Roosh: Coming Soon to a Second Tier City Near You

I note that I have a few readers from other countries, most notably Romania and Russia.  Perhaps some of you are Roosh fans; perhaps, some of you not so much.  Roosh posted the following a couple of years ago, when he was getting a lot of flack from writing about his exploits in various Latin American countries.  Roosh's words are in bold; my annotations are italicized.  

9 Things I Want To Say To My International Critics
By Roosh

I have nine things I would like to say to all those who are angry about my travel writing:

Stop right there, did you say "travel" writing?  You mean I can find these guides in my local Rick Steves store?  If by "travel" you mean "how to prowl foreign discoteques, malls, clubs, and locate cheap sublets," maybe.
 
1. Sex is a normal biological process that occurs whether it’s written about by me in a book or not. I’ve yet to see any evidence that a noticeable “Roosh Boost” occurs in countries I write about.

No one is going to argue with that.  I'm mildly curious what a "Roosh Boost" involves (is this somehow related to Roosh's boast that he "explodes" in women's vaginas?) but I can live without knowing...

2.It may be hard to believe, but your women like fucking men who are from different countries. Attacking me won’t change that...

Note the use of "your women."  This is a powerful taunt in cultures with patriarchal tribal traditions, in which women are seen not only as the property of their male relatives, but also as the receptacles of family honor.  Roosh, one generation away from a rural Iranian village, betrays his own tribal origins here.  

Note to my non-American readers:  This is NOT how most American men under the age of, say, 120, refer to women!

Procreating with a different race or background is an evolutionary [sic]  advantageous behavior that lowers the rate of genetic disease.

While it's well established that the offspring of first cousins who marry -- especially over successive generations -- are more likely to suffer from certain congenital diseases carried by recessive genes, I challenge you to show me any credible scientific evidence that "procreating with a different race... is an evolutionarily advantageous behavior."
 
3. Consensual sex with girls of legal age is not predation and is not rape, no matter how many times you say it is.

Agreed -- if and when it is indeed consensual and the girl is of legal age.  Having sex with extremely intoxicated girls who are incapable of consent IS rape in the U.S. -- no matter how many times you say it isn't.  Coercing women by deceiving them or simply wearing them down, or by deliberately targeting very young or naive girls with promises of a "relationship," while not rape, is "predatory" and morally repugnant.
 
4. You should be more concerned about turning on your women instead of trying to stop foreign men from successfully providing them with [sic] their emotional and physical needs. One path yields more sex, while the other gets you nothing.

Again with the "your women" taunt.  Basically, he is telling his critics "I can take your women because I am more of a man than you are, so nyeah, nyeah, nyeah!"  As for more successfully fulfilling their emotional and physical needs, that's pretty rich coming from a guy who dismisses the female orgasm as "trivial," doesn't care if his partner comes or not, and admits his own most satisfying sexual encounters have been with women he "hate-fucked."
 
5. By the time my book about your country has been published, thousands upon thousands of men have already had sex with your women. Nothing you do can stop this from proceeding unless you completely ban tourism.

"Nothing you can do to stop me from having sex with your women."  Wanna bet?  In fact, countries CAN do a lot to discourage sex tourism without banning legitimate tourism.  Roosh has already been declared "persona non grata" in a number of countries.  Keeping undesirable elements out is one of the reasons countries demand visas.
 
6. You can’t pick and choose what effects of globalization impact your country. You must take the good (increase in trade and technology) versus the bad (competition from hairy foreign men).

Is Roosh seriously suggesting that the only way to build a globally competitive economy is to allow sex tourists through their borders? What a dilemma!  (At least Roosh admits he's "the bad" vs. "the good" here.)

7. Censorship doesn’t work in the internet age. Go ahead and ask the Brazilian government how easy it is to take sites off the internet. If you look hard, you’ll probably find hundreds of sex-themed articles about your country. My work is just a drop in the bucket.

Probably true.  However, has it occurred to Roosh that it is not "sex-themed articles" in general they object to, but his in particular?

8. Criticizing the use of game as “manipulation” shows that you’re stuck in the wrong century. Science now backs up game concepts such as touching, pre-selection, and being alpha as ways to be more attractive to the opposite sex. Your argument is essentially “Be unattractive on purpose because it’s natural and right.” Good luck with that. Instead, American men want the best game to get penis inside vagina. You will not dampen the demand for this crucial knowledge.

Actually, I don't have much against PUA and "game" if it helps a few socially inept fellows muster enough self-confidence to climb out of their mom's basement on a Saturday night.  It's pretty silly stuff, but so is most of the relationship advice out there, whether it's for girls or boys.

By "science," Roosh and his ilk mean "evolutionary psychology," which is a highly controversial field riddled with pot-holes of fallacy, inadequate data, and overgeneralization.  Its status as a discipline is further compromised by yo-yos like Roosh who embrace half-baked theories as gospel and then apply them willy-nilly to justify the most heinous and socially maladaptive behavior.

Whether Roosh's brand of "game" constitutes "crucial knowledge" is also highly debatable.  

9. You should thank me and my compatriots for spending money in your country. Your hotels, restaurants, tour agencies, and nightlife venues get paid. Your people will suffer more if we go elsewhere.

Personally, I find this final point the most distasteful, and if I were a national of Romania, Russia, Colombia, or any other country, I'd be infuriated by the notion that I should be grateful or beholden to some Ugly American who believes he is doing me a favor by throwing a few dollars into the local coffers.  Who the hell does he think he is, the Sultan of Brunei?

Boston Bombing, or Don't Bite the Hand

To live in the United States is a gift.  U.S. citizenship confers great privilege.  The evidence is that people from all over the world still strive to immigrate here. 

I don't acknowledge this with pride;  I did nothing to earn the right to be an American.  In my case, it was an accident of birth.  I did nothing to deserve the fortunate circumstances of being a white, middle class American and enjoying all the advantages of that.  My nationality in no way makes me better than anyone on this planet; it just makes me luckier.

And I don't say this with complacency.  As a country, we are facing huge problems:  democracy is compromised by the disproportionate power held by corporations, for example.  Our leaders' penchant for military adventures ("nation building") has degraded all of us.  We have earned the wrath and contempt of the world.

In fact, America was probably never what we were taught it was.   

And yet the recent Boston bombings by two disaffected youth is not only tragic (for the victims and their families, for the perpetrators and their families), it is god damn infuriating.

Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had been living in the U.S. for ten years, most of their young lives.  America had taken them in, and had provided them with opportunities, such as a top notch high school education, beyond anything they would have enjoyed in Chechnye, Dagestan, or Russia.  They had friends and family, health and good looks, religious and intellectual freedom here.  And they spat in the face of all these unearned gifts.

Similarly, Roosh's family came to the U.S. as refugees in the late seventies.  Roosh writes that his father had been one of many children born of a fourth wife in a poor, rural village.  This is pure speculation on my part, but I am guessing Roosh's dad had sought upward mobility through a military career under the Shah.  When the Shah's regime fell, the Valizadehs were taken in by the U.S.  Roosh went on to enjoy all the advantages of being a middle-class American, not least of which was an education at a state-supported university.  And now he spits in its face.

I'm in no way anti-immigration.  I've devoted much of my teaching career to helping immigrants assimilate culturally and linguistically.  I've done my share lobbying state legislators to maintain funds for English language and other programs that support immigrants.  And freedom of speech, the freedom to criticize the government or society, is just about my most favorite thing.

I've seen up close how the children of immigrants struggle.  In my trade, we call them the Generation 1.5.  They are dumped into American classrooms with little preparation or support:  sink or swim.  Depending on their parents' educational level, they may find themselves on the threshold of adulthood with huge academic deficits.  They are torn between two worlds: their parents' traditional values and and the values of their modern American peers.  Their parents immigrate -- often at great sacrifice to themselves -- in order to give them the gifts of opportunity and freedom, but with those gifts come cultural loss and great inner conflict.

Immigration is not for wimps. 

I'm just saying, it's the lack of appreciation, the pissing away of the gifts, that jacks my jaw.

The Arrogance of Youth

One of the tropes of the New Misogynists is that attractive "quality" women, with their impossibly high standards, often miss the boat.  They turn thirty (or forty, or whatever), only to find themselves alone on the dock, all weathered and nasty and flea-bitten, while the ship of true happiness (a marriage to one of them, presumably) sails away. 

In Roosh's forum, he reproduced a post from "Date Lab" from a very attractive middle aged blonde named "Carla" who was reporting that she had recently met a nice fellow.  My response to Roosh's snark attack follows.  

Date Lab: 53 y/o woman wants magical spark
Author	Message

Roosh Innovative Casanova Posts: 8,346 Joined: Aug 2008 Reputation: 91

Roosh snark:  53 year old women still have standards? Carla quote: I told [her new beau] I’m trying to figure out why it took [Date Lab] so long to find someone for me Roosh snark: Not all mysteries of the universe will be solved. Carla quote: Definitely similar sense of humor. [That’s] important to me. A lot of guys don’t get my humor. Roosh snark: If enough people don't get your humor, at what point is it time to accept you don't have it? Carla quote: I didn’t feel a chemical attraction or that spark where sometimes you know right away. Roosh snark: This bitch is almost dead and still waiting for the spark!    (See what I mean about the braying donkey?) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless she's been diagnosed with Stage 3 cancer, a 53 year old woman is hardly "almost dead."  Statistically, she is likely to live another 35 years, and statistically she is likely to outlive her male partner.  She could very well outlive you, Roosh. Wouldn't that be a burn!  But who among us knows when he is going to die?  (Note -- topic for my other blog.) I do see from her picture (which I have deleted to respect her privacy) that, although she's two years older than her new beau, she looks a decade younger.  In fact, she's an attractive woman for any age, and I'll bet he's feeling very lucky to have met her.  Is that what bothers you Roosh?  That a woman old enough to be your mother is sexually viable? But here's the truth:  Love is precious at any stage of life. And as long as we're alive, and our hearts are open, and the desire is there, life is full of endless possibilities for love.  Here's something else I want to say, Roosh, and you may choose not to believe it, but the fact is, A woman can always get laid.  Yup, you heard me right:  If a woman wants sex (and only sex), it hardly matters how old she is.  As distasteful as it is, them's the realities of the sexual marketplace: ladies' choice, men's opportunity.  Sorry about that! Hell, I'm even older than the lady above plus I'm fat, and if all I wanted was a Casual Encounter, it would take me about thirty minutes to arrange one.  Not only can an older woman get laid, she can be loved.  It's rather harder -- at any age -- but I also know this, from personal experience, to be true. I'm not sure why evidence that people over fifty seek -- and often find -- "that spark" vexes you.  I would rather that it encouraged you.  You are approaching middle age yourself.  Aging is tough regardless of gender.  Is that why you're scared? And as for referring to a woman your mother's age as "the bitch..."  May I remind you that you are not an adolescent anymore?  Do you still talk like that to your mother?

Roosh: America's Ambassador of Love to Romania

I hate to link to one of Roosh's posts, cuz I know it just gives him more hits, but the videos from Romania are pretty funny, especially the one where he wanders around a half-empty subterranean shopping mall looking for girls. All I can think about is, He's paid a thousand dollars to fly to Europe and he's in a deserted underground mall?  WTF?  I'm not sure what I'd be doing there, but I'd definitely want to do it above ground, in daylight, where I could actually see something.

In one video he is a guest on a local TV show, sandwiched between two lissome Romanian girls, and being thrown questions in broken English that are meant to show the audience what a perfect tool he is.  I'm pretty sure he realizes they're making fun of him, but he is just so damn happy to be on camera he can't stop grinning. (It warms my heart to see Roosh smile, but when he laughs, he exposes his teeth and tosses his head back, so that one can't help but picture a braying donkey.)

Again, I don't know what I would wear if I were invited to appear on Romanian television, but I'm sure that whatever it was, it would be clean.  Maybe Roosh's faded t-shirt and peculiarly unflattering jeans are freshly laundered, but they don't look like it.  There he is, complaining about what slobs American women are, and look!  He's showing the Romanian public that American men are equally slobby.  I don't think he's doing American guys any favors over there. And what's with the crotch shot?  He has spread his legs just as far apart as he can, like he's saving a seat on the bus for a friend who's getting on later.  It doesn't even look like a comfortable posture.  

Oh God now I sound like his mother.  And we all know what Roosh thinks of his mother.

In his favor, Roosh is definitely showing a flair for comedy in these videos. Maybe he can get himself cast in a European sitcom, playing himself ?  I'm serious!  It could happen!

Don't Get Me Wrong, I Love Dogs!

Whenever the topic of gender came up, my old boyfriend, Paul, used to assert that,  "Men are dogs."  Our ensuing argument always followed along the same lines, with me protesting, "Not all men are dogs!  You're not a dog."  "I am a dog," Paul would counter, "because I am a man.  And all men are dogs."  (By insisting that men were dogs, Paul was claiming men were slaves to their dominant, hormone-driven instincts.  Or something like that.)  After a few rounds, I gave up trying to convince Paul to take a more evolved stance on the matter, and after a couple of years, boredom and frustration with Paul's distorted logic and lack of sophistication took its toll, and I broke off with him.

Whether comparing men with dogs (or rabbits), or women with hamsters (or chickens or snakes), barnyard analogies render any argument meaningless.  They are simply ways to "dehumanize" the other so that you don't have to treat them as individuals with unique qualities and experiences worthy of consideration.  While it's true that humans, like wolves, are pack animals, as any (reputable) social scientist will tell you, to understand the origins of our own behaviors, we are better off studying the higher primates, i.e., chimpanzees. (I'm a bonobo myself.)

And yet-- and yet--

Today I found myself wondering if Paul wasn't right.  Men in groups can certainly act like dogs in packs.  I have four (male) dogs myself.  Each dog, on his own, is a sweet and distinct individual.  As a group, however (Anyone say "kibbies?") they form a howling, snarling mob bent on chaos and destruction, impervious to either reason or protocol.  

Roosh recently got a couple of e-mails which he reproduced in part in his forum.  Apparently they were from a male friend of one of the "conquests" Roosh had described in a book.  What the sender's messages lacked in coherence and literacy, he made up in sincerity.

Sample of what the "white knighter" wrote to Roosh:

"I hope you [Roosh] feel bad for what you did. You betrayed her.... Do you ever think of the consequences you create when you do this? What pain you create?...  I believe this is a form of terrorism towards other countries and to the people you have hurt already. Terrorism is defined as creating terror in people and that is what you do when you write about your conquest. It is the woman's fault too, to fall for your game and they have had a choice to sleep with you, but it is not fair to them that you write about it without their permission...What you did to her was uncalled for.  You scared her... When you write your books, please warn them or at least send them a book so that way they can take steps to prepare for the shame you might bring them. .. to be published in your books of accomplishments with women would make any woman feel cheep, used, and disgraced..."

These tidbits are the bones that Roosh throws to his troops, who slavishly leap into the fray like... well, like a pack of dogs.  A grindingly predictable thread follows, in which the Roosh's minions deride the "beta orbiting" e-mailer's masculinity and dignity (for protesting the treatment of his friend), and lavish praise on Roosh, All Hail to the Chief, etc., ad nauseum.  In this way, Roosh uses a "threat" to the Group Think to reinforce his own authority.  He's very shrewd that way (part of why he's scary).

Ironically, the "hive mind" of females is a persistent trope among misogynists.

I can only hope that on some level, some of of these Rooshites realize:  Hey, he [the victim's friend] has a point...  Maybe it's not very manly or heroic to exploit women that way...  I wouldn't like it if it were my sister / my friend / my daughter Roosh was exploiting sexually and monetarily. .. 

(While some manosphere bloggers do concede that Roosh isn't the type of guy they'd want their sisters to marry, they don't seem able to take empathy any further.)

