“… just call upon my name, and I will come and you shall have the best of sporting, again…”







I’ve said in podcasts, more than once – in fact, that Roissy/Heartiste is easily the best fellow in our corner of the internet from whom to learn pick-up techniques.


I freely and gladly confess, he is a masterful hunter.


Handling the brambles and fens of male-female interactions with skillful, impressive aplomb.




However, just because he’s an excellent gamekeeper – well versed in the lures and habits of his prey – does not mean he’s wise in his quarry’s motives, drives and thought processes.


I find, all too often, his theory is slipshod and (truth be told) weakly cobbled together from a singular perspective, rather than the results of failures and successes of generations in totality.


With that in mind, I’ll draw my dear readers’ attention to his most glaring inconsistency.


Roissy/Heartiste’s constant and consistent is the assertion that the “god of bio-mechanics cannot be denied”.


Gnon [Nature or Nature’s God] will always, without exception, will not be disobeyed fruitfully or for long.




Yet, he also claims that “flipping the script” [getting women to chase men], rather than what the “natural order” (“sperm is cheap; eggs are expensive”) dictates is the most powerful thing a man can do in his search for a mate.


So nature must be slavishly obeyed…


Except when it shouldn’t.


We’ve found a significant issue here, it appears.




Now, to be perfectly clear, I’m in total agreement that what he terms “flipping the script” works with an efficacy that simply must be witnessed to be believed.


However, I don’t believe that’s in opposition to the “natural order” in any way, shape or form.




I present the following to jump-start an understanding:


While I was in law enforcement, I had a great boss that, sadly, had sunk somewhat into nihilism.


He said, “There’s no point to anything we do here.


The only folks that matter are those that save lives.


Like doctors, nurses and such.”


To which I replied:


If they’re the only folks that matter, then what’s the point of saving anyone else?


Furthermore, if there’s no point in saving anyone, then what’s the point of having saviors?


He was dumbstruck.




All this is to say:


Men build, create and defend things worthy of continuance.


Women (ideally) maintain and continue such things.


But if nothing worthy of continuance exists, then there’s no need for support or reproduction.




Thus, sperm may be cheap.


But everything else men bring to the table (as so many labor, toil and die for it)?


Well, that’s a prize to be sought and caught—


No matter the toll of the hunt.







6 Responses to ““… just call upon my name, and I will come and you shall have the best of sporting, again…””

  1. […] “… just call upon my name, and I will come and you shall have the best of sporting, again…” […]

  2. superslaviswife Says:

    I think the problem with acknowledging that men can produce things worth fighting for and working for, is that most men, especially young men today, don’t. I sometimes get accused of “Beta shaming” for stating the very real situation that women will not sleep with anything short of an exceptional man, let alone date and reproduce with someone beneath that. The assumption is that the process is one way: if women rewarded men with sex, then these same men would work hard and produce. The secondary assumption is that assortive mating is natural and healthy and that, therefore, average women seeking exceptionalism need to calm down and start dating the average men around them.

    But, to be honest, those are very, very leftist, very, very wrong assumptions. The core of it is “people will produce value, even when no incentive is offered”. It’s the same mentality that justifies limitless welfare: the idea that we will work tirelessly for work’s own merits. Just as a person guaranteed an income is very unlikely to get a job, a man guaranteed sex from enough of the right sort of woman is very unlikely to try and impress them.

    However it’s not correct to say that if men produce enough, women will offer sex, either, for the very same reasons. If men produce in abundance, women will locate those who produce the most quantity or quality and choose them first. Why offer the reward of sex when the resources are already there? This is our current situation and it clearly doesn’t work either.

    The reality is that the process is not one-way at all. It’s a circuit. Men produce, but deny women. So women offer womanhood: nurturing, sex, reproduction, to access that production. But women offer only to the highest bidder. So men work harder to produce more. So women develop other traits of value to fight more over those men. The cycle continues. There is no script to flip, because the process is not linear. There is only a continual cycle of pressure and backpressure. You can’t flip a circle.

    To acknowledge this, however, would be to acknowledge that if you want anything at all from life you need to be superlative. If men want sex, they need to be the best. If women want family, we need to be the best. Men have a harder time getting sex because the gap between the best and the weakest is inflated. Women may not have a hard time getting sex, but we have a harder time making the family we want for the same reason. You would have to acknowledge that both sexes are missing out on what they want because, confusingly, the average for both sexes is subpar. You would have to acknowledge that assortive mating is nonsense. You would have to acknowledge that reality is just a free market, and that to earn you need to compete in the first place. And that’s not an easy thought to hold, even if you sqaurely believe you are one of the superlative.

  3. PolarWashington Says:

    It’s ideally a eugenic upward pressure, I think.

  4. Thanks for sharing this. As a husband still striving and learning, it resonated loads, esp that last few sentences.

  5. “Thus, sperm may be cheap.
    But everything else men bring to the table (as so many labor, toil and die for it)?
    Well, that’s a prize to be sought and caught—
    No matter the toll of the hunt.”

    To riff on this – and SSW’s response, somewhat – women want exceptional men. The problem is two-fold as I see it:

    1) Women are culturally conditioned to believe they are all exceptional, and can play with all the wolves they want;
    2) Men are culturally conditioned to believe all women are exceptional, and they will be very lucky to have one.

    Women want to pair with exceptional men, sure. Hypergamy is a feature, not a bug. But the average woman is still average. The average Western man is culturally railroaded into pledging his life’s work, worldly goods, family name and eternal fidelity to someone who chose him last. Ridiculous.

    Average, “unexceptional” guy must – and will – demand more, much more. That alone would make him “exceptional”. Her value (youth, beauty, fertility) is a powerful playing card which she can use to choose the best man she can find. However the age limit by which she must secure commitment is going to drop precipitously in the coming years. The chronological gap between AF/BB is going to shrink until it vanishes.

    All a Western man needs to be “exceptional” is a spine. The pain will become much more intense until he grows one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: