guy needs a platform where he can be outraging millions of people, instead of only dozens.

Posted by: Lexington Green on March 6, 2008 3:14 PM


Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?