Roosh Hates Toronto

One of these days I mean to visit Toronto, because until recently I had heard nothing but rave reviews of this sparkling, multicultural cosmopolis.   My parents visited Toronto when I was a teenager.  They returned with a beautiful Indian scarf for me (which I still cherish) and praise for the sophistication and civility of its residents.  A friend of mine used to date a Canadian lad.  Unfortunately, when he sold his Toronto condo and moved to Edmonton, she kind of lost interest...

The only person I've run across to say a disparaging word about Toronto was Roosh, who had a recent, spectacularly unsuccessful weekend there, unable to persuade one single lady to return to his hotel room for a sip of flavored vodka. (I know, flavored vodka?  Blecchh.  But apparently that's what all the cool club kids are drinking.)

Apparently, he is still stinging from his defeat.

Roosh was offended by a young Toronto lass' words in response to his negativity about "game" in Toronto.  (Read her entire post; it's quite funny.)

Roosh observed that "Girls are more excited about getting late night food than having sex."  

Emilia: "Could not agree more. Everytime my friends and I heard the song “Gasolina” we changed the lyrics to “Pizzaiola”. The Diana. The Americana. OOOOOhhhh Vittoria. No sex beats a late night slice."

This made me chuckle.  It also made me recall the great Southern wit Florence King, who once wrote, "I've had sex and I've had food.  And I'd rather eat."  Never were truer words spoken.  And the older a woman gets, the truer they become.  Which explains Food Porn and my own ever-expanding waistline.
 
Roosh also wrote that "Girls [in Toronto] cock block more than anywhere else in the world.

Emilia responds:  "Girls don’t cock block. If a girl wanted to fuck you, she’d fuck you. Even with seven of her friends yelling at her to stop, she will proceed with no caution. I’ve literally had to owe my friends money for sleeping with people they hate. I’ve had friends run out of cabs and go back to people they were dragged from."

I nod my head vigorously in agreement.  I hate to tell you how many guys I had sex with that my girlfriends warned me about.  (Did I listen?  Never!  Were they right?  Always!)

I'll admit that due to my advanced age, the term "cock blocking" is new to me.  Back in the day, we just called it "being a good friend."
 
Roosh also complains, "Buy a girl drinks or she loses interest."

Emilia says,  "I don’t know how to say this without sounding shallow but here’s the truth: whatever you’re talking about, we don’t care. Something about sports, something about your job, maybe you have a dog, we don’t give a shit. Less talkee, more shotsee."

I mean really, Roosh (and his lame-ass followers):  Do you expect intelligent, attractive young women to fuck you stone cold sober?  Men like you should fucking worship at the shrine of  Dionysius.  

Anyway, I guess Roosh has declared Toronto off-limits to his acolytes, which is nothing but good news for the ladies of Toronto.

Don't Bang Danish Girls (or Only In Your Dreams)

I've always been irrationally proud of my Danish ancestry.  Although my ancestors left Denmark in the late nineteenth century, I even allow myself to take vicarious, wholly-unearned pride in the loyalty they demonstrated toward their Jewish citizens during WWII. (How dismayed I was to learn that the story of King Christian X displaying the Star of David on his lapel was entirely apocryphal!) 

Visiting Denmark some years ago with my mother only deepened my admiration for the Danish people.  At one point my mother's bum knee forced us to visit a clinic for treatment.  After the doctor gave her a cortisone shot, we asked where to pay, only to be told that medical services were free to anyone who needed them -- even hapless American tourists.

What most struck me about Denmark was how uniformly good looking the people are.  I expect this has a lot to do with the excellent standard of health care, nutrition, and sense of social security.  Despite a diet that is traditionally heavy with dairy products (butter, cheese, ice cream...) I did not see a single fat Dane.  Maybe that was because everywhere we went, people were walking, bicycling, or sunning themselves in the public parks.  We were actually relieved to finally encounter a woman with rather poor teeth -- finally, an imperfection!

Roosh's complaints that Danish women are unattractive and "manly" are patently ridiculous.  On the other hand, I expect it is difficult to "game" a Dane.  They are not easily impressed by or even very curious about foreigners (as Americans we were mostly ignored).  It wasn't easy to engage Danes in conversation although, when we were able to, they were unfailingly civil, and every Dane we met spoke English fluently (although they were modest about their ability).

