« Japanese gadget of the day | Main | Cap and trade vs. carbon taxes »
Where Pretty Lies Perish
Should I, if only for didactic purposes, ever link to EVIL websites? Since Michael Blowhard directed my attention to Roissy I've been facing this dilemma again. Not only won't I link to him but I have to put this unsalubrious and indeed embarrassing discussion under the fold...
Roissy promotes an aggressively instrumentalist view of the sexes; imagine Larry David as a scoreman plus make the language of the monologues ruder and more offensive. He also thinks like an economist and uses marginalism: "Smells bad. (when a shower isn’t going to help your cause, why bother?)"
My question is which parameter value he incorrectly estimates; after all, he is not just evil he is also imprudent in missing the joys of monogamy and matrimony. I believe that most of all, he underestimates his transparency to his observers in real life. I sometimes call this the endogeneity of face to thought and thus his face must be somewhat evil too. Since his strategies cause him to spend time only with women he can fool, he doesn't correctly perceive how he is wrecking his broader reputation; the same is probably true for the rest of us as well.
(But IS he evil? Is there not a theorem which suggests that rule-governed sweet young things will in fact overinvest in the rule and, if you could selectively induce "rule disengagement," human welfare might rise? But no...that theorem was refuted some time ago.)
Can he still be saved by a good woman? Indeed there are so many good women out there and yet not one has saved him to date. If only he would read Henry James's "Beast in the Jungle."
Poor Roissy. Poor, poor Roissy. Here's his advice for much older men who wish to attract 25-year-old women:
Bear in mind that younger women (barring a few notable golddigger exceptions) are not as practical as older women. They are more whimsical, flirty, passionate, and romantic, and this means you will get more mileage having a youthful outlook, being recklessly spontaneous, maintaining a high level of energy, and focusing on the emotional connections, than you would tempting them with the allure of financial stability and security.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on June 4, 2008 at 12:26 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
Wouldn't want to be him, but his unsentimental view of intersex relations does allow him some interesting insights. I could have used some of his advice in high school.
Posted by: Thelonious_Nick at Jun 4, 2008 12:51:11 PM
Since I'm a jerk, I would normally link to the website at this point. But since I like you and your site, I'll refrain. :P
Actually, I am totally confused as to what you're trying to say. What automatically makes him evil/wrong? That seems to be a critical assumption that you seem to be making that quite frankly is a bit...hasty, mayhaps?
Roissy seems to be a happy guy. He doesn't need to be saved. And I think he would disagree with the notion that he is "fooling" women. Rather, he is presenting the image of himself that the women find most attractive. Or at least the women with whom he interacts
I'll agree on two things, though:
-He underrates monogamy (though a lot of people simply derive pleasure in having exclusive "rights" to their significant others...perhaps sharing doesn't bother Roissy very much)
-His strict view on gender relations is over-simplified.
Posted by: Robert Olson at Jun 4, 2008 12:55:54 PM
I think he's mostly a beneficial force. I think of him as I do security hackers who publish weaknesses in encryption algorithms. His advice might be useful to cynical wanna-be playboys, but it is definitely useful to otherwise naive women.
Posted by: Tony at Jun 4, 2008 1:01:09 PM
Well, I am aware of Roissy, but I don't read him unless someone else that I read links to one of his posts. Essentially, I'm using others to filter Roissy because I feel he sometimes writes really good things, but constant exposure to his way of thinking is most likely harmful.
Posted by: August at Jun 4, 2008 1:05:36 PM
I have seen his website, much to my great distress. The unpleasant part is not so much this Roissy character himself - I am unlikely to ever encounter him, or if so to be targeted, or if so to be vulnerable to him - but the fact that his outlook is so incredibly nonunique. Most of the single men I know (generally age 25-35) share his goals; very few of the single women I know do. Worse, virtually all of the single men I know and many of my married acquaintances of both genders share his outlook on gender relations; however, again, very few - possibly none - of the single women think this way.
Of course, this is part of a larger, depressing (if you are a single woman over 25) phenomenon in which the pool of male singles rapidly empties of worthwhile individuals, while the pool of female singles rapidly empties of attractive yet vapid or at least highly suggestible individuals, leaving the intelligent, interesting, and not entirely spineless women to attempt to "save" the likes of Roissy. For all that it is a cliche, this is a reality and because it is a cliche it is often discounted.
Posted by: capella at Jun 4, 2008 1:09:46 PM
While I don't agree with everything Roissy says (I agree that he underrates monogamy), he does have some great insights. I don't think he's as bad as you say, just more brutally honest about who he is and what he wants. He chooses an ugly truth over a convenient beautiful fiction. He just chooses to look for the ugliest truths he can find.
