Why is David Wygant talking about politics?

If you're new here, you will want to sign up for my newsletter to get FREE dating ebooks and mp3s along with exclusive seduction tips and videos. Thanks for visiting!

David Wygant dating coachI like David Wygant as a guru. He has intriguing ideas and he is a good speaker. He is like the older and wiser brother you never had who has been through it all and is helping you out.

He’s got a “Fonzie” vibe to him.

What baffles me though is some of the things he writes that are totally unrelated to dating. Some of it is completely unnecessary and potentially offends his current and potential customers.

I first encountered this when he sent the following email to his mailing list. Keep in mind reading it that I’m a state-side computer programmer by trade.

…I’ve been talking to every web designer from >>omitted outsourcing site<<. The prices are fantastic - it's amazing how much you can save by working offshore. I felt like something was missing though.

I want to get someone involved who is part of my community. I want it to be someone who reads the blog or who has experienced my products. My whole business is built on passion, and I’d love to add a new member to the team.

So here’s the deal. Even though it’s much cheaper for me to hire someone in India, I’d much rather give a bootcamp and copies of all my products away to someone who can’t afford them in exchange for the redesign of my website.

I would rather help someone who can’t afford to be helped, than pay someone to do this job. Of course, it takes a lot less of my time if I pay someone. I would much rather, however, give someone the opportunity to experience one of the bootcamps and learn from all my products…

I need to get this site finished over the next few weeks . . . so time is not on our side.

First of all, anyone who can program his site can probably afford his products. Us computer programmers do not work for peanuts and ramen noodles.

Secondly, don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining. David is sending out this invitation to save himself the money to get his site made.

Last but not least, do not talk about the greatness of outsourcing when your target audience is US computer programmers.

Now he is making posts about politics on his blog. I think he should be reading my blog instead of me reading his.

Here are some exerts from his post:

As dumb as I think George Bush is…

…if we would ask Bill Clinton to participate in The Wygant Poll, he would say that Hillary is NOT dateable (because Bill would prefer to be with pretty much any woman who is not his wife)

Would you rather wake up and have a cup of coffee with Hillary without makeup (which could be very scary)…

I think I’m friends with Obama on myspace.com

There’s really only one candidate, but there were two: Huckleberry and McCain. I’m glad I don’t have to worry about having to have coffee with Huckleberry, and I really don’t know whether or not I would like to have coffee with Grandpa John

I do not think that “Hillary” and “orgasm” belong in the same sentence together

Duhhh, I wonder which candidate David is a fan of?!?

I particularly find the “Grandpa John” comment misguided. David himself isn’t necessarily a spring chicken compared to other gurus who are in their 20’s and 30’s. The seduction community stresses age isn’t a big deal. So why is David mocking John McCain’s age?

For that matter, why the misogynistic comments about Hillary and the childishness of calling Mike Huckabee “Huckleberry”?

Anyone who is not an Obama supporter will probably be pissed off by this post. I’m politically neutral and open-minded and the post still pisses me off because it is so ignorant.

It tries to be a topical post that is silly and funny that can be tied back to dating but it missed its mark.

David, please stick to your “fluff” posts like “How To Properly Use Your Boner” and “Whats Up With Fake Boobs?”

Do you agree with me or am I just being too reactive?

Please read my related post “ Why I make it a point to avoid talking about politics” if you haven’t already.

Click here to visit David Wygant’s site…




If you like this blog please take a second and subscribe to my rss feed

Comments: 17 comments

All the fields that are marked with REQ must be filled

Get 4 Products For FREE!... CLICK HERE!!!
  • Bobby Rio
    February 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    I visited Wyngants blog a couple times because you and Donovan had been writing about him lately… personally i thought he was too PG and fluffy… if you notice most of his commenters are women so i think he caters to them a bit.

    as for the politics… i’m neatral and don’t really care… but then again.. i’m not neatral towards my dislike of Bush… so if i went to someone’s blog who was openly pro Bush.. I might be turned off… so it is safe to say he could be turning some people off.

  • Bobby Rio
    February 28th, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    hahahah… did i just turn off a bunch of readers who may be pro Bush? oh well

  • Mack Tight
    February 28th, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    We’ll forgive you Rio this one time :)

    You bring up good points about “too PG and fluffy” and catering to a female audience.

    It does seem like he goes out of his way to kiss the female commenters’ asses on his blog and then follow it up with a video where he belittles guys in his boot camps and puts them on the spot.

    His post about fake tits vs real tits is a good example. Why does he use the words “knockers”, “melons” and “boobies” in the post instead of the word “tits”? I haven’t used those words since I was a pre-pube.

    He’ll belittle the one female Presidential candidate with misogynistic comments but ironically he seems too scared to offend someone by using the word “tits”. Is “tits” too dirty?

