I know it would be a bit of a stretch to get you guys down for this idea, but hear me out.

Couldn't we for a short time use economic principles and create a demand? If somehow we showed our value and charmingness but held out on the girls. Kinda like what they do to their orbiters. As I said it would have to be short time trial cause I know I wouldn't wanna get "backed up".

I was thinking it'd be incredible if people on the forum, or cool friends of yours go out together, suited up/with a bunch of charm. Go to a club or a happening party en masse, and just don't talk to ANY chicks. Don't even acknowledge them. maybe cause some ruckus, and just leave.

Quote: (02-11-2014 03:58 AM)Snowplow Wrote:  

I know it would be a bit of a stretch to get you guys down for this idea, but hear me out.

Couldn't we for a short time use economic principles and create a demand? If somehow we showed our value and charmingness but held out on the girls. Kinda like what they do to their orbiters. As I said it would have to be short time trial cause I know I wouldn't wanna get "backed up".

"David E. Sullivan, a district attorney in western Massachusetts, prosecutes about a dozen sex crimes a year at five area campuses, including the University of Massachusetts and Amherst College. He is also the father of three daughters, and it scares him to think that, as numerous researchers have documented, nearly one of five women is sexually assaulted during her college years. “Can you imagine if you told parents there was a one in five chance that their daughter would be hit by a bus? No one would send their kid to college.”"

How fucking stupid is this guy? He oversees 30-50 THOUSAND students (UMass Amherst has 27k) and gets a dozen (presumably ALLEGED) sex crimes a year. 12/50000 =/= 1/5. If anyone should know the deal about sexual assault, it should be him. But this dude is plain retarded.

Yeah, even if we assume that:

A) All reported rape cases are male on female
B) There are no false reports
C) There are 20 times more rapes than actually reported

It still doesn't come nowhere close to "one in five". It's incredible what a powerful influence these lunatics have when their stats are so easily demolished.

Jesus tapdancing Christ...now they want to take university, aka 'about the only time in the average guy's life where if he's even semi-competent, he'll score a decent amount of quality pussy' away from guys? I can see the backlash from this now; more and more guys forgoing university in the first place (let's be real, unless it's an elite school or an elite program or you have a full-ride scholarship, go to college or take a trade, much better ROI), more and more 'Man, 18, shot/stabbed/pummeled to death by man, 19, over incident involving girl, 18.'

This is why social circle game is going to become even more crucial (and I am ambivalent to SCG...easy, yes, but also time-consuming and inefficient, a good primer for rookies, but not something you should be relying on), but also day game and 'under-the-radar, tight-logistics club game', where you show up at the club 30 minutes before close to mack on drunk bitches ('Iceland Game'?). If anything, this will make guys even more 'predatory'.

The RoK article here just writes itself.

Quote: (02-11-2014 04:23 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

It still doesn't come nowhere close to "one in five". It's incredible what a powerful influence these lunatics have when their stats are so easily demolished.

Maybe not...but I sure as shit do believe that '1 in 5' women 'believe' that they were raped, and a woman believing something, that's all that matters.

This is a good thing for players - the same way that ridiculous college consent rules are a good thing (e.g. you must ask for verbal consent before each stage of physical escalation).

Girls still want to fuck. Specifically girls want to fuck guys who 'get it' (http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/) - guys who understand the real rules naturally. The more artificial barriers to getting laid that society puts up the easier it's going to be for guys who just ignore those barriers in the right way (by 'just getting it'). This is just another shit test that when passed will make a girl want to fuck you more.

Reason #452 not to go to college.

I think this just means that day game and sober game are going to be more crucial than ever.

Sounds bad, but most of my lays in college were social circle lays. I had a few SNLs, but I was just good at merging large social groups. This wouldn't have affected me at all.

Quote: (02-11-2014 04:07 AM)Slim Shady Wrote:  

I was thinking it'd be incredible if people on the forum, or cool friends of yours go out together, suited up/with a bunch of charm. Go to a club or a happening party en masse, and just don't talk to ANY chicks. Don't even acknowledge them. maybe cause some ruckus, and just leave.