Is he manipulative? "Fooling" women? Who doesn't fool potential mates to some degree? I have a lot of bad habits and tendencies that I conveniently hide when courting a woman, and I'm sure all of us are guilty of this. Aren't we "evilly" manipulative and fooling women as well then? Or let's look at women...is that how she really smells? (Perfume) Are those her real breasts? And if they're not implants, is it a water bra or other cleavage enhancing innovation designed to fool men into believing the breasts are bigger than they really are? Slimming underwear? (She's not that skinny) High heels (she;s not really that tall and her calves don't look that great all the time)? Makeup? (her lips and cheeks aren't naturally that flush and arousing). Hair extensions? Fake eyelashes? Spray tan or tanning salon (she's actually quite pale)? Women manipulate and fool men all the time.
I'm not bringing this up to trash women as evil or deceitful or to laud Roissy as noble, just to say that it's human nature to manipulate and present the most appealing version of yourself you can concoct to the opposite sex. Roissy using top-notch game is no more evil or deceitful to the opposite sex than a woman using makeup, tans, fake hair and lashes and body enhancing clothing to seem extra appealing to a man she wants to attract.
The same goes for resumes and job interviews. You present yourself in the best possible light you can while omitting any flaws you can get away with omitting, using some exaggerating and savviness while hopefully not going into the territory of outright lying.
Posted by: T. at Jun 4, 2008 1:21:02 PM
One of the great aspects of Roissy's blog is that he doesn't censor or delete comments. Roissy is essentially telling the truth, without sugar coating. Also, his player advices are good. In the end, men are mostly attracted to women between the ages of 15-25, and that doesn't change. A woman's value for a man is directly related to her remaining fertility, a topic most economists aren't willing to cover.
Posted by: Gannon at Jun 4, 2008 1:22:24 PM
Having read these comments but not the actual guy's writing, I would suggest he is also underestimating the happiness of being able to converse with a intelligent, self-confident woman.
Poor Roissy. Poor, poor Roissy.
I sense some of the trademark Tyler sarcasm here. Indeed, Tyler. Indeed.
Posted by: mk at Jun 4, 2008 1:22:46 PM
Of course, this is part of a larger, depressing (if you are a single woman over 25) phenomenon in which the pool of male singles rapidly empties of worthwhile individuals, while the pool of female singles rapidly empties of attractive yet vapid or at least highly suggestible individuals, leaving the intelligent, interesting, and not entirely spineless women to attempt to "save" the likes of Roissy. For all that it is a cliche, this is a reality and because it is a cliche it is often discounted.
The real problem is that too many women squander their years of prime attractiveness buying into the feminist myths that say a woman can doggedly chase achievements and credentials just like a man well into her 30s and still be considered a prime catch for marriage and family-building. Then they get there and realize that the men their age are going for hot women in their 20s. Men become more attractive to women the more credentials and money they accumulate. Since feminism tells women they are not just equal to men but exactly the same, modern women start buying into the myth that advanced age, credentials and top careers and money accumulation will make them a top draw in the mating game to, just like it does for men. Then they get mad at how "unfair" the world is when they realize it's not so. They have no one to blame but themselves. Men have always been honest about what they want in women: be attractive, have plenty of child-bearing years left, act pleasant, don't be emasculating and be able to hold a conversation. Men never asked women to get these credentials and put off marriage to the age where most men no longer find them as attractive. It's these women's own fault for listening to other feminists' advice for how to get a man rather than listening to men themselves. We're simple visual creatures. We've never denied this, we've been open about it from the beginning.
Posted by: T. at Jun 4, 2008 1:29:52 PM
When it comes to the sexual marketplace women have ALL the choice. By dispensing field-tested tactics for attracting women Roissy is leveling the playing field. Men who learn game can have choice just like women do. And what T said: women need to take some of Roissy's advice and get the best man they can while still attractive, ie your early 20's. This was the conventional wisdom for 99.99999% of human history, but suddenly the sixties changed and women now waste their flowering years pursuing careers that add positively zero to their mate value, then wonder, in their stretch-marked thirties, where all the eligible men are. They're all chasing you ten years ago hon, the sixties didn't change human nature.
Posted by: Sebastian Flyte at Jun 4, 2008 1:38:50 PM
Tom Leykis has been doing this schtick on the radio for years. Yeah, it's sociopathic, but very entertaining (to this unabashed beta male, anyway) and one of my great guilty pleasures for the ride home from work.
Posted by: mobile at Jun 4, 2008 1:39:11 PM
As noxious as T.'s comments are, his opinion is worthwhile for its honesty.
I will say that gender expectations are a two-way street, and insofar as one side is dominating the conversation about expectations, it should offend our sense of fairness.
Women's rights is a recent movement and it has many years to play out. If the playing field is changing we must acknowledge that and not stick to the same ideas that have held by default in the past.
Women and men are not adversaries, so men should not attempt to keep them in a "box." Rather, men and women participate in many positive-sum scenarios with each other. Wink wink, nudge nudge. It is best to be mutually supporting, and to support the self-actualization of everybody.
Posted by: mk at Jun 4, 2008 1:46:39 PM
C'mon, are we children? This should in no way be taken as a 'defense' (or criticism) of the linked material, but it's basic Internet etiquette to link to the people you are discussing, out of respect for your audience, and out of fairness to the people you are characterizing.
