[Tresdus]

Some vine celebrity (1,4mil followers) put out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBkGqmqhqqI
saying what he wants in a girl, like shaved armpits.

Watch this commentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZIXYM6Q-Y

[eradicator]

[Jackreacher]

[vinman]

This kid has 1.4 MILLION followers!….. Let that sink in.

[Citlalli]

Lol they aren't men, and their standards and that video are hella stupid

[Private Man]

OK, who is responsible for the feedback? He's obviously a Red Pill Manosphere kind of guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXZIXYM6Q-Y

I want buy that guy a beer.

[Cr33pin]

[assman]

Imagine the outrage if that kid said he had body standards for chicks.

[Excelsior]

Have you guys ever wondered why so many male celebrities go out of their way to voice their alignment with "feminism"? Did you ever wonder why so many seem anxious to white knight on a regular basis and/or engage in otherwise highly blue pill behavior that we would not normally associate with a high value male?

You can now see why. Nash Grier has shown us what happens to high value men with large female fanbases who dare to express anything but the most inclusive ideology and standards. Men like John Legend and Joseph Gordon Leavitt (two celebrities who have recently voiced their affinity for "feminism" - there are hundreds of other examples) are well aware of this and, if they aren't, their marketing/PR teams will coach them accordingly.

The fact is that their fanbases are predominantly female. Women are doing most of the subscribing/following of their social media accounts, buying most of the products they advertise, buying most of the tickets to their shows/movies, and generally providing the most vocal support that drives their celebrity. Modern celebrity culture is highly feminized by necessity - it is built to cater to those who fuel it most: women.

These female fanbases consist of young (usually anywhere from 12-25) women who are, more often than not, quite insecure. Their fandom is often based heavily on the maintenance of a mental "relationship" with the celebrity: they may never date him, but they like to maintain the fantasy that they could someday and often place themselves in that position in their own hearts and minds. The maintenance of that relationship is the key to his celebrity: it is what keeps these girls going to his premiers, buying tickets to his shows, subscribing to every one of his social media accounts and snapping up every song he makes on itunes. This imaginary relationship is extremely important to these girls on a personal level, and they are extremely insecure about any notion that could take it away from them.

When he sings a love/romantic song, they imagine that he is singing to them personally.
When he gives a coy prettyboy wink/smile in a video, picture or a movie, they imagine that he is communicating directly with them personally.
When he talks about his hobbies/activities, they imagine how said activities make him a perfect fit for them pesonally.

And, finally, when he talks about his wants/desires, they imagine that he is speaking personally to them.

This last bit is key because of her insecurity: she has built up this fantasy and the last thing she wants is to have it contradicted in any way, especially by the male in question. When he says there is something that he doesn't like in a girl, she will imagine that he is speaking directly to her. If she perceives herself to be lacking some trait he explicitly desires, she'll get very upset.

Ex: Celebrity male says he likes girls who shave.

Her reaction: "Wait, I haven't shaven in a couple of weeks. I mean, I sometimes shave, but not, like, all the time. OMG - does this mean he wouldn't like me? OMG!"

He's ruined her fantasy. Her insecurity will have her fretting about this endlessly.

Now, you may ask the following:
"Why does she care so much about not meeting one standard of a guy she'll probably never meet? Why does it matter to her? Further, even if it does matter, why couldn't she just change a little to meet that standard? Is shaving that hard? How is that a high standard?"

The answer to all of the above is simple: insecurity.

She's too insecure about herself on a personal and physical level to handle any level of criticism. She copes with this insecurity by maintaining this fantasy relationship with the celebrity, a relationship in which she has all she could ever want with a guy who is all she could ever want and doesn't really have to do anything to maintain it. When that fantasy is crushed for whatever reason, it exposes her to her insecurities again.

Because of this insecurity, she NEEDS that fantasy relationship. She NEEDS him to like her or, at the very least, potentially like her in her fantasy mind. Anything that would lead her to even remotely question the possibility of him liking her is a no-no, because her insecurities will run wild and leave her upset, angry and even depressed. This is true even though her logical brain understands that she'll probably never actually meet or date this famous male in real life.

When Nash Grier noted that he wasn't a big fan of girls who didn't shave, all of the girls who don't shave (or hadn't shaven at some point in the past, or feared that they may go an extended period of time without shaving in the future) had their insecurities directly engaged. They now wondered if he'd like them, and began to doubt to some degree that he did.

When Grier noted that he liked girls with freckles, he activated the insecurities of all the girls who lack them. The fact that he didn't say he disliked girls without freckles is not relevant: the mere possibility of his preferring girls who have them is enough to get all of his female followers who lack them concerned and upset about the possibility that he might not like them.

You'll notice that many of the critical comments directed at Grier seem to imply that he was ordering them around. Statements like this:
"I can have as much hair on my body as I feel comfortable with!"
"I prefer guys who don't tell me what to do!"
"How about you don't order girls to look a certain way?!"
"Girls don't have to obey you!"

Anybody who watched the video can tell that Nash Grier was guilty of none of the above. He was merely stating his preferences, not claiming that all women were obligated to meet them.
But remember what I said earlier: these women love him and are, in many cases, in a fantasy relationship with him. They NEED him to like them and they take what he says and does personally.
It is this need that awakens their power as consumers: when his face shows up next to a product he's advertising and endorsing, they feel the need to buy it. When he creates a video or social media account, they feel obligated to watch/follow it and listen to what he says. When he releases a song, they're obligated to download it or go to his concert and listen to it.

Similarly, when he critiques them or sets some sort personal preference/standard, they feel obligated to meet it, even though they should not logically be compelled to do so.

Thus, you can see how this insecure need female fans have in their desire to bond with such high value celebrity males that creates these males' celebrity power in the first place (makes them valuable for endorsements, gets them followers, sells their songs, etc) and can also limit what they can say/do publicly. A large part of his job as a celebrity is to sell a dream and a fantasy to millions of young women out there. He has to walk on eggshells in order to keep that fantasy intact and keep the money rolling in.

This is why celebrity males so often cannot voice legitimate standards of even the most basic variety. The risk of a majority of their fanbase taking it personally is simply too great because so many girls are insecure about so many things.
Thus, when these guys get the chance or are prompted to talk of standards, they keep it real simple:

"I like strong, independent women." - This is a great go-to. All of his female fans, regardless of what they look like or where they're from, can convince themselves that they are strong and independent. He can't offend anyone.

"Just be yourself." - Even safer. He is basically saying to every female out there that she's perfect for him the way she is.

"I love women who are beautiful on the inside." Another great go-to. Any female can convince herself that she fits this bill even if she's actually a bitch to most of the people she comes into contact with. Low risk of offending anyone.

What isn't okay for him to say?

"I like athletic girls" - This will build fans among the girls who've played sports or enjoy them, but it will awaken the insecurities of the many who were never particularly inclined to athletics and who hated gym class (or who are out of shape).

"I love freckles" - Any girl who doesn't have freckles will begin to wonder if you like her.

"I love big tits" - Even girls with sizable breasts are often insecure about their bust size and convinced that they're too small. Thus, such a comment would have a high risk of offending just about all of his female fanbase.

"I love fit girls" - Obviously a high risk of offending the fat/chubby chicks, but also a high risk of offending the fit chicks who THINK they're fat.

All in all, this episode is illustrative of why being (or pretending to be) a white knight is good business for many famous, high value men. They probably don't believe all that they say (few rational, sane men would), but they know what makes them money and what doesn't.

[Tuthmosis]

I'm posting this in every thread where it's relevant.

   

[Excelsior]

(01-09-2014 05:24 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I'm posting this in every thread where it's relevant.

That's a good summary of why Nash Grier got in trouble.

Celebrity men who want to keep the cash flowing need to sell the dream at all costs. Truth is superfluous.

[Rotisserie]

By what I'm understanding, this is a good-looking dude. Although good looking guys are afforded many passes in the dating game, sometimes these guys have less leeway with portraying confidence and belittling girls. It reminds me of the Bieber incident telling some fat bitch she was a beached whale in public. Now, unless she did something to offend him, the fact that someone who's so genetically (and monetarily) blessed doesn't have the tact to realize that he's proverbially piling on to a girl who's obviously way, way less 'gifted' is what got everyone's panties up in a bunch.

