[enderilluminatus]

100% certain that the guy who said he wants to beat up Roosh wants to fuck this girl but she doesn't find him attractive. Kinda unprofessional of her to leave that part in.

[kaotic]

Quintus, I might like this interview more than I did of you and Roosh

Angela seems sweet, intelligent, yet naive, but all in all a good person. I can't talk shit on her at all, the only criticism I have is to stop laughing and saying "like" when interviewing on camera.

As far as the douchebag recording it - the idiot is just jealous.

Roosh killed this interview, he was respectful, answered only logically and plainly. Threw in a few negs here and there (the hair, being smart, etc) and flirted a little bit.

This girl showed so many IOI's to Roosh, if Roosh thought was attractive on the street they for sure would bang.

This caught me the most:

[Roosh]: Mmhmm. Well let me ask you. Do you think homosexuality is genetic or not? Are you born gay? Can you learn it?
[Angela]: I do not think that
it's learned. I think that it's something that inherently somebody realizes that this is
their preference and that's what happens. But I'm not so I can't explain/claim
that.
[Roosh]: Now can I ask you one more thing?
[Angela]: Yeah.
[Roosh]:Is gender a social construct?
[Angela]laughing) In my opinion, just to make it clear...I think that it can be fluid. I think that society does influence it-
[Roosh]: OK! STOP! STOP! You can't learn to be gay, it's not social. But gender is a social construct. That is a contradictory. That doesn't make any sense. So what they're saying is homosexuality is 100% based on what your genes are, but gender is 100% in the environment. That doesn't make any sense!
[Angela]: I didn't say that. I said you're born fluid, I'm saying-
[Roosh]: What you said, and you are smart, made zero sense.
*Angela laughs*
[Roosh]: You contradicted completely. So you can't have it one way or the other. Either homosexuality and gender, AND GENDER because it's the same thing, is a social construct or it's not. Pick one.

This is a very important argument to remember and the answer is even greater.

[Krusyos]

(01-14-2015 01:46 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

100% certain that the guy who said he wants to beat up Roosh wants to fuck this girl but she doesn't find him attractive. Kinda unprofessional of her to leave that part in.

Perhaps she wanted to shame him in front of the whole world out of spite for his sycophantic behavior.

[Shortest Straw]

(01-14-2015 02:32 PM)Krusyos Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 01:46 PM)enderilluminatus Wrote:  

100% certain that the guy who said he wants to beat up Roosh wants to fuck this girl but she doesn't find him attractive. Kinda unprofessional of her to leave that part in.

Perhaps she wanted to shame him in front of the whole world out of spite for his sycophantic behavior.

That's an astute observation.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(01-14-2015 02:31 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

[Angela]laughing) In my opinion, just to make it clear...I think that it can be fluid. I think that society does influence it-
[Roosh]: OK! STOP! STOP! You can't learn to be gay, it's not social. But gender is a social construct. That is a contradictory. That doesn't make any sense. So what they're saying is homosexuality is 100% based on what your genes are, but gender is 100% in the environment. That doesn't make any sense!
[Angela]: I didn't say that. I said you're born fluid, I'm saying-
[Roosh]: What you said, and you are smart, made zero sense.
*Angela laughs*
[Roosh]: You contradicted completely. So you can't have it one way or the other. Either homosexuality and gender, AND GENDER because it's the same thing, is a social construct or it's not. Pick one.

This is a very important argument to remember and the answer is even greater.

That's an excellent argument that I heard from Roosh just recently somewhere else.

It is a great moment of 'sphere history

Over time we all are versatile enough to counter every feminist and SJW talking point, simply because their doctrine is based on lies while our views are composed of facts and logic.

And even admitting something simple like not being invested in his perceptions is disarmingly logical. I too have the same viewpoint - if something more logical or with more substantial proof comes out, then I am willing to change my views on gender, feminism, sex, economy, money politics etc. I am not invested in my opinions - they are logical based on my reasoning, my experiences and the experts I trust.

She was slam-dunked with that argument, because it made her look like a foolish little girl - albeit to be fair she seemed kind enough as a person - just too indoctrinated in idiotic dogma.

[TooFineAPoint]

It was an excellent response from Roosh. There was one other part (I think during the "birth control is hard to get" section) where he went into something that Thomas Sowell has identified as the great destroyer of leftist fallacies. When met with a silly assertion on how horrible things are / how they need to change, just ask:
1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard data do you have?

