[DetlefMourning]

How obtuse can they be in their rush to be victims? LMR is not about ignoring a girl when she forcefully says no or stop. LMR is when you're fooling around and it's clearly escalating towards putting P's in V's, and she says something like "I don't know about this. You won't think I'm a slut, will you?" It's when she's not saying yes but she's not saying no either. Persuading her to say yes is not about coercion or force.

[2Wycked]

(01-31-2014 03:35 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:20 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

I think ROK needs an article defining the difference between a game book/article and an official rape guide. Just to clarify things to the world.

Good idea, but where would you find an "official rape guide" to compare game books to? Has such a thing ever been written by anyone in history?

An actual rape guide would do nothing for because it actually exists.

These people are living in fantasy land. They only wish rape guides exist.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(01-31-2014 03:03 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

From Wikipedia:

I'm almost 100 percent sure it's a different Sara Nelson. The one referenced here is Sara C. Nelson.

https://twitter.com/SaraCNelson

Here is Sara Nelson (without the C) who you reference above:
https://twitter.com/SaraNelson

The "C" is a British upstart writer. Sara without the "C" is from the US and a big deal in publishing -- and it's doubtful she'd be messing with this. She'd have an employee do it, if she ever cared.

[durangotang]

Doing a search for "Sara Nelson" at the Huffington Post yields "Sara C Nelson." She is almost too stereotypical.

I shit you not, here is a screenshot of her last five articles. I have have renamed her headlines in red next to the originals:




I wonder how she'll end up?

[durangotang]

(01-31-2014 03:54 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I'm almost 100 percent sure it's a different Sara Nelson. The one referenced here is Sara C. Nelson.

https://twitter.com/SaraCNelson

Here is Sara Nelson (without the C) who you reference above:
https://twitter.com/SaraNelson

The "C" is a British writer. Sara without the "C" is from the US -- and it's doubtful she's be messing with this. She'd have an employee do it, if she ever cared.

Nice work, thanks for the clarification.

[Duke Castile]

based on the 2nd Sarah Nelson's twitter photo WB.

[Saladin]

(01-31-2014 03:20 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  

I think ROK needs an article defining the difference between a game book/article and an official rape guide. Just to clarify things to the world.

Yeah the original article wasn't clear on the distinction at all.

Example-

"Yet somehow, when it’s all said and done, the woman is invariably happy that I didn’t listen to a single word of protest she uttered; that I barreled through her resistance nonchalantly and drove the ball to the basket."

Massive difference between being persistent and "barelling" through resistance. The latter conjures up an image of rape in people's minds(going for it even though you're getting a serious no).

[Trim]

This is officially war. The feminists are attacking our freedom of speech and want total control over sex and the meanings of words. We can not let them win.

[Teedub]

Matt Forney just said something pretty accurate, and rather profound:

"@rooshv I think we're officially moving into the "Then they fight you" stage of Gandhi's maxim."

(01-31-2014 03:38 PM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  

How obtuse can they be in their rush to be victims? LMR is not about ignoring a girl when she forcefully says no or stop. LMR is when you're fooling around and it's clearly escalating towards putting P's in V's, and she says something like "I don't know about this. You won't think I'm a slut, will you?" It's when she's not saying yes but she's not saying no either. Persuading her to say yes is not about coercion or force.

It is 'rape' to them, because they've never been in that situation...

Most of these chicks were weird, obese/ugly social freaks growing up. It's only because they've found other ugly women that they've managed to galvanize such (relative) power.

I'm sure they would say something similar about the PUA culture though, which is why I disassociate from that geeky PUA label.

[Soma]

(01-31-2014 04:08 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

based on the 2nd Sarah Nelson's twitter photo WB.

More pics:

[All or Nothing]

(01-31-2014 04:54 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

I'm sure they would say something similar about the PUA culture though, which is why I disassociate from that geeky PUA label.

They can call us PUAs all they want, but they are wrong in doing so.

PUAs are a bunch of awkward guys who had troubled childhoods and were incapable of moving forward.

We are men. People who regardless of their past, take control of their lives and lead the lives they want to lead despite the protesting of critics.

[Pacesetter20]

[scorpion]

If a guide to overcoming LMR is a rape manual, is a guide to overcoming objections in sales an extortion manual?

[Only One Man]

(01-31-2014 03:07 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 03:05 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 02:53 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

She's scared:

Feminists and white knights have to be the biggest paper tigers in this modern era.

Through the internet, they are loud, aggressive and constantly threaten other people.