Perhaps what offended Roosh was subtle prejudice based on his near-eastern appearance.  A lot of Danes seem a bit weary with their immigrant population, vestiges of a Turkish guest worker population that have overstayed its welcome.  As one Danish woman explained to me, "I understand why they come here, with our great social services and public education -- I don't blame them, really -- but..." she trailed off helplessly and sighed.  Being Danish, she couldn't bring herself to admit that these swarthy, "backwards" people didn't belong to her vision of a progressive, liberal Danish society. 

Is Roosh a Sociopath?

Roosh is now in Romania, a country I've never visited.  I've always assumed From the little I have read and seen on television, it's kind of a shit-hole a developing country with many socioeconomic challenges and seriously ugly Soviet era architecture. 

This is nothing against the people.  I've had several wonderful Romanian students in the past.  Rather, it's because Romania is still recovering from the disastrous socioeconomic policies of the Nicolae Ceaușesc regime, i.e., a large population of unwanted young people who grew up on the streets due to Ceausesc's prohibition of contraception = a high crime rate, degraded family structure, and pervasive despair.  It certainly isn't a place that would draw me as a tourist, although I might take a temporary assignment there as part of an international aid program. yet. 


But Roosh favors Eastern European countries like Romania because the people (specifically, the women) are poor and desperate.  American tourists are rare for the reasons described, and they represent opportunity (for cash or green cards).  This is Roosh's value in the eyes of young Eastern European women.  The language barrier which he occasionally complains about actually works in his favor; it's harder to evaluate a stranger's intentions or character if he does not speak your language, and people tend to forgive foreigners for social faux pas that they would not tolerate in a native.

Roosh likes Eastern European girls because, unlike American or Scandinavian women, they embody traditional "feminine" characteristics: they put effort into their sexual appeal (naturally enough, as it is their only real avenue of social mobility), they tend to be thin, they defer to men (at least in public).  And unlike American and Scandinavian women, they are not "promiscuous" (that is to say, sexually autonomous).

The problem is that the chastity that Roosh admires is an obstacle to his mission, which is to have sexual intercourse with as many nubile teenagers as he can without either opening his wallet and paying upfront, or establishing a committed relationship.  He deals with this by deceiving women, either directly or by omission.  For example, he suggests he's more interested in a serious relationship than he really is, he attempts to disguise his true identity, he doesn't hang around too long in one place.  He coolly acknowledges the occasional tears, the sense of betrayal these girls experience, yet remains emotionally detached.  He is, after all, a predator, so is only acting according to his authentic nature: "This is what I do."  

He is not disingenuous when he denies that the appalling way he exploits girls reflects any animosity toward them. In the same way, many of us are genuinely fond of animals, yet still enjoy eating cheeseburgers.

He blames global feminism and western materialism on corrupting the women he himself is trying to corrupt.  He refuses to acknowledge his own culpability in the process.  The lack of integrity, the disconnect, is mind-boggling.  He doesn't seem to be stupid.  He certainly takes his own intellectual pretensions seriously, with his regular reports on the "big ass books" he is reading (Thucydides, really?). 

And yet there is a giant blind spot in his moral consciousness that defies explanation.

To read Roosh is to enter the mind of a functioning sociopath.

In a Roosh V forum thread, a reader worries whether he himself is a sociopath. Some readers dismiss his concern, reassuring him that the fact that he asks is proof he is not. 

I dunno, if I thought I might be a sociopath, I'd be running, not walking, to a good shrink. But that's just me, your garden-variety neurotic.

Roosh, on the other hand, responds, tellingly, "Why do you feel the need to label your behavior?  Do what you want. As long as you don't get arrested, get AIDS, or cause unreasonable harm in other individuals, who gives a fuck whether you are or not."  [italics added]

Roosh is Not an Arab!

Roosh ‏@rooshv 9h

If I became a terrorist, what race would the American media say I am?

Expand

_____________________________________________________

Uhm... I dunno... "not white?"

Roosh's racial designation is important to Roosh, so please pay attention!

Iranians consider themselves to be Aryans (as do most Afghans).  I have actually met Iranians who concluded on that basis that Hitler must have been a righteous dude.  Iranians are, by and large, incredibly racist.  This helps explain why Roosh insists he is "white" (and he is, sorta, whatever "race" means), and why he has actually constructed a "totem pole" of racial desirability.  Many Iranians look down on Arabs, whom they consider to be of an inferior race. 

The language of Iran (Roosh's first language) is Farsi, or Persian.  It belongs, like English, French, German, Hindi, and Sanskrit, to the Indo-European family of languages -- although the writing system uses the Arabic alphabet.

I hope this helps explain Roosh's notably weird hang up about "race," which seems to cause some of his (nonwhite) readers much pain and confusion.  It also explains why he can only "bang" white chicks.  He has to prove over and over and over... just how very "white" he is.

Class over!

What's hot, what's not

Roosh, who believes women exist primarily to provide men with boners, spends a lot of time thinking about which women meet his "boner" specifications and which do not.  Apparently, a woman's capacity to give him an erection on sight is his operational definition of "beauty."   (Asian women don't cause his penis to stir; therefore, they are not beautiful to him, contrary to the experience of millions of men around the world.)  Whenever he has nothing else to tweet, he'll post some random woman's picture with the caption "Would you bang or not?" 

It's caused me to think a bit about my own definitions of beauty and sexual appeal in both sexes.  A woman doesn't have to be bisexual, as I am, to enjoy looking at images of both men and women, of course, or to respond sexually to either gender.

Most of the women Roosh seems to find appealing are what the current "Hollywood" ideal deems "beautiful," and although I agree they meet the popular current criteria of "beauty," they are a bit plastic:  augmented breasts, big hair, lots of artful make up, etc.  I know that is what we are "taught" to like, but it's a shame how popular media divorces us from the beauty and richness of diversity.

I find that, at least for myself, sexual allure is quite a different thing than beauty.  Beauty is often a rather cold and sterile thing: "look but don't touch."  Perfect symmetry of features is cited as the universal standard of beauty, but it isn't interesting.  On the other hand, people who project the most sexual "heat" are often what the French call "jolie-laide" (pretty-ugly). 

Grace Kelly?
or
Anna Magnani?

Alain Delon?
or
Serge Gainsbourg?

I once had a boyfriend that was the essence of jolie-laide in masculine form.  He looked a little like Iggy Pop.  His mouth was too generous, his rugged facial features somewhat crowded on to a narrow face.  He was not handsome, and he was not photogenic..His frame was light and wiry, a combination of strength and delicacy. Although he was dominant sexually, he had slightly effeminate gestures.  He freely copped to the fact that his sexual promiscuity was his compensation for being ignored and bullied as a boy.  Yet, ever the bundle of contradictions, he was supremely self-confident.  I never got tired of looking at him (or fucking him).

I find some fat women incredibly appealing.  I have a serious girl crush on Queen Latifah: her intense, knowing eyes, her warm, authoritative voice.  Also Rebel Wilson (whom I fancy looks a bit like me, back in the day): that combination of soft, blonde prettiness and self-effacing wit is pretty irresistible.  And again, self-confidence.  I found the late Anna Nicole Smith, may she rest in peace, gorgeous -- both fat and thin, made up or natural. 

I am hard pressed to find any person "ugly" in terms of physical appearance.  Some folks are more stereotypically attractive due to symmetry or conformity to fashionable ideals.  Almost anyone who is willing to "work on" themselves can achieve a pleasing or socially acceptable appearance.  Even people who have been born with congenital "deformities" or have been disfigured in accidents can be gorgeous.  The "difference" seems to draw more attention to their physical assets, somehow, and makes them "POP."

Take J.R. Martinez, for example.  Hot and a hero.
or

Bree Walker.  Exquisite face, lovely figure, what a smile.
or

Peter Dinklage.  The eyes, the facial structure, the voice...

I feel sorry for people like Roosh, who have such narrow, rigid, and unimaginative ideas of what beauty is. They miss a lot of opportunities to be pleased and gratified by the endless array of interesting people to look at.  Can they even find the beauty in themselves?