Yeah I've had that idea for a while now. Suit up, get in, bottle service, just have fun, get drunk and turn them away. Watch that hamster fucking implode!

I guess it would be sort of a MGTOW party more or less.

This is hilarious. We all know that no herb is going to step up to a dude who is likely to beat his ass. And females don't generally "rescue" their friends from the guy in the cool fraternity or the popular campus athlete.

This is one big coordinated effort to keep betas from getting laid.

Quote: (02-11-2014 07:45 AM)j r Wrote:  

This is hilarious. We all know that no herb is going to step up to a dude who is likely to beat his ass. And females don't generally "rescue" their friends from the guy in the cool fraternity or the popular campus athlete.

This is one big coordinated effort to keep betas from getting laid.

Agreed, i wouldn't be afraid of these at all guys. If you're posting here, I bet that 95% of you would be able to blow through this last minute resistance.

Nothing makes me feel like a god when a girl's friend tries to pull her away, "You doing ok? We're getting ready to leave."

"Yeah i'm great. i'll talk to you guys later! Have fun!" drunk girl.

You're not high value enough if she wants to leave with her friends after they badger her.

Just another step towards greater alpha/beta sexual inequality. It might actually be a good thing for many of the guys on the forum. If you're concerned about long-term stuff, though, this is disasterous. A country of 80% or whatever disenfranchized betas and omegas is not a productive or sustainable one. As time goes on, the few guys on the top will either by permanent players or leave the country for somewhere less feminized. Roosh's prediction that, in the future, a man will have to be a celebrity of sorts with perfect game to get laid with decent looking girls is happening sooner rather than later.

Civilization and patriarchy are one and the same. Give women power over us and thousands of years of development will be destroyed in a couple of generations.

Punching out one of these "do something" white knights might actually be more fun than gaining a notch though

Quote: (02-11-2014 01:37 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

This is already going on. Check out this college white-knight training video. It's accurate in one respect: hitting on busted chicks is more likely to get you in trouble.

Like any other erosion of masculinity or shaming of normal male sexuality, women know they can't impose this bullshit without the aid of low-hanging fruit--pussy-ass gender traitors.

Look at the credits in this video. Every single one of the people who produced (and wrote) this video are women, with names like Jan, Mary, Jana, Jen, and Susan. I can't remember the last time I met an attractive feminine woman with names like those.

There has to be some sort of correlation between names and feminity.. I've never met an Isabella who wasn't feminine.

If Jen really was feminine she'd be called Jenny instead.. Jan is shit out of luck--born to be a cockblocker, and WTF is Jana. Is that even a name? Susan would go by Susie if she was feminine...

I think there's something to this.

Shit, new generations in the USA will have it really hard, and i tough public university here in BS As was hard, with all its "left-wing" shit.

What's really fucked up is that a true sociopath who wants to isolate and coerce a woman into sex now knows that all he has to do is masquerade as the cockblocking white knight, since women are now being trained to trust male cockblockers (not just their girlfriends as in the past).

He can even claim "she was so thankful to me for rescuing her that she started ripping off my clothes" etc.

Colleges vary, but where I attended, the Greeks were tight about security. Any outsider who hung around their houses, you'd see eyes coming out of the bushes like it was Deliverance.

There was a gym reserved for football players from noon-6 pm, then open to all students at 6 pm. Once I accidentally wandered in at 5:57 pm and spotted a flyer taped to the wall to let the athletes know about a sorority-sponsored party.

6:00 sharp I go back in and that flyer was gone.

I told everyone in my greater omega clique about the time and location and one of them was enough of a troll to crash it. He had no game and anyway he said everyone just acted like he was invisible.

If he had possessed some game he would have been cockblocked the second he looked like he was getting anywhere, especially now since he could be branded a pre-rapist.

This is Matt Martel, white knight extraordinaire.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OkZAz41mfzM

Good posts on this thread.