[Roosh]

Quote:

Roosh biting his pen looks like his way of focusing on his next response. I don’t think it’s a sign of being nervous

I'm a fidgety person by nature. If my hands aren't playing with something (pens, toothpicks, my beard) then I'm shaking my foot.

[jimukr104]

I read some of the comments. Some guy on there was obvious one of the anti Roosh group that is on NN. He even uses the same wording and shows same personality he has on this and that forum.

Poondoggle or something like that..anyone want to guess who he is?

he said:

Quote:

I'm guessing he's a pretty lonely guy if he is so desperate for attention

we have all seen those same words before.

[Shortest Straw]

(01-14-2015 03:17 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

Roosh biting his pen looks like his way of focusing on his next response. I don’t think it’s a sign of being nervous

I'm a fidgety person by nature. If my hands aren't playing with something (pens, toothpicks, my beard) then I'm shaking my foot.

My son is insanely fidgety. He'll crumple up a napkin and tear it to shreds under the dining table. Did you know that there are "fidget toys" specifically designed to give ADHD kids something to do with their hands? I forget the explanation, but something about activating the interaction between the tactile sensations and the motor skills is therapeutic.

I used to fiddle with my dick, but people got upset, so I stopped.


Some of the commenters on the video web site were complaining about your voice. I like your deliberate cadence. You don't want to sound excited. You could possibly be a little more emphatic, but these guys are expecting you to dance around like an excited monkey, which is what they would do if given the chance.

Plus, you're ugly. The internet doesn't lie.


In all seriousness, I'm adding my name to the list of complimenters. Good work.

[lskdfjldsf]

I'm a little late to the game here but after watching the video, my first observation was that this girl has subconscious motives. Girls generally don't ask guys about their sexual performance directly, let alone conduct a global manhunt for past partners as part of an "art project"

Only girls who are interested in a guy would ask other girls how he performed. A bit off the mark for an interview on feminism/masculinity.

You've done us proud, great job.

[Game_Started]

Her last name sounds Polish.

[Shortest Straw]

(01-13-2015 10:03 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

Seen the first half hour. I will keep watching, but so far I've noticed something that I don't think will change in the rest of the video: She is so sweet! Like too sweet for a feminist. ''Oh no no, I don't wanna upset you, stop me anytime you want''. Without the short hair I wouldn't believe she was a feminist. Is she faking or just exceptionally nice?

WB with long natural hair.

WB as is. I just plain like her. I wonder if she realizes just how likable she is.

Why women throw away their feminine power is beyond me. Then again, it's something that men do, too. The underdogs of both the male and female hierarchies meet in the middle. Consciously opting out of competing sexually is one thing, but purposefully throwing away your weapons is a puzzle.

[TheWastelander]

Buncha Kyles in those comments.

They saw her interaction with Roosh, with her being pleasant and even flirty at times, and conclude she was just "stringing him along" because they can't accept reality.

[Enigma]

(01-14-2015 03:04 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 02:31 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

[Angela]laughing) In my opinion, just to make it clear...I think that it can be fluid. I think that society does influence it-
[Roosh]: OK! STOP! STOP! You can't learn to be gay, it's not social. But gender is a social construct. That is a contradictory. That doesn't make any sense. So what they're saying is homosexuality is 100% based on what your genes are, but gender is 100% in the environment. That doesn't make any sense!
[Angela]: I didn't say that. I said you're born fluid, I'm saying-
[Roosh]: What you said, and you are smart, made zero sense.
*Angela laughs*
[Roosh]: You contradicted completely. So you can't have it one way or the other. Either homosexuality and gender, AND GENDER because it's the same thing, is a social construct or it's not. Pick one.

This is a very important argument to remember and the answer is even greater.

That's an excellent argument that I heard from Roosh just recently somewhere else.

It is a great moment of 'sphere history

Over time we all are versatile enough to counter every feminist and SJW talking point, simply because their doctrine is based on lies while our views are composed of facts and logic.

And even admitting something simple like not being invested in his perceptions is disarmingly logical. I too have the same viewpoint - if something more logical or with more substantial proof comes out, then I am willing to change my views on gender, feminism, sex, economy, money politics etc. I am not invested in my opinions - they are logical based on my reasoning, my experiences and the experts I trust.