    I thought David was the one who said we have to be comfortable talking dirty to women?

  • Kate
    February 28th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    Hey there - I actually stumbled upon this post by accident … but I felt compelled to comment. I am admittedly a faithful reader of David Wygant’s blog and have been for a long time. I will also admit that I am a big fan of his in terms of what he teaches.

    You’re right, he does get a lot of female commenters on his blogs . . . but I think you’ve missed a few things both about that “political” blog and about his catering to women.

    I was actually worried when I saw the title of the political blog thinking I was about to be thrown into a political debate (which is NOT what I want when I read his stuff!). I actually lean more to the conservative side politically, but I think if you know David’s style and read that blog more carefully you’ll see that the point of the blog was in a humorous way to point out that whether someone is “likeable” as a potential dating partner is analogous to whether someone would be “likeable” (i.e., electable) as a political candidate. Yes - it is crystal clear on which side of the political fence David is … but I don’t think that was the point of that blog.

    Regarding the comment about him catering to women, well I’ll grant you that his site is friendly (and at times directed) to both men and women … but I don’t think he is nice to the women while he rips on the men. David is brutally honest with anyone who posts - and I’ve seen him be so brutally honest with people who are both male and female.

    The reason, I think, that it appears to you that he focuses more of his criticism on the guys at times, is because his bootcamps (from which a lot of his video footage comes) are populated virtually entirely by men - so that’s just the way it turns out. If he had an all-female bootcamp, I’m sure equally critical video from that would be posted as well.

    So … don’t judge too harshly based on just that one political blog. One of the things I actually like best about his blogs is how diverse in topic they are - one day it’s a hot sexually-based topic, then the next day it’s a hillarious blog comparing dating to the Super Bowl.

    I enjoyed stumbling on your site - and thank you for letting me put my “two cents” into this discussion. :)

  • David Wygant
    February 28th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Mack Tight

    This post was a goof…….Cmon my friend boobies…tits…jugs melons.

    It was a goof the whole post was all about which candidate was dateable…..you will never had the chance to date either one but the post was meant for fun.

  • David Wygant
    February 28th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Bobby

    Fluffy I am not…..my blog is for both men and women,

    I write all about sex and other things..depends on the day and what i feel like writing.

    Also women chime in and you can learn from them.

    I find these men only communities are just way to narrow,…..you are all trying so hard to learn the magic secret of how to meet seduce and be the man with women.

    But you only talk amongst yourselves.
    Read some of the postings from women…..thats who you also want to learn from.

    You use these communities to hide behind….its safe for you to hide out here and talk safely about routines…..game etc.

    But sometimes you need to get out and stop talking theory and start engaging and dealing with women.
    If you really knew me and my teachings you would never call me soft.

    Everyone has an opinion and you are entitled to yours.

    Whose stuff resonates with you as far as gurus are concerned.
    are you trying to be a more confident man or a PUA?

  • David Wygant
    February 28th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

    Mack

    Love the term spring chicken by the way. Age is wisdom….and i know much more than i did when i was 30.

    As for my political ties…..the only bush i like is one that is waxed.

    As for this election…..no commitments i was having some fun.

  • Beethoven
    February 28th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    Seems to me that a cult of personality forms around these gurus, or anyone who achieves any level of celebrity for that matter. When you begin to have a fan base that agrees with what you have to say on your area of interest (dating in this case), it’s probably easy to start spouting your opinions on a wide range of subjects.

    Politics and religion, being so inherently divisive, will always be subjects that cause extreme reactions of agreement and disagreement. Some people just choose to be outspoken about these things and are prepared to accept the consequences I suppose.

  • Bobby Rio
    February 29th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    David..

    point taken that I’ve only visited your site a couple times and may have prejudged…

    I think there is a ton of information to learn from women.. i’ve had, and will continue to have them speak on podcasts I’ve done..

    The fluffy and PG comment is a matter of personal taste.. It has nothing to do with men-only communities. It has more to do with what kind of writings I relate to.. I’m not into reading routine/opener/neg type articles either.. I just like reading stuff with a little edge, a litte humorous. The couple posts I read from you were by no means bad… they just weren’t something I could see myself coming back to on a daily basis… but you could just as easily say the same about me and my site.

  • Bobby Rio
    February 29th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    And David.. I’ve always advocated confident man over PUA..

    While I believe you can learn from women.. i also feel that there are too few women that are truly honest with themselves about what they want in a guy.

    I just feel like when someone is catering to both men and women there tends to be that politically correct DR. Phil vibe.

    And part of the reason is that men and women are usually looking for different things.

    The women who need help meeting men are usually not the kind of women the men frequenting sites like this want to meet.. so these women’s contributions are usually meaningless.

    I’m sorry if I sound like an asshole but its true.

