Men are nothing more than clowns to the modern woman

[Banano]

http://www.rooshv.com/men-are-nothing-m ... dern-woman


I have a bank of rotating stock questions I ask women that let me know how I should proceed with my game. One of the questions I used to ask was “Do you need a man?â€￾ Out of the dozens of times I asked it, not a single girl answered yes. Even in Eastern Europe, a woman needs a man as much as a cat needs milk. They would prefer the best man or the best milk, but they can surely live without.

There is definitely not a single woman alive in the Western world who needs a man. While in the past a woman had to put forth effort to obtain a husband who would help her survive, today she is protected by a welfare state that ensures she will never go hungry or spend one night on the street. Even a child she has out of wedlock from a drunken night out will not have to suffer from her mistake, and that’s in spite of the fact that many nations already provide her with free contraception to compensate for her lack of judgement in selecting worthy mates.

Anything required for a woman’s survival or pleasure can be easily achieved without her having to put forth commitment, sacrifice, or labor. She can shave her head, gain 50 pounds, and disfigure herself with tattoos yet still have many suitors to—at the minimum—have sex on demand. Her food and shelter will be provided by a state which has embarked on an extraordinary effort to compete with men for her devotion and loyalty.

I started asking a different question to women: “Do you want a man?â€￾ I began receiving “I don’t knowâ€￾ answers (the more they hesitated to respond, the more I considered their true answer to be a yes). Only in a few instances did a woman outright say yes, and these usually happened in Ukraine. It’s no surprise that I eased into mini-relationships with these yes girls without the standard flaking or game-playing you would normally receive from girls who see men as milk instead of water. The girls who said yes weren’t exactly hurting for food or shelter, and they didn’t try to reach into my pockets for resources, but through their attitude and demeanor it was clear that they did want a man in their life who could provide it with a measure of happiness that could not be gained from their environment or government.

You’re a lucky man if you can find this type of girl in the West. From a young age, girls are brainwashed to believe that they don’t need men and that the key to their happiness is self-empowerment by sleeping around and becoming a corporate wage slave. It’s hard to dispute the notion that a woman who believes she doesn’t need a man won’t make as good of a relationship partner as one who does. She will treat you as a distraction to her more important job, girls’ nights out, and social networking validation happy time. Men have become an utterly replaceable and expendable commodity in a girl’s life. Her interest in a man is not unlike her interest in a new television show or Apple product, and your only hope is to have sex with her as many times as possible until her attractions diminishes and she moves on to the next guy in line.

Women don’t seek out comfort or stability in men anymore—they seek entertainment. They seek distraction. They seek hedonistic pleasure. This is why provider men (beta males) are so hopelessly failing today to secure the commitment of beautiful women in their prime, and this is why even lesser alpha males fail to enter relationships with women beyond a few bangs. Once the entertainment or novelty you provide her declines—and it inevitably will—she moves on to something or someone else. In essence, the only way you can keep a girl is if you adopt the mentality of a soap opera writer, adding a cliffhanger to the end of each episode that keeps a woman interested when being a good man no longer does.

When I look at myself in the mirror, I don’t see a man who has improved himself over the years to be the best that his genes allow—I see a glittery skirt that a girl encounters in the mall. Is the skirt too expensive or is it on sale? Is there only one left of her size or is the rack full of them? Does she already have something similar or is it totally novel? Does her friends think it’s cute or just alright? After trying it on, does it flatter her body or make her look fat? Either she makes the impulsive decision to buy the skirt or not, because odds are she won’t come back for it. There are so many stores with so many skirts that she will soon forget it, forever. We are like glittery pieces of fashion to women—items that she truly doesn’t need. Not only has she already collected so many of them, but she can easily obtain more within walking distance from where she lives. She can even browse online from home while in her pajamas through a nearly unlimited selection.