She was slam-dunked with that argument, because it made her look like a foolish little girl - albeit to be fair she seemed kind enough as a person - just too indoctrinated in idiotic dogma.

But aren't the manosphere's views on gender/sexuality simply the opposite of feminism's, i.e., gender is genetic and homosexuality is (at least partially) environmental?

At least that seems to be what Roosh is saying in the video, as he mentions "men are men, etc." but then that promoting gay lifestyles in the media leads to higher numbers of homosexuals.

In which case, the above argument would disprove both stances.

[Shortest Straw]

(01-14-2015 03:56 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

But aren't the manosphere's views on gender/sexuality simply the opposite of feminism's, i.e., gender is genetic and homosexuality is (at least partially) environmental?

At least that seems to be what Roosh is saying in the video, as he mentions "men are men, etc." but then that promoting gay lifestyles in the media leads to higher numbers of homosexuals.

In which case, the above argument would disprove both stances.

Roosh's point was that if gender and sexual orientation are social constructs, then it's insane to be telling kids to be homosexual.

If the message is that "it's okay to be gay" because some people are simply wired to be attracted to their own gender, then you are admitting that there are differences in brain wiring, and so the argument that male and female brains are the same is admitted to be wrong.

I think the manosphere's general position on both aspects is more in the middle, and this resonates strongly from my personal experience. I was raised to be pussified by a feminist mother. Over a very long time, I unlearned that programming and became true to my core self. I'm way more masculine than when I was 20.

Similarly, my attraction wiring was in place from as early as I can remember. I'm really open minded sexually, and people have asked me whether I have had sex with a man. No, and here's why not: I notice women everywhere. For example, I like running. If I see a woman runner, I'm instantaneously sizing her up for sex. I also observe her stride. I check out guys running, too. I look at their muscle definition, their body fat, their stride. I saw a really fast guy the other day, and I almost got in an accident, thinking, "Shit, I'd love to run like that!" I actually did wreck a car because of a pair of tits bouncing on the sidewalk. It's a fundamental difference in wiring. I sometimes tell people that if I could take a pill to make me gay, I probably would, because women can be such a pain in the ass. I couldn't be gay because I just don't like guys.

All that said, there seems to be a certain mix of attraction mechanisms in most people. Try this experiment: Go to a crowded place with a woman. Have her scan the guys for the most attractive. You do the same, trying to guess her choice. You will probably do better than chance. So the attraction wiring is there; it's just more fully formed on one side or the other.

The problem that the manosphere has with telling kids to be gay is it's unfair to kids, whose sexualities are far from mature, that they're this or that. Just like my feminist mother pussified me, and it took a long time to unlearn, kids shouldn't be groomed to be gay, because whatever portion of their sexuality that is gay can be over-developed. You risk encouraging the kid to adopt a sexuality that may very well not be honestly representative of his or her true nature.

Case in point is a shifting attitude toward transsexualism. While parts of society are embracing transsexualism, others are challenging the medical procedure of gender changing, having found that changing gender does not lead to greater quality of life. Some have discovered that, in some cases, transsexualism is actually autogynephilia, which is transferring arousal from the opposite sex to your own body. Honestly, I've felt "vagina envy": I look at a hot chick, she's wretchedly arousing and has such power, and part of me wants to be her. Of course, that would mean I would have to have sex with guys, which I try not to think about. But if you take some kid, sexless, longing for female contact, he goes into vagina envy, he tries on a pair of panties and gets excited by imagining how great it would be to be a chick and the subject of such desire, which he is not the recipient of in any way ... then he goes online and the social crusaders tell him he's tranny ... then he runs in front of a truck because his parents try to calm him down.

I think this gets at the heart of the manosphere's attitude toward sexual deviancy: It's fine to accept homosexuality's existence, but don't encourage it, because you are messing with people's heads.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(01-14-2015 03:56 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

But aren't the manosphere's views on gender/sexuality simply the opposite of feminism's, i.e., gender is genetic and homosexuality is (at least partially) environmental?

At least that seems to be what Roosh is saying in the video, as he mentions "men are men, etc." but then that promoting gay lifestyles in the media leads to higher numbers of homosexuals.

In which case, the above argument would disprove both stances.