As Patrice once said, fame is just a way for guys to get even with pussy. If you have a pussy and are attractive, you're already a celebrity. You'll get approached by strangers on the street asking for something. When a 9 girl harshly rejects a 6 beta w/ no game, it's just cruel. The same happens with (good looking) celebrity dudes, but I'd venture the consequences are worse. There's the possibility that that 6 beta can recover, shore up his game, and eventually tear it up. But females are much more 'rejection sensitive'… when a 9 celebrity male stomps on a 6 plain ass female, there's very, very little chance she'll recover.

[commiejoe]

I couldn't watch the video.
The account was terminated.
Not sure if it was "report" trashed by youtube, or if the account holder deleted it themselves.

[Excelsior]

(01-09-2014 05:55 PM)Rotisserie Wrote:  

By what I'm understanding, this is a good-looking dude. Although good looking guys are afforded many passes in the dating game, sometimes these guys have less leeway with portraying confidence and belittling girls.

Bingo. This is a topic that doesn't often get brought up in the manosphere, but it is quite important. There is such a thing as "Good Looking Guy Game" and there are indeed different approaches that good looking guys must take in dealing with women.

You've hit on a couple of them here. Young women are highly insecure about themselves. This insecurity is heightened around high value men. I mentioned above how that insecurity plays into their relationship with celebrities, but it also impacts their relationship with ANY attractive, high-value guy they come across.

Guys often underestimate the impact of a girl feeling that a guy is "too good for her". She sees an attractive dude who seems perfect for her and becomes very insecure about being the kind of woman he'd want to take seriously. There are a decent number of girls who will shy away from (or play hard to get with) guys who they feel are "too good for them". This is self-defence as far as they're concerned. They're insecure and they're defending their feelings from what they perceive to be a high chance of hurt (because they're confident they aren't good enough to hold you).

If you are one of these guys, you must run "good looking guy" game all the time. In short, that means assume high value. Assume attraction (this means getting your inner game on point - understand that you look good) and do less. With attraction already built, you don't have to work as hard in the interaction. She already likes you, so skip the routines, the canned negs, the canned kino, etc, etc, and just be as naturally confident as you can be. If you do any more, you'll look like a try-hard and she will lose attraction despite your looks (it will be a sign of low value).

Many girls will, based on your looks, assume that you're an overconfident, cocky douche and fear being belittled by you. You must avoid falling into that stereotype as best you can. In short, you have to be fun, cool and confident without being a dick AND without looking as though you're trying too hard (which, again, will make you appear creepy, weird, or low-value to her).

"Good looking guy" game can also be considered "fuck-up avoidance" game. Sometimes, it is actually better for a good looking guy to just do less and take a more passive, laid back approach. This gives him the best chance of avoiding the dangers associated with female insecurity and his ability as a good looking guy to awaken it.

[Merenguero]

(01-09-2014 07:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Guys often underestimate the impact of a girl feeling that a guy is "too good for her". She sees an attractive dude who seems perfect for her and becomes very insecure about being the kind of woman he'd want to take seriously. There are a decent number of girls who will shy away from (or play hard to get with) guys who they feel are "too good for them". This is self-defence as far as they're concerned. They're insecure and they're defending their feelings from what they perceive to be a high chance of hurt (because they're confident they aren't good enough to hold you).

This is one of the most important points I have ever read on the forum.

[redpillrage33]

Athlone, I think what you call "good-looking guy game" is actually a subset of pre-selected game (i.e. celebrities, rockstars, millionaires, etc. need do nothing to prove themselves and will pull as long as they don't do something to negate the auto-attraction). But otherwise I entirely agree with you.

[vinman]

(01-09-2014 07:39 PM)Merenguero Wrote:  

(01-09-2014 07:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Guys often underestimate the impact of a girl feeling that a guy is "too good for her". She sees an attractive dude who seems perfect for her and becomes very insecure about being the kind of woman he'd want to take seriously. There are a decent number of girls who will shy away from (or play hard to get with) guys who they feel are "too good for them". This is self-defence as far as they're concerned. They're insecure and they're defending their feelings from what they perceive to be a high chance of hurt (because they're confident they aren't good enough to hold you).