Yet, when confronted, especially in real life, they crumble almost immediately.

Yeah I noticed that. The threats. Maybe these fights need to be in the streets.

Yea, kinda reminds me of those stupid little Chiwawas. Constantly barking at you when you're in their vicinity, acting all tough, but once you turn around and start walking towards them, they immediately run away.

[Daddy]

She claims she’s also a writer for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Her google + account : https://plus.google.com/111565794270914826204/posts

Contains potential close friends of her.

[darklightdispatch]

(01-31-2014 05:51 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

If a guide to overcoming LMR is a rape manual, is a guide to overcoming objections in sales an extortion manual?

This will probably sound overly extreme, but the crux of the issue is that women really shouldn't be in the "public sphere." Their brains aren't capable of handling it. The sort of stuff talked about on here should stay between men. Women are never going to be "won over" by rational explanation. To be sure, sharper, socially competent women get most of the red pill stuff on an intuitive level. Much better than most men, actually. It doesn't work with them when you lay it all out in the open, though. Women need to be shown things, they need to be lead to it with a wink and nod. Laying out the harsh, ugly facts of life in the clear light of day is appropriate only for men.

I have in the past but I would never again talk with any woman in person about red pill ideas. At least not in a direct, explicit way. Show don't tell.

[Wreckingball]

I absolutely love how feminists and social media paladins fall for every troll bait you put out there. Aren't you guys running out?

[AnonymousBosch]

(01-31-2014 04:54 PM)Teedub Wrote:  

Most of these chicks were weird, obese/ugly social freaks growing up. It's only because they've found other ugly women that they've managed to galvanize such (relative) power.

Good point, Teedub.

Look at her. A lower end of a 6 on the scale. Average to look it.

If she's heterosexual:

She didn't hang with the popular kids in school. She never went out to cool parties. All the boys she fantasised about went off with prettier girls. She flattered her ego by convincing herself it was because she was too smart. Even now, she believes she is the smartest girl in the room.

The men who ask her out are dull, average, white collar uni-educated guys with compromised masculinity. Their jokes aren't funny, but she laughs politely. The dates are awkward dinners or Hipster events like sitting on a blanket in the park watching a movie with a thousand other people. There's no sexual tension. She's aware that they're boring.

Occasionally she'll date, and fall into a boring routine with him, trying out the 'hot' restaurants, attending the proper political causes, hunting cronuts, doing the odd tough mudder, and nights spent binge-watching television shows with, which leads to dull sex out of a sense-of-obligation, so there is no dance of seduction or pretense of last minute resistance or bantering or laughing or feigned-anger. Just dreary obligation, always wondering where the fire is, and telling herself that every relationship is like this, and heat and passion is just romanticised and immature fantasy for foolish women, and she's too intelligent for that. She keeps a tube of female lubricant in her drawer, and sometimes thinks she enjoys masturbation more than the respectful man-boy who is humping her, who are so inexperienced with women they cum within 2 minutes. It's always missionary.

She congratulates herself on her career, hoping it will attract a higher value man, and uses it as an excuse to avoid falling pregnant with any of the men she dates, horrified at the possibility that a child would mean ending up being tied down to one of them.

She doesn't put up LMR, because she knows the guys she sleeps will already respect her and think she's a slut. They've told her multiple times how intelligent she is and admire her career. They've proved they care, and are happy to 'just cuddle' if she feels like it, though, sometimes, even their cuddles repulse her to her very soul.

She can only reach climax by imagining attending a political function on George Clooney's arm.

Eventually, cats.

If she's a lesbian:

Then she's probably got polycystic ovaries and despises sex to begin with.

[Zep]

Again, a guy posts an article with a title like "When no means yes" and posts this picture with it


Uh, what was he thinking? That girl in the picture depicts a girl who's been raped, right? Why would he choose such a picture? Her mascara indicates tears, her mouth is shut with tape, there are rape stats on the wall. He could have chosen a picture of a girl jumping his bones with joy.

At least start those kinds of articles off with some kind of disclaimer, maybe don't post pics of girls being pinned down, or in a state of post rape grief. Jesus.

[2Wycked]

^Yeah, the picture was a poor choice, simply because most people only read the headline and look at the main picture.

[Onto]

Well, I shorted the piss out of Amazon today and made a mint. Let me know what else I can do.

But for real, legal action is good if it can be had, but is there a way to spin this whole travesty into gaining as much media attention to Vincent's book as possible. It's been said, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Imagine an Oprah show with Vincent and Sara on it. Of course the whole thing would be spun to make men look like shit, but I bet Vincent's book sales would go through the roof, and may even rally more men to the call.