We are not men in the traditional sense—we are clowns. With our tight game we have to be entertainers who create drama and excitement in a girl’s life, just long enough so that she spreads her legs and makes sexy noises, and even though she did commit such an intimate act with us, she will soon lose interest or simply get bored, and then move on to the next shiny cock that catches her eye. The other side of this coin is that we no longer need women. We don’t need them to maintain our home or cook good meals for us. We don’t need them in an age where having children is no longer important or valued. Whatever natural connection that once existed between the sexes has now been severed. Neither sex needs each other so we dedicate ourselves to corporations, entertainment, and base pleasures instead, and this is a great tragedy that most people believe is a sign of progress, a cause for celebration.

For the next girl I meet, I’m not going to ask her if she needs a man, because I know she doesn’t. Instead I will simply ask her if she wants a man, and if the answer leans yes, I will perform like the good clown I am so that she is entertained enough to have sex with me. Either she or I will eventually get bored and the relationship will end. Then I will simply repeat my performance on a someone new, because I’m a skilled clown, and that’s exactly what women today want.

[S_Parc]

This is pretty much, spot on.

And what's so interesting is that Mel, being a lesbian, also doesn't need a woman, outside of a good lay.

By having been the butch (meaning male figurehead) in her prior lesbian relationships, she'd also gone through the same BS as we did with our own encounters with women.

Therefore, for her, it's being with men only ... the whole one watching one another's back (like in the military), doing stuff like physical exercises, musical concerts, cultural outings, educational courses, etc and women, only for sexual pleasures, but maintaining zero personal contact with them.

[Cornfed]

The other day I was watching Dragon's Den on TV, which is a UK program where people pitch business ideas to investors. One of the people was a solo-mother of four. When the investors asked how she was supporting herself, since she wasn't taking any money from the business, it turned out she was getting about 60k GBP from the state. Some might think that solo-mothers are all impoverished like single men on welfare, but in fact enterprising scroungers can qualify for all manner of handouts - business grants, study grants, housing grants, free childcare, you name it. It goes to show why marriage is on the rocks. The average man could not possibly compete with guvmint hubby as a provider.

[nicho12]

[Teal Lantern]

But how long can this last?

It lasts as long as there is general safety and plenty of clowns.

http://m.topix.com/forum/city/fort-myer ... RK3J7ALRIN

[Moretorque]

This cannot go on much longer because the planet is fixing to buck most of us off, they have the whole system rigged on our political front which governs our lives daily to hide the hidden creditor who is running this con house of cards which they have been building for centuries.

Interesting Cornfed because the Citi of England is where all roads go back to for this system of the nanny state as far as taking it too the whole world.

[Teal Lantern]

The other day I was watching Dragon's Den on TV, which is a UK program where people pitch business ideas to investors. One of the people was a solo-mother of four. When the investors asked how she was supporting herself, since she wasn't taking any money from the business, it turned out she was getting about 60k GBP from the state. Some might think that solo-mothers are all impoverished like single men on welfare, but in fact enterprising scroungers can qualify for all manner of handouts - business grants, study grants, housing grants, free childcare, you name it. It goes to show why marriage is on the rocks. The average man could not possibly compete with guvmint hubby as a provider.

Jobless mother of eleven Heather Frost to get £500,000 luxury home we pay for
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/412088 ... we-pay-for

[NorthAmericanguy]

[Cornfed]

Just to reiterate, and to give my own rendition, just like Roosh said, American women don't need men in the traditional sense of providing the basics anymore as they can provide for themselves.

You mean as the guvmint can provide for them. Obviously females cannot provide for themselves and would starve to death at the drop of a hat if they didn’t have men to provide for them

[NorthAmericanguy]

Just to reiterate, and to give my own rendition, just like Roosh said, American women don't need men in the traditional sense of providing the basics anymore as they can provide for themselves.

You mean as the guvmint can provide for them. Obviously females cannot provide for themselves and would starve to death at the drop of a hat if they didn’t have men to provide for them

Well, women can either go in that direction, or they can just get a job. I would wager that most women get good jobs these days which is, consequently, why so many men can't find jobs for themselves.