  • Gregory Arkadin
    March 1st, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    “And David.. I’ve always advocated confident man over PUA..”

    is “confident man” a euphemism for “natural game”?

    “While I believe you can learn from women.. i also feel that there are too few women that are truly honest with themselves about what they want in a guy. ”

    It’s a conflict between the Culturally controlled women and the Natural women….

    “I just feel like when someone is catering to both men and women there tends to be that politically correct DR. Phil vibe. ‘

    seriously, Dr.Phil looks like a cross between bozo the clown without his make up and Charles Manson.

    “And part of the reason is that men and women are usually looking for different things. ”

    The difference between capitalism and communism is that with capitalism, man exploits man…with communism, it’s the other way around…..

    “The women who need help meeting men are usually not the kind of women the men frequenting sites like this want to meet.. so these women’s contributions are usually meaningless. ”

    Kinda like when you go to Myspace and the women says her figure is well rounded..it’s well rounded because her belt size is the fuckin’ equator…..sorry for the cruelty….

    “I’m sorry if I sound like an asshole but its true.”

    Asshole..that’s my department, well for now at least

  • Kate
    March 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    To Bobby Rio & Gregory -

    Now I understand why you are both men who hide in seduction lairs. Don’t you think that women have confidence issues no matter what they look like . . . or do you just objectify them so much that you look at them not as people but as objects?

    Women have the same issues as men do. They’re shy. They’re nervous. The difference is that women look at men as people, while you look at us like objects.

    That’s why you don’t understand how women think. That’s why you sound like frustrated geeks hiding behind seduction posts.

    Because if you really understood women and human interaction, you’d understand that no matter what the mask looks like that someone wears, they can still suffer from the same issues as someone who isn’t as pretty.

    After reading your comments, I understand why David Wygant’s posts are too “fluffy” for you. That’s the whole problem with these men’s communities - you don’t understand women and you can see it in your posts. You don’t understand women - and it’s sad. You’re stuck in theoryville - and if you really understood women, you wouldn’t have said what you said.

  • Bobby Rio
    March 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Kate, I’m sorry if I offended you. It wasn’t my intention. I’ve just been bashed by so many females for stuff I’ve written over the years… the ones that disagree with what I write usually tend to be a type of girl I’m not interested in. The ones that are honest enough to admit there is truth in what I teach, are more of the kind I prefer to communicate with.

    As for the comment “the woman who need help meeting men aren’t the kind of women men frequenting these types of site want to meet”

    This was not to insult the women.. it was to promote the fundamental difference.. most women looking for advice on dating, have an ultimate goal of a relationship.. the men frequenting these types of site (mostly) are looking to sleep with many women before settling down.

    I’ve slept with my share of women and am not necarrily one of these men anymore, but the vast majority of my readers are looking for anything but a relationship

  • Mack Tight
    March 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Kate,

    Thanks for the comments. I think Beethoven and Bobby did a good job of responding to you.

    I may address a few more of your points in a future post.

    David,

    “Cmon my friend boobies…tits…jugs melons.”

    Good to see you finally use the word that you spent a 1000+ word post avoiding.

    I will address your jabs at “these communities” in a future post.

    I will say I find your repeated use of the word “hide” incredibly amusing.

  • Kate
    March 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm

    Bobby & Mack Tight -

    Thanks for your comments … I appreciate all of your thoughts.

    Bobby - I can see some of your points. Thanks for the great feedback!

  • David Wygant
    March 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm

    Bobby

    Dr Phil gives me the creeps and i have distinct products for men and women.

    No need to tell me how different each sex is.

    Its funny i tend to write most of my post for men but women really enjoy reading and chiming in.

    As for “these communities”

    I look forward to seeing how you address what you consider a jab and what i consider from years of coaching men a kick in the ass.

    Bring it on lets have an open conversation!!

  • Beethoven
    March 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm

    Yeah, the idea of a web forum where women look for advice in terms of how to get sex from a man doesn’t seem quite necessary…

    I would also like to follow up on Kate’s suggestion that women look at men as people and men look at women as sex objects. Half of this is true: men do look at women as sex objects, generally speaking (at least in terms of how they make their initial judgement - character does matter after that!). But just because women put less of an emphasis on looks, that doesn’t mean that women don’t make ANY judgements on looks, and it doesn’t mean that women don’t have their own less savory criteria for evaluating men.

    Yes, women judge men as people, but that doesn’t mean they simply look at character and morals. Women are more likely to put emphasis on a man’s status and money more so than a man would emphasize those attributes in a woman.

    So to sum it up, women have anxiety about their bodies, men have it about their status - perhaps we’re even. Although….over time, a man’s status can constantly improve, whereas bodies and looks absolutely do not get better with age…so maybe we do win in the end! :)

Leave a reply

Name (Req)

E-mail (Req)

URI

Message