Here's the ROK article:

Instead of encouraging people to not get so drunk that friends feel like they need to intervene, the nytimes is telling college students that it is ok to get blotto.

Our article could be more about how the NYtimes has really gone downhill since the net got popular. To a larger point, it seems all news organizations that existed pre-internet have gotten worse.

This article, along with the Argentine spinster, are at least two examples I can think of off hand.

The ROK piece on this should explore the possible nepotism that allows stuff like that to get into nytimes these days. The once great institution is probably suffering in quality because they aren't making as much money anymore.

ROK could also site examples of pre-internet business that were able to crossover successfully.

I'd love to see a ROK article about why women shouldn't drink. A nice, domestic, feminine woman has no reason she needs to "take a load off."

Most college men (I've met about 5 exceptions) think that learning game is stupid, childish, a joke, etc. Men today are so poisoned by the Disney version of romance that it's pathetic. The funniest example of this is one of the most left-wing, pathetic men I've ever met (he dates a fatso, for the record) calling me a misogynist for wanting attractive women.

Another guy thinks he lost a chance with a mediocre-looking woman simply because he ceased to be available. I told him the opposite was true, and he was vehement that I was wrong.

Admittedly, I haven't had a ton of time this semester, but I'm technically seeing this girl who I used my "horrible, dishonest game" on. One of the first things I told her was "I'm not always going to be available. I have my own life too." Since she feels like she has to earn my time, it boosts her attraction for me when I do see her... which leads to both of us benefiting.

I agree women are not evolved to be in bars, or to smoke, get tattoos etc.

If I ever start a bar the only women that will be there will be the servers and they will all have tip wear heals and tight dresses or skirts, and I will have rule that they can only get hired if they have the right proportions- long legs, nice ass, tits, face, etc.

Insofar as sexual assault is a problem, it comes from men who depend on liquid courage for their game, and then get out of hand from being too drunk.

The idea of bystander intervention has a tiny bit of merit - if you see your buddy trying to do something that will create a massive headache for him later, you might say something to him privately. But this article goes way way beyond that. Intervening with a strange man, who is probably drunk or violent or both, is apt to lead to a fight.

Corrollary: 'Bystander Intervention' is really male martyrdom. Push come to shove, women won't intervene, because they don't want to go up against a bigger opponent. So innocent men should risk their health to save some slut acting irresponsibly, which is the natural aim of modern feminism. Beta bucks, alpha fucks. And then the male martyr, possibly injured or dead, gets a pat on the head for a job well done. Scratch that - applauding a man will be considered tantamount to 'perpetuating the idea that only men can save women from danger' so incidents of 'male martyrdom' will be glossed over, lest people start to believe that women depend on men and men only for protection.

If he fended off the attack successfully, that is. If he failed to fend off the attack, I'm sure the feminists will find a way to conclude that the failed male martyr is in fact worse than the rapist.

I would contend that there's a difference between cock blocking (i.e. just walking up and intentionally blowing someone out, which I think all of us have dealt with) and preventing things that we feel are wrong.

Also, this is a bit of pissing in the wind, but I wouldn't be shocked if the lower campus rape totals are a function of fewer men on campus and (perhaps) limited proliferation of game.

Where the f*** has common sense disappeared to?

I thought us Brits were losing it but f*** me America. These poisonous individuals are destroying a country that SHOULD be the best in the world on every variable.

Common sense rule 1: If you see a man, that has clearly crossed over from game to plain aggressive... step up. You're going to do him and her a favour.

Does it need to be taught? NO.

Common sense rule 2: If you see a man that is clearly going to get consensual sex... You don't need to step up. You're not going to do him or her a favour.

Does it need to be taught? NO.

Common sense rule 3: If men stop protecting women from 'rape' (whatever that is now), then the women will take responsibility for themselves.

Does it need to be taught? YES. But only because of we've sat back and let this happen.

It goes on...

Jeezzzzz.

We are the 1%.