A Brutal Takedown

Here he goes again!  Roosh performs a "brutal take down on a budding feminist" who has dared to write in her school paper about the MRM in disparaging ways.  (How does Roosh find time to scour the editorial pages of small provincial college papers, anyway?)

So the "brutal take down" starts out with a bucket load of sarcastic vitriol, the gist of which seems to be a dismissal of her views on the basis that he (Roosh) is no more an MRA than he is "a merman." 

You see, Roosh is not an MRA -- oh no!  Anyone who has read his blog(s) knows that Roosh is vastly superior to the typical "passive" MRA, mostly because, about five times a year, he manages to get himself laid. How silly to conflate misogynistic MRAs with misogynistic PUAs. Shows how much those dumb "feminists" know!

"Thank you, Paige, for your opinion piece about Men’s Rights Activism. In particular, thank you for using fallacious arguments to suggest that because you don’t care for the mission and the tactics of some MRA’s, MRA’s are a farce. Thank you for demonstrating that hasty generalization, straw man, false equivalence and other lapses of logic are not limited to men alone. Thank you for demeaning what many men perceive to be an inherent violation of bodily autonomy and integrity by dismissively saying that it’s not as bad as the “very real issue” of female circumcision. Thank you for grudgingly acknowledging that some MRA’s aren’t a complete waste of time and, as self-appointed Spokeswoman for Feminism, deigning to give me permission to advocate for those things that you believe should be important to me as a man. Thank you for making it clear that it is ok for a member of one gender to tell another gender what to think. Thank you for misrepresenting feminism as a unequivocally, schism-free homogenous quest for good, unlike fractious and controversial men’s rights, and that it is acceptable to define a civil rights movement by an outsider’s perception of its basest members. Most importantly, thank you for demonstrating the self-righteous ignorance and arrogance that drives much of the anti-feminist sentiment that you observed in many of the groups you wrote about. I also would like to pre-emptively thank you for misunderstanding this comment as an attack on women and feminism in general, rather than a criticism of the vapid and condescending nonsense you somehow had the temerity to publish."

But then?  It's like the man cannot help himself.  In the end he just has to "go there," delivering his customary coup de grace by attacking the girl's physical appearance.  This time he cannot bring himself to call her "ugly," he isn't quite that delusional -- so he settles on calling her "fat."  Then tacks on a condescending remark, that she can thank him later for his advice to hit the gym.

First of all, Roosh, you realize that when you tell women they are unattractive to you, they mostly react with sighs of relief?  The last thing any girl, fat or thin or in-between, needs is to have to fend off the advances of a sociopathic loser.

Second of all, Roosh, do you even recognize what the word "fat" means, anymore?  Has every woman with half a brain and a voice that demands to be heard become "fat" by default? 

As a genuinely fat person, I am dismayed by the use of this word to describe people who are thin.  As a fat person (fat baby, fat girl, fat woman, and fat crone), I reckon I have rightful claim to that word.
 
You wanna know what a fat arm looks like?  I'll send you a picture.  It will give you a real frisson of disgust, and if you tell me that my upper arms resemble "bleached hams," well, I'll laughingly concur.
 
Readers know Roosh prefers women who have been professionally posed, made up, have long (and "big") hair, and/or photo-shopped to the nth degree, but still...  that bicep he has circled doesn't look plump, or even flabby, by any normal medical or aesthetic standard. 

In short, this girl is in no way "fat."  Au contraire, this is a girl who is very young, quite slender, and perfectly lovely to look at in every respect, by any conventional standard.  

Sorry if I seem to be beating the point to death, but if she is fat, then what am I?  Nothing? 

Never mind.  I didn't want to go there, Roosh, but you made me, you made me say this:  this young woman, purely on the basis of physical attractiveness, is so "out of your league," that it makes your whole post laughable.  Your arrows have rubber tips.  The only way a girl that looks like this would go home with you is because she was (1) poor, and (2) thought you had some money (in other words, if she weren't North American), or (3) was forcibly abducted (and please don't take that as a viable option).

I'm sorry to say this, Roosh -- but YOU MADE ME. YOU MADE ME SAY THIS!