I can't speak for all, but it seems that most of us think that genders are given at conception and there is no re-wiring possible. As far as homosexuality is concerned - some of it may be fluid to a degree, but not 50% - many gays were sexually abused during childhood, some have very low testosterone level (or high with women) - that can be influenced by endocrine disrupting chemicals like BPAs, hormones in meat etc. There is also a number of gays who report that they switched from being gay to heterosexuality later on which also hints to humans being able to be influenced in that regard.

The transgender craze on the other hand is mostly rejected completely by the 'sphere - even by gays who are part of the 'sphere - yes there are some like Jack Donovan. The transgenders need therapy and at best should realize that they are gay and leave it at that. Anything else just feeds their craziness.

But we don't claim like SJWs that gender is a social construct and that anyone can simply choose by mutilating his genitals - and voila having changed the gender. At the same time you cannot claim that homosexuality is NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT since gays are born that way. You are not born a woman or man, but you are born a homosexual, which does not make any sense at all. Social construct for heteros, but pre-determined sexuality for gays - Roosh is right - you can't have both ways. It gets even more crazy when the trans-propaganda is added to the mix.

[WestIndianArchie]

My favorite part is where Roosh talks about the top 1,000 families. Elizabeth Warren would agree with him

And if gender is a social construct, then so is sexual orientation I.e preference.

Great points

WIA

[Enigma]

(01-14-2015 04:16 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I can't speak for all, but it seems that most of us think that genders are given at conception and there is no re-wiring possible. As far as homosexuality is concerned - some of it may be fluid to a degree, but not 50% - many gays were sexually abused during childhood, some have very low testosterone level (or high with women) - that can be influenced by endocrine disrupting chemicals like BPAs, hormones in meat etc. There is also a number of gays who report that they switched from being gay to heterosexuality later on which also hints to humans being able to be influenced in that regard.

The transgender craze on the other hand is mostly rejected completely by the 'sphere - even by gays who are part of the 'sphere - yes there are some like Jack Donovan. The transgenders need therapy and at best should realize that they are gay and leave it at that. Anything else just feeds their craziness.

But we don't claim like SJWs that gender is a social construct and that anyone can simply choose by mutilating his genitals - and voila having changed the gender. At the same time you cannot claim that homosexuality is NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT since gays are born that way. You are not born a woman or man, but you are born a homosexual, which does not make any sense at all. Social construct for heteros, but pre-determined sexuality for gays - Roosh is right - you can't have both ways. It gets even more crazy when the trans-propaganda is added to the mix.

Feminism: Gender is a social construct, sexuality is genetic (gender can be changed, but people are born gay)

Manosphere: Gender is genetic, sexuality is a social construct (men are men, women are women, but the media can make people gay)

The argument Roosh made is that gender and sexuality are the same and therefore must be governed by the same factors. But this would disprove the views of the mansophere just the same as feminism, as neither believe gender and sexuality are determined in the same way.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with Roosh's views, I am disagreeing with the logic of this one specific argument.

[TheWastelander]

(01-14-2015 04:16 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

The argument Roosh made is that gender and sexuality are the same and therefore must be governed by the same factors. But this would disprove the views of the mansophere just the same as feminism, as neither believe gender and sexuality are determined in the same way.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with Roosh's views, I am disagreeing with the logic of this one specific argument.

I was under the impression he was just throwing dumb SJW arguments back in their faces to point out how contradictory they were, which is pretty fun to do from time to time.

[Slim Shady]

^ Good points Enigma.

I think what we can actually see is that both sexuality and gender can be changed or manipulated by society or external forces. This does not mean "gender is a social construct" in the ways that feminists mean it however.

In times of stress members of the animal kingdom have been shown to switch sexuality to homosexuality as I have stated before. We certainly live in an extremely high stress society today. Add to it the hormones and chemicals in our food, water, and everyday objects, and there is a severe toll on our bodies. While I believe that asexuals and homosexuals have always existed, there are more of them today due to these stresses - both social and physical.

With gender, there are also these social and chemical reasons for change and corruption. However these confusions are mental illnesses that need to be treated unlike sexuality. If a person is born into a stressed environment, or brought up/into one and adheres to homosexuality I think that in essentially all cases you can't "pray the gay away". "Gender" however is different. Effeminate feelings in a man are caused by high estrogen levels and low testosterone. There are perhaps childhood issues that have caused confusion. These people should go through counseling just like anyone else that is a danger to themselves. Certainly children should not ever be allowed to go neat these kinds of procedures.