Women are making big money these days. For example, the woman Stephanie Courtney who is the "actor" and appears in the commercials for Progressive insurance makes 500k a year. Stepping down you have the female news anchors and sports casters who can rake in 200/300k a year. Then the average median income for American female workers in 2012 was 37k, and mind you, women have the option to not pay any rent when they're living with a man, and they don't need to spend any money to keep a man in their life.

[Cornfed]

Just to reiterate, and to give my own rendition, just like Roosh said, American women don't need men in the traditional sense of providing the basics anymore as they can provide for themselves.

You mean as the guvmint can provide for them. Obviously females cannot provide for themselves and would starve to death at the drop of a hat if they didn’t have men to provide for them

Well, women can either go in that direction, or they can just get a job. I would wager that most women get good jobs these days which is, consequently, why so many men can't find jobs for themselves.

Getting a job is not looking after yourself - it is getting an employer to look after you. The vast majority of female jobs are bullshit welfare jobs mandated by the regime in order to justify handing females a pay check. Many of the rest are jobs that females perform poorly but where the regime mandates that a quota of females be hired. The few jobs females can perform as well or better than men tend to be menial repetitive mechanical jobs designed for them by men where their labor is easily replaceable, so there is no reason they should be paid more than minimum wage. It follows that essentially every female getting more than minimum wage is in fact on the state dole. Then on top of that they receive enhanced state services compared to men. For example, the police exist largely to protect females and healthcare is largely given over to them. Women in the West are essentially adult wards of the state.

[publicduende]

1)

Most women, like most men, can be and are financially independent, whether via a legit job/career or a bunch of government handouts. How ironic that the US, that bastion of unbridled free market capitalism, has by far the most profligate welfare system. I have never heard any other country in the world where Obama and his minions will get the chronically (if not wilfully) unemployed a mobile phone and top-ups, food, shelter and spare cash for videogames and even highs. Not even in Germany, not even in the tiniest corner of Scandinavia (where income tax is around 55% and VAT is 25%). It may well be a typical US phenomenon, and sure as hell is embraced by both men and women. As usual Doosh is only looking at one side of the moon for the sake of his own argument.

2)

Having removed the primal need for a man as a means of support and protection, women are now afforded the luxury of choosing their dates and mates based on such frivolous factors as: physical appearance, youth, asset size, popularity, likeness to the young Hollywood sensation du jour, experience in bed, etc. All of which are, ironically, what most men have been using to make their choices of touch-and-go, uncommitted relationships, and not since the feminist revolution, or shit, but for at least a couple of centuries.

Those of you who use the biological pretext whereby men are expected, in fact encouraged to behave like manwhores while girls who engage in a similar conduct are just whores, are being hypocritical or just deluding themselves. After removing most of the biological and social incentives to choose a stable partner and procreate, all is left for both men and women is to show the middle finger to decency and restraint on religious/moral/common sense basis, and give into the spur of the moment. Without the aid of a superior sense of judgment, both men and women become primarily driven by instinct, as stated by those Greek philosophers of yesteryear.

The "a good woman for every good man" times have gone and won't come back for at least a couple of generations. We won't even have to wait for Cornfed's or Peter Andrew Nolan's apocalyptic visions to happen: the winners are already taking it all. All the better women, by any permutation of physical, socio-economic and intellectual standards we like to think of, are sleeping with men selected in an even smaller pool of similar highs. And since stability and commitment are no longer held as valuable, by boys as well as girls, few men will cry scandal if their latest hot fling is riding another seat on the cock carousel, just like said pretty ladies are happy to let their hot male catches fool around, too. After all, as an Italian comedian used to say, it's better to share a cake than having to eat a large turd alone.

And even if that famous societal collapse were to happen and we were all flung back to some Mad Max/First or the North Star dystopia, do you really think the chances to have our dream girls come seek protection will be higher? As long as the fiction goes, I can imagine the ruthless, the wealthy by foul means, the criminal types having literally harems of girls while most of us will be lucky to be able to fend for their own (lonely) survival.