If you don't want to link to someone, lest you advertise them to an "innocent" world, then don't talk about them specifically at all.
I certainly don't like the implication that you think your readers are incapable of making their own sensible independent judgments of material you believe yourself qualified to morally and intellectually evaluate.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Jun 4, 2008 1:47:05 PM
"...modern women start buying into the myth that advanced age, credentials and top careers and money accumulation will make them a top draw in the mating game to, just like it does for men."
I know a lot of women with amazing credentials, top careers, and lots of money, in fact I am married to one of them (except the money part), and I have never ever heard anything to suggest that they believe these characteristics made them "a top draw in the mating game". In fact, I would propose that anyone who makes such a claim about successful career women doesn't actually know any.
"We're simple visual creatures."
Speak for yourself. Visuals are certainly not unimportant, but they get me about to the one year mark of a relationship. Beyond that, it's character and brains all the way down.
Posted by: Commenterlein at Jun 4, 2008 1:47:16 PM
T, I do not think women are generally surprised by the fact that men are not attracted to intelligence and professional success. Annoyed, yes. Frustrated. Angry. Disappointed. We understand that by increasing our abilities, financial status, accomplishments, and personal autonomy we are dramatically decreasing our attractiveness to men. However - and this will alarm you - some women would rather be happy than married, if they are going to have to make a choice. We complain about it the way people complain about traffic or the weather; it's certainly not news that men are "simple visual creatures" with the collective depth and maturity of a soap bubble, but it's still unpleasant.
Posted by: capella at Jun 4, 2008 1:50:14 PM
As a last comment, I think the real truth here is that both men and women are torn by two desires:
Men: 1) Sleep with many women 2) Find comfort, meaning, support, companionship
Women: 1) Sleep with the stud 2) Find comfort, meaning, support, companionship
We are still oriented around that alpha male idea, but on the other hand we are normal people with normal lives and have more intelligent and complex needs than, say, antelope.
Many people try to take one of their two desires and say that's all there is. The truth is we balance. We compromise. That tension is part of the essence of life.
Posted by: mk at Jun 4, 2008 1:59:58 PM
Like Steve Sailer, Roissy is evil, but it's good to have him around because so many more people think how he does than dare to say so. Suppressing the idea isn't good.
Posted by: Noumenon at Jun 4, 2008 2:00:48 PM
capella,
It doesn't decrease a woman's attractiveness to a man when she increase her "abilities, financial status, accomplishments, and personal autonomy". It's just that these things don't increase them (much).
Put simply, a 24 year old law student is typically more attractive to men than that same woman will be 20 years later when she is a partner at a law firm.
Posted by: roy at Jun 4, 2008 2:04:19 PM
Come on, people. A big chunk of this blog's readership is already profoundly evil. I certainly am.
Posted by: Scott Scheule at Jun 4, 2008 2:05:28 PM
"Having read these comments but not the actual guy's writing, I would suggest he is also underestimating the happiness of being able to converse with a intelligent, self-confident woman."
You underestimate the happiness a man feels when he looks upon his beautiful wife or girlfriend. That is the delusion. Intelligence and self-confidence are no substitute for the deep and primal attraction a man has to a beautiful woman. If you would bother to read his blog, detach yourself from the years of feminist tutelage that sold you the idea that women are equal if not superior to men, instead of complementary then you would understand truths that while painful to accept may help you understand the world, and men, better.
Posted by: DF at Jun 4, 2008 2:09:54 PM
It's interesting to see misogyny theatre is always running somewhere.
Posted by: L2P at Jun 4, 2008 2:11:05 PM
"However - and this will alarm you - some women would rather be happy than married, if they are going to have to make a choice."
I would agree with this thought from the male perspective as well. However, I do think that some sort of relationship is usually better than none at all. Deciding that being single is the way to maximize happiness is a fine decision but few people that I know who end up here (admittedly, mostly men on my side) are completely happy that this is the "best outcome".
Whether due to social conditioning or innate human characteristics, a partnership seems more ideal.
Posted by: JD at Jun 4, 2008 2:18:31 PM
I don't deny there is happiness from physical attraction. That's obvious. Attraction to intelligence and personality is, as you might say, complementary.
Women are not the same as men, but they are worthy of equal respect in achieving what they want in the world without social opprobrium or second-guessing.
I don't know any better than you do what the true self-actualization of a woman consists of (it is obvious it will be different for different people). Because neither of us knows, it is to everyone's advantage that men give the women themselves the freedom and space to determine this for themselves.
I am convinced this will lead to more satisfying and fulfilling "positive sum interactions."
Posted by: mk at Jun 4, 2008 2:20:31 PM
Not to mention more frequent.
Posted by: mk at Jun 4, 2008 2:23:03 PM
Are you kidding? Roissy is pretty tactless, but he's still not as bad as Douchebag Supreme Tucker Max. That guy could use a severe beating.
Posted by: Christina at Jun 4, 2008 2:28:00 PM
