Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Book Review - 30 Bangs

In my completely not-chronological reading and reviewing of Roosh's various books, the last one is the aptly titled "30 Bangs"

A review of (surprise!) 30 Rooshian bangs.

The standard caveats that apply to all of Roosh's works apply here as well.

It is crass.
It's about sex.
It's how guys speak behind closed doors.
Women will feign disgust and indignation, citing his crassness, accuse it of misogyny, but will be the last ones to put it down.
And blabbity blah blah blah.

We've all heard it before so you know what you're getting into.

However, caveats are where the similarities end in that this book, though about courting and sex, differentiates itself from the rest of his standard "guides."  Namely, it is more of a clinical, sociological study, documenting 30 different data points.  Roosh, never being able to get rid of the micro-biology scientist in him, analyzes and assesses each of these 30 data points.  Certainly it is entertaining, granting the reader the opportunity to live vicariously through him, but trends, correlations, and statistics start to shine through to the point you see there is some science to this art.

Of particular note was the number of times "we're not having sex" came up in a book where the outcome was known THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE SEX.  Of the 30 datapoints, I'd estimate at least half of the subjects claimed "we're not having sex" only to have sex by the end of the chapter.  Another common refrain was where test subjects would claim to "hate" Roosh's blog, but then still find him fascinating and intriguing.  Also prevalent was Roosh's strategic planning which manifested itself in the form of multiple venues, the strategic use of booze, "I'll miss the subway," "I just need a nap" and other tactics Roosh deploys throughout the book. 

In short, this book is one of empiricism, but also entertainment and would make this book just as good of an introductory course to redpill/Andro/Manosphere/PUA/etc., as any other well-written book on the subject.  It is very entertaining, it is very reasonably priced, and it is very digestible taking me only an afternoon to consume.

The only other observations I would have (which can't even be called "drawbacks," just observations) are:

1.  The later 6th of the book is simply a recap of his exploits in South America, so for people who have already read "A Dead Bat in Paraguay" you may wish to skip these chapters altogether.

2.  I noticed a pattern in Roosh's behavior that was always there, but just now consciously made it to my frontal lobes and made me have a scary potential epiphany.  When trying to meet girls, Roosh would make attempt, after attempt, after attempt, nearly (and not to be crass, but because it is the perfect analogy) identical to a sperm cell trying to impregnate an egg.  He'd try for the touching, get shot down, only to try again.  He'd try for the kiss, get shot down, only to try again.  He'd try for sex, only to get shot down, only to try again, and in many instances, multiple times.  However, regardless of the volume of rejection, he would INEVITABLY succeed.

However, because of the context of this book all we see is Roosh "succeeding" (nay "slaying") women.  If you step back and view it from a different angle, there is a different impression.  One where you postulate women were already OK with the idea of sex, but were merely having the poor guy dance and jump through hoops for their entertainment.  Roosh was providing them with MASSIVE amounts of attention, and then finally being rewarded with sex.  In other words, what if women like sex, just as much as anybody else, but they know they can extract an incredible amount of attention out of somebody, then who is really being taken advantage of?

Admittedly, it's just a theory.

3.  Finally, I am impressed where Roosh manages to fit in his John Dillinger-esque flatulence problem in EVERY ONE OF HIS BOOKS, but does not let that impede him.

Favorite quotes from the book:

She was a hyper-educated feminist who thought she knew everything about the world, repeatedly saying things that turned off my wang. I responded with slight jabs like, “Are you always like this?” or “Don’t you ever stop?”...We made out briefly in my car when we got to her friend’s house. She said, “It’s obvious that you want me bad.” Her masculine attitude all but assured that this would be a pump-and-dump.
I pushed again for a drink, logically explaining that it would be ten times faster and easier to get to know each other in person than by email. It was a dangerous move to use logic on a female, but she finally agreed.
I had trouble finding the exit to her gated complex so I ended up scaling a concrete wall. Unsure of where I was, I went to the nearest store, a Sam’s Club, and asked for the phone number to a taxi. They gave me a dirty look like they were about to call the police, so I left and roamed around various suburban streets like a confused cow until I regained my bearings by studying the skyline. I got on a street that seemed to head downtown and then took a bus back home.

All in all I would say this is his second best book, distantly behind "A Dead Bat In Paraguay" and definitely worth the price and your time.

You can find in in paperback and Kindle, and also don't forget the ole Captain's most recent books "Enjoy the Decline" and "Boris the Shitting Buffalo."


lelnet said...

"Admittedly, it's just a theory."

Actually, no...it's the main objection a lot of us have to the whole PUA thing. One is basically demeaning oneself for a shot at meaningless sex with some chick you don't give a shit about, and who doesn't give a shit about you. Reading accounts like too many of his leaves me thinking less "Yeah, score!" and more "Have some fscking _dignity_, man! The fact that you're begging in _code_ doesn't change the fact that you're begging."

Anonymous said...

Hi Cappy, I want Top Shelf and Decline by June 13. Amazon is trying to screw me on postage. Do you want my money? thanks

Mark said...

So would your theory be that guys could give women less attention but get the same amount of sex? I think that's true if they all did. Isn't it a little bit of a prisoner's dilemma situation, though, where if all the guys cooperated in giving women less attention they would all be better off but you can't get them all to cooperate because if most cooperated then the ones who didn't cooperate would have an advantage by being able to offer more attention? If you want the women you kind of have to give them the attention with the caveat that sometimes the game isn't worth the candle.

samseau said...

Lelnet said... "meaningless sex."

Lol, spoken like a virgin.

lelnet said...

"spoken like a virgin"

Spoken like someone way too anxious to posture in front of strangers on the internet.