3)

Roosh is asking stupid questions to ladies, when in fact it's his identity he should be questioning the most. He has failed as a PUA, he is not making much money from his blogs and he is finally admitting (to himself, as well as his audience) that his game can do very little even in Ukraine, in fact in any situation when any half-witted girl can see through him and into the nothingness...no job and financial stability, no social status, no real empathy and emotional intelligence to truly connect to a person, be them Polish hotties or Bulgarian factory workers. Nothing important to offer than this (very) self-referential hyper-masculinity badge of honour. Every time I indulge in reading a couple of his latest posts, I see a man who has nothing left than give the magic wheel another spin, exchanging increasingly unlikely bro-fantasies with his equally deluded manosphere crew, hoping that the dancers will continue to twerk and revel in their own lies while forgetting that the music has stopped, indeed it might have never started.

[Moretorque]

1)

Most women, like most men, can be and are financially independent, whether via a legit job/career or a bunch of government handouts. How ironic that the US, that bastion of unbridled free market capitalism, has by far the most profligate welfare system. I have never heard any other country in the world where Obama and his minions will get the chronically (if not wilfully) unemployed a mobile phone and top-ups, food, shelter and spare cash for videogames and even highs. Not even in Germany, not even in the tiniest corner of Scandinavia (where income tax is around 55% and VAT is 25%). It may well be a typical US phenomenon, and sure as hell is embraced by both men and women. As usual Doosh is only looking at one side of the moon for the sake of his own argument.

2)

Having removed the primal need for a man as a means of support and protection, women are now afforded the luxury of choosing their dates and mates based on such frivolous factors as: physical appearance, youth, asset size, popularity, likeness to the young Hollywood sensation du jour, experience in bed, etc. All of which are, ironically, what most men have been using to make their choices of touch-and-go, uncommitted relationships, and not since the feminist revolution, or shit, but for at least a couple of centuries.

Those of you who use the biological pretext whereby men are expected, in fact encouraged to behave like manwhores while girls who engage in a similar conduct are just whores, are being hypocritical or just deluding themselves. After removing most of the biological and social incentives to choose a stable partner and procreate, all is left for both men and women is to show the middle finger to decency and restraint on religious/moral/common sense basis, and give into the spur of the moment. Without the aid of a superior sense of judgment, both men and women become primarily driven by instinct, as stated by those Greek philosophers of yesteryear.

The "a good woman for every good man" times have gone and won't come back for at least a couple of generations. We won't even have to wait for Cornfed's or Peter Andrew Nolan's apocalyptic visions to happen: the winners are already taking it all. All the better women, by any permutation of physical, socio-economic and intellectual standards we like to think of, are sleeping with men selected in an even smaller pool of similar highs. And since stability and commitment are no longer held as valuable, by boys as well as girls, few men will cry scandal if their latest hot fling is riding another seat on the cock carousel, just like said pretty ladies are happy to let their hot male catches fool around, too. After all, as an Italian comedian used to say, it's better to share a cake than having to eat a large turd alone.

And even if that famous societal collapse were to happen and we were all flung back to some Mad Max/First or the North Star dystopia, do you really think the chances to have our dream girls come seek protection will be higher? As long as the fiction goes, I can imagine the ruthless, the wealthy by foul means, the criminal types having literally harems of girls while most of us will be lucky to be able to fend for their own (lonely) survival.

3)

Roosh is asking stupid questions to ladies, when in fact it's his identity he should be questioning the most. He has failed as a PUA, he is not making much money from his blogs and he is finally admitting (to himself, as well as his audience) that his game can do very little even in Ukraine, in fact in any situation when any half-witted girl can see through him and into the nothingness...no job and financial stability, no social status, no real empathy and emotional intelligence to truly connect to a person, be them Polish hotties or Bulgarian factory workers. Nothing important to offer than this (very) self-referential hyper-masculinity badge of honour. Every time I indulge in reading a couple of his latest posts, I see a man who has nothing left than give the magic wheel another spin, exchanging increasingly unlikely bro-fantasies with his equally deluded manosphere crew, hoping that the dancers will continue to twerk and revel in their own lies while forgetting that the music has stopped, indeed it might have never started.

I started on #1 and quit, capitalism please explain. How can what is left of America be capitalism when all 10 planks of the communist manifesto are in operation here?

[Moretorque]

1)

Most women, like most men, can be and are financially independent, whether via a legit job/career or a bunch of government handouts. How ironic that the US, that bastion of unbridled free market capitalism, has by far the most profligate welfare system. I have never heard any other country in the world where Obama and his minions will get the chronically (if not wilfully) unemployed a mobile phone and top-ups, food, shelter and spare cash for videogames and even highs. Not even in Germany, not even in the tiniest corner of Scandinavia (where income tax is around 55% and VAT is 25%). It may well be a typical US phenomenon, and sure as hell is embraced by both men and women. As usual Doosh is only looking at one side of the moon for the sake of his own argument.

2)

Having removed the primal need for a man as a means of support and protection, women are now afforded the luxury of choosing their dates and mates based on such frivolous factors as: physical appearance, youth, asset size, popularity, likeness to the young Hollywood sensation du jour, experience in bed, etc. All of which are, ironically, what most men have been using to make their choices of touch-and-go, uncommitted relationships, and not since the feminist revolution, or shit, but for at least a couple of centuries.

Those of you who use the biological pretext whereby men are expected, in fact encouraged to behave like manwhores while girls who engage in a similar conduct are just whores, are being hypocritical or just deluding themselves. After removing most of the biological and social incentives to choose a stable partner and procreate, all is left for both men and women is to show the middle finger to decency and restraint on religious/moral/common sense basis, and give into the spur of the moment. Without the aid of a superior sense of judgment, both men and women become primarily driven by instinct, as stated by those Greek philosophers of yesteryear.

The "a good woman for every good man" times have gone and won't come back for at least a couple of generations. We won't even have to wait for Cornfed's or Peter Andrew Nolan's apocalyptic visions to happen: the winners are already taking it all. All the better women, by any permutation of physical, socio-economic and intellectual standards we like to think of, are sleeping with men selected in an even smaller pool of similar highs. And since stability and commitment are no longer held as valuable, by boys as well as girls, few men will cry scandal if their latest hot fling is riding another seat on the cock carousel, just like said pretty ladies are happy to let their hot male catches fool around, too. After all, as an Italian comedian used to say, it's better to share a cake than having to eat a large turd alone.

And even if that famous societal collapse were to happen and we were all flung back to some Mad Max/First or the North Star dystopia, do you really think the chances to have our dream girls come seek protection will be higher? As long as the fiction goes, I can imagine the ruthless, the wealthy by foul means, the criminal types having literally harems of girls while most of us will be lucky to be able to fend for their own (lonely) survival.

3)

Roosh is asking stupid questions to ladies, when in fact it's his identity he should be questioning the most. He has failed as a PUA, he is not making much money from his blogs and he is finally admitting (to himself, as well as his audience) that his game can do very little even in Ukraine, in fact in any situation when any half-witted girl can see through him and into the nothingness...no job and financial stability, no social status, no real empathy and emotional intelligence to truly connect to a person, be them Polish hotties or Bulgarian factory workers. Nothing important to offer than this (very) self-referential hyper-masculinity badge of honour. Every time I indulge in reading a couple of his latest posts, I see a man who has nothing left than give the magic wheel another spin, exchanging increasingly unlikely bro-fantasies with his equally deluded manosphere crew, hoping that the dancers will continue to twerk and revel in their own lies while forgetting that the music has stopped, indeed it might have never started.

I started on #1 and quit, capitalism please explain. How can what is left of America be capitalism when all 10 planks of the communist manifesto are in operation here?

[Teal Lantern]

The "Obama" Phone
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt

Food Stamp Act of 1964
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/food_stamps
(Obama wasn't running for office quite yet)

Medical care
Medicare Turns 48 (2013)
http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-ins ... -1965.html

The President's most vocal critics (no matter which president) often don't know and usually don't care that these programs were put in place long before he got in office. The media helps with that impression. The only disagreement the major political parties have is when and how fast to expand the programs and who gets credit (or blame).