Gender and sexuality are not the same thing.

[Shortest Straw]

(01-14-2015 04:16 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

You are not born a woman or man, but you are born a homosexual, which does not make any sense at all. Social construct for heteros, but pre-determined sexuality for gays - Roosh is right - you can't have both ways. It gets even more crazy when the trans-propaganda is added to the mix.

Certainly the manosphere is not completely uniform in its position, but my general perception has been that homosexuality is understood to be partly wiring and partly developed, and because of the latter aspect, should not be encouraged.

For example, I've heard condemnation of gay marriage but not support for conversion therapy.

The other aspect I've heard from Roosh is homosexuals are like women and are thus not welcome in male spaces.

[Ocelot]

(01-14-2015 04:39 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 04:16 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

I can't speak for all, but it seems that most of us think that genders are given at conception and there is no re-wiring possible. As far as homosexuality is concerned - some of it may be fluid to a degree, but not 50% - many gays were sexually abused during childhood, some have very low testosterone level (or high with women) - that can be influenced by endocrine disrupting chemicals like BPAs, hormones in meat etc. There is also a number of gays who report that they switched from being gay to heterosexuality later on which also hints to humans being able to be influenced in that regard.

The transgender craze on the other hand is mostly rejected completely by the 'sphere - even by gays who are part of the 'sphere - yes there are some like Jack Donovan. The transgenders need therapy and at best should realize that they are gay and leave it at that. Anything else just feeds their craziness.

But we don't claim like SJWs that gender is a social construct and that anyone can simply choose by mutilating his genitals - and voila having changed the gender. At the same time you cannot claim that homosexuality is NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT since gays are born that way. You are not born a woman or man, but you are born a homosexual, which does not make any sense at all. Social construct for heteros, but pre-determined sexuality for gays - Roosh is right - you can't have both ways. It gets even more crazy when the trans-propaganda is added to the mix.

Feminism: Gender is a social construct, sexuality is genetic (gender can be changed, but people are born gay)

Manosphere: Gender is genetic, sexuality is a social construct (men are men, women are women, but the media can make people gay)

The argument Roosh made is that gender and sexuality are the same and therefore must be governed by the same factors. But this would disprove the views of the mansophere just the same as feminism, as neither believe gender and sexuality are determined in the same way.

To be clear, I am not disagreeing with Roosh's views, I am disagreeing with the logic of this one specific argument.

I've not heard this argument presented in the manosphere, so I don't know that it's exactly the dominant view. A more likely take is that humans are a dimorphic species and human civilisations evolved norms that best suited the respective traits of men and women, but our behaviour is socially influenced. It follows therefore that promoting neutral gender norms in the face of... the entire history of western civilisation... is probably unhealthy, and a destabilising influence. Likewise, homosexuality may be genetic, it may be caused by environmental factors, or a combination of both is possible. If there is any environmental factor to homosexuality, however, it should be a cause for concern, not celebration.

[alexdagr81]

Gender is a social construct refutes itself. They use transgenders as evidence, but don't acknowledge that transgenders try very hard to conform to gender expectations.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(01-14-2015 04:39 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

...

Manosphere: Gender is genetic, sexuality is a social construct (men are men, women are women, but the media can make people gay)

I doubt that that Roosh or most think that you can make anyone gay willy nilly - maybe if you put everyone in all male and all female prisons for life. But that would not make them really gay - most revert to their usual gender sexual patterns upon release.

And I never said that sexuality is a social construct - even if you brought up children completely raised by robots - most would likely turn out along the usual heterosexual preferences.

Why people actually turn out gay is not entirely certain - I don't think that humanity knows for sure.

[Shortest Straw]

(01-14-2015 05:21 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(01-14-2015 04:39 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

...

Manosphere: Gender is genetic, sexuality is a social construct (men are men, women are women, but the media can make people gay)

I doubt that that Roosh or most think that you can make anyone gay willy nilly - maybe if you put everyone in all male and all female prisons for life. But that would not make them really gay - most revert to their usual gender sexual patterns upon release.

And I never said that sexuality is a social construct - even if you brought up children completely raised by robots - most would likely turn out along the usual heterosexual preferences.

Why people actually turn out gay is not entirely certain - I don't think that humanity knows for sure.

Did you know that giraffes are the gayest animals?