[The Lizard of Oz]

I think there is an obvious lesson here.

To recap the events of the last few days in order:

-- Someone possibly associated with Anonymous issued threats against RoK (this one may or may not be a red herring),
-- Facebook deleted RoK's and Roosh's accounts,
-- Vincent's book got delisted from Amazon.

All of these events were precipitated by the publication of two RoK posts. One was entitled "How Women Train Men To Rape", and the other, "When Her No Means Yes".

I don't think it takes a genius to see the pattern here.

Now, to be clear: nothing published on RoK actually condones "rape" in any way, including these two articles. And the professional slanderers such as Sara Nelson, or whoever flagged the other post on Facebook, know this -- they are not confused. They understand perfectly well that an article about seducing your way out of last minute resistance has nothing to do with rape.

However, by publishing articles with such inflammatory titles, RoK has given these slanderers the perfect excuse to go after it successfully. Companies like Facebook or Amazon are not going to bother with reading the fine print, and they are run by white-knights sympathetic to the feminist cause to begin with. When they see titles like "no means yes" or "women train men to rape", it's a no-brainer for them that something that looks like rape advocacy has no place on their platform.

The lesson is that RoK needs to pick and choose its battles. Titles that seem to condone "rape" or that can be interpreted in that way, however misleadingly are just not a good idea. The same goes for underage and age of consent stuff (not relevant here, but could conceivably be in the future). There is too much hysteria surrounding these subjects.

This does not mean that they should not be addressed -- in fact, RoK has published great and valuable posts about the False Rape Accusation epidemic, and it should continue to do so. But it means that RoK should play it very straight on these subjects and not give our enemies any fodder for misinterpretation. Talking about a false rape accusation or the college kangaroo courts based on "preponderance of evidence" is one thing; publishing titles that can be taken at a glance to imply condoning "rape" is another.

And no, it's not true that RoK would get flagged for saying anything that offends feminists so none of this matters. There are differences. Tuth's articles about eating disorders and short hair, as well as the whole fat shaming week extravaganza, were great examples of what RoK can do to annoy the hell out feminists, draw well-deserved attention, and inform and entertain its audience, all without giving its enemies a serious excuse to do it any real damage. That's why the Twitter commandos were left to issue impotent death threats against Tuth -- because there was no real meaningful action they could take based on his articles. Not so here.

Finally (if I haven't made it obvious enough), the point is not that there is any actual problem with these two articles or their authors -- Vincent Vinturi in particular is someone whose writing I enjoy a great deal and who strikes me as a cool and interesting dude. It's just about the need for RoK to be smart and avoid unnecessary baiting on these subjects going forward -- especially when it comes to article titles which are often the only thing people really look at.

[Mekorig]

The tipical left wing bullshit: "Everyone have free speech, except whatever offends me".

[svenski7]

Agree Lizard of Oz, ROK needs to vet these articles more closely as we know the site is being watched by these reactionaries for the slightest slip.

I personally don't see the need to continue to test these waters. I was listening to Bang and Day Bang audiobook today and the idea of LMR versus "no, I wouldn't have sex with you if you were the last man alive" is pretty damn clear. So, if those books are the basis for this forum and ROK, why do we need an article about what "no" means every other week?

I realize everyone has their preference and visits ROK for different reasons. I enjoy the fitness, style and off-the-wall unorthodox game articles.

I skip over the "Females don't know what they want" articles and focus of the "Tight Game" how-to contributions.

[VincentVinturi]

Hey guys, thanks for your support. It's heart-warming, for real.

It was 4am last night by the time I saw this craziness.

I also got this cuckoo email from Sara C. Nelson, the HuffPo columnist:




I haven't sent any further replies.

No worries on Amazon pulling my book.

I only put it up there (at a low price) for a short time. The idea was to get some real reviews to use on my sales page. Now I'm just going to finish the sales page without them and sell it directly from my website at the actual price, which was my intention all along.

If any of you guys want a free copy of the book in exchange for an honest review, please PM me.

Thankfully, my primary business isn't in the seduction space, so I haven't lost any sleep or money over any of this.

LMR is a readily observable phenomenon, as any player knows. What the future cat ladies can't distinguish is the difference between something linguistic and something existential. As soon as they see 'no' means 'yes', they begin salivating like Pavlov dogs.

I will continue to write about game and make posts on ROK.