This is one of the most important points I have ever read on the forum.

I've actually experienced this. Not because of looks or money, but because I read a lot. A couple of different women that thought that I was a muscle head saw some books that I had read at my place and got intimidated instead of intrigued. These were very basic books by Thomas Sowell because I wanted to learn more about economics. Being a man is all about self improvement.

[Screwston]

A good looking guy who's laid back, confident and nice is a deadly combination.

[Rotisserie]

This is where I think the 1-10 scale is so important. A guy should know where he stands on that scale, purely physically, and adjust for first-time interactions. If the girl is equal, she can stand light teasing. But if she's something like 2 points below, follow Athlone's advice:

(01-09-2014 07:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Many girls will, based on your looks, assume that you're an overconfident, cocky douche and fear being belittled by you. You must avoid falling into that stereotype as best you can.

Now if she's 2+ points above? You can be Patrice.

[Quintus Curtius]

I think it's instructive to see all this from a power aspect.

Feminism (and ass-kissing of females) is the established orthodoxy here in the US. It's the reigning ideology.

Celebrities in the US are the "aristocrats" or "guardians" of this orthodoxy, whether knowingly or unknowingly. America does not have a landed aristocracy in the same way that Europe or Asia once did. Our aristocracy here bases its power on money and celebrity.

And just like the dukes, duchesses, and aristocrats of old, all aristocracies need a ruling ideology that binds them together and has utility in controlling the restless masses. It has always been so. Look at how the aristocracies of all societies in history controlled their populations: it was done with a mixture of force and indoctrination.

So, these celebrities are going to mouth the platitudes of feminism. It's only logical for them. They don't even know what they're saying, on most levels. No more so than a count or countess in medieval Europe knew what he or she meant when the affirmed the doctrines of the Church. They have to do it.

My point is that every society has a ruling class that uses some ideological system to keep the rabble under control. In the US, a big component of that PC ideology is feminism.

That's why, as a man, you're not allowed to question it without stirring up a hornet's nest. You're not allowed to express your preferences for beautiful women, your contempt for feminism, etc., etc. Which all of us already know.

See these celebrities as equivalent to members of the priestly classes of ancient Egypt who kept the peasants in line, or members of the clergy in medieval Europe, indoctrinating people on approved thoughts and forbidden thoughts...they are members of the ruling class responsible for ideological indoctrination and dissemination.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I've done some looking into this and I think I can explain what happened.

Nash Grier became an online sensation around eight months ago because of a bunch of cutesy/dorky Vine vids he did -- some with his little sister. His fame was built on nerd appeal or dork appeal or whatever. And all done in vert silly six-second clips.

Then he comes out with the (now deleted) long-form YouTube video where he and some friends come off as too cool for school in the eyes of his audience.

So the backlash occurred not because of what he said per se, but because he shook up the expectations of his particular audience. If Snoop Dogg said the same thing it would have been tame because his audience has a different set of expectations. In the '60s the Beatles faced this when Lennon made his "Jesus" comment, which was totally out of line with what their screaming teen-girl fans expected. Had one of the Stones said this, people would have been a lot less surprised.

Similarly, if Roosh or Roissy changed their tune and started posting videos about the joys of marrying older women with multiple children ("Stop being shallow, guys!!!"), they'd face a backlash -- where ManBoobs wouldn't.

Gotta know your audience. Or at least gradually morph your image into something different, a la Bieber and Miley.

PS: This doesn't excuse the manginas taking him to task, like the talentless Hank Green, who is only famous because his bro wrote a couple of good Young Adult novels. If you're reading this, fuck you Hank -- you suck and have accomplished nothing in your life.

[caracal]

While these good looking guys and male celebrities may be on the face of it singing the praises of feminism, how many of them are actually dicking pussy left, right and centre in their private lives? I'd wager most of them.

[Excelsior]

(01-10-2014 12:01 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I think it's instructive to see all this from a power aspect.

Feminism (and ass-kissing of females) is the established orthodoxy here in the US. It's the reigning ideology.

Celebrities in the US are the "aristocrats" or "guardians" of this orthodoxy, whether knowingly or unknowingly. America does not have a landed aristocracy in the same way that Europe or Asia once did. Our aristocracy here bases its power on money and celebrity.

And just like the dukes, duchesses, and aristocrats of old, all aristocracies need a ruling ideology that binds them together and has utility in controlling the restless masses. It has always been so. Look at how the aristocracies of all societies in history controlled their populations: it was done with a mixture of force and indoctrination.

So, these celebrities are going to mouth the platitudes of feminism. It's only logical for them. They don't even know what they're saying, on most levels. No more so than a count or countess in medieval Europe knew what he or she meant when the affirmed the doctrines of the Church. They have to do it.

My point is that every society has a ruling class that uses some ideological system to keep the rabble under control. In the US, a big component of that PC ideology is feminism.

That's why, as a man, you're not allowed to question it without stirring up a hornet's nest. You're not allowed to express your preferences for beautiful women, your contempt for feminism, etc., etc. Which all of us already know.

See these celebrities as equivalent to members of the priestly classes of ancient Egypt who kept the peasants in line, or members of the clergy in medieval Europe, indoctrinating people on approved thoughts and forbidden thoughts...they are members of the ruling class responsible for ideological indoctrination and dissemination.

The difference here is that the ruling classes you're comparing our modern context to had an aspect of religion and faith embedded within their orthodoxy.

What we have today is not like that. In fact, it is quite a bit simpler: people are just following the dollar.

Why are so many powerful, famous men walking on eggshells and behaving like the clueless blue pill betas we know they most likely aren't? Because they make more money that way. Females account for most of the spending and consuming that floats their salaries, pumps up their endorsements and keeps their ticket/music sales high. They cater to women in order to keep the cash flowing.

Why does our media seem so anxious to abide by and adopt the feminine imperative? Because women do most of the TV/Movie viewing.

Women also account for about 85% of our consumer spending, which means that the financial and industrial powers that be will be leaning toward the feminine point of view as well. We live in an economic system that depends heavily on spending, which means that it depends heavily on the whims of women. Advertisers (whose dollars control the media to a significant degree) depend on them, companies looking to sell their products depend on them, and government suits anxious to please said companies are influenced as well.

Women also outvote men. We live in a democracy, so that gives women tremendous amounts of influence over the individuals and the laws that govern us. Politicians know that the female vote counts for more, and they're going to be more anxious to avoid offending them as a result.

All you really have to do is follow the money. More often than not, that's where you'll find the answer to these outwardly confusing phenomena. This is much simpler than an ideology, orthodoxy or an aristocratic faith: it's just business. Abiding by the feminine imperative is profitable, and therefore it is done more often than not whether the folks in control truly believe in it or not (they rarely practice what they preach).

[Excelsior]

(01-10-2014 01:54 AM)caracal Wrote:  

While these good looking guys and male celebrities may be on the face of it singing the praises of feminism, how many of them are actually dicking pussy left, right and centre in their private lives? I'd wager most of them.

The vast majority of them.

(01-09-2014 08:59 PM)Rotisserie Wrote:  

This is where I think the 1-10 scale is so important. A guy should know where he stands on that scale, purely physically, and adjust for first-time interactions. If the girl is equal, she can stand light teasing. But if she's something like 2 points below, follow Athlone's advice:

(01-09-2014 07:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Many girls will, based on your looks, assume that you're an overconfident, cocky douche and fear being belittled by you. You must avoid falling into that stereotype as best you can.

Now if she's 2+ points above? You can be Patrice.

I'd be even more conservative than that. You'd be shocked at just how insecure many genuinely hot girls are about their looks, especially around a genuinely attractive guy. Light teasing can still be okay if it is done as part of a naturally laid back, confident approach, but don't underestimate the fear a lot of beautiful women have of "not being good enough" for a man they consider ideal.

[Ocelot]

Damn Athlone, you should do an ROK article on the things you've discussed in this thread; overdue rep from me.