Casanova was a worthless piece of shit

December 11, 2020
krauserpua

I began volume ten of Giacomo Casanova’s twelve-volume memoir. That means I have a pretty good idea of who he was and what he wrote, seeing as I’ve read these books in sequential order over the past three years. The difference between the Casanova myth and the real man [1] is a wider chasm than you might’ve imagined.


Myth: Casanova is the world’s greatest seducer, a charmer with legendary skills who glided gracefully through the aristocracy of 18th Century Europe, bedding the highest value women of the era.
Reality: Casanova was a weaselly mealy-mouthed hypocrite, child molester, homosexual bottom, swindler, whore-monger who paid for most of his lays.


There is nothing at all to admire about this man, bar his dedication to writing about his sordid life in such great detail. But that life itself was unremarkable except for its depravity. He wasn’t really a seducer, he was a libertine. Casanova was full-rabbit and addicted to hedonism. He was also unscrupulous about how to achieve his fixes. Perhaps worst of all, he took real pleasure in trying to ruin broke-ass young girls who hadn’t even finished puberty.


Let me just show you three passages from chapter one of volume ten. This is just one chapter! These events all occur while he’s 38 years old and living in London. First, he hears of a woman from Hanover who is under house arrest with a bailiff and about to be sent to debtors prison. She has five daughters, the youngest of whom is 15 (Gabrielle), and they are reduced to grinding poverty. Casanova goes into the house and suggests he’ll pay the mother twenty guineas for each girl for sex. This exchange follows.

Bullying a desperate family for sex

The girls refuse so Casanova lets them stew and the mother is arrested the following day and thrown into prison. Finally, the oldest sister (22yr old) comes into his room and lies still for fifteen minutes while Casanova bangs her. With the twenty guineas he pays her, she gets her mum released from prison the next day. Casanova then bangs each girl in turn for twenty guineas a time, right on down to the youngest. Like every other sleazy predator, he writes the story as if three of the girls were falling in love with him.


In the middle of this chapter, he has lunch with his illegitimate daughter Sophie who is in boarding school. She brings her friend. In the previous volume he was crushing on all her friends, from eleven year olds upwards. Here’s what he says about her bestie.

Perving and groping on a thirteen year old child

As if that’s not loathsome enough, here is how he feels about his daughter. Not his step-daughter [2] but his own flesh and blood:

Pedo sophistry


This is all in Casanova’s own words. It’s not some enemy slandering him. In this one chapter alone he has pressured a desperate mother into prostituting all of daughters, at least one of whom was still a kid, then molested his daughter’s thirteen-year-old best friend, and then fantasised about fucking his own pre-pubescent daughter. In one chapter!


Anyone who tells you they admire Casanova is either a bullshitter who has never read him, or a sleazy degenerate who needs to be hanged from the nearest lamppost.


If you’d like to read an equally long but far better memoir both in writing ability and real-world achievement, consider my own Nick Krauser memoir that begins with Balls Deep, available in a handsome full-colour edition on Amazon here.

[1] As he writes in his own words. Let’s just assume he’s not LARPing
[2] Not that it would be acceptable either

22 Comments

  1. Ahahaha tbh i know a couple of people that had, supposedly, many positive “takeaways’ from his stuff. They apparently read the “censored” version.

    You must be struggling to finish it at this point.

  2. A couple of random questions about your bodybuilding journey Krauser.

    -are you on TRT?
    -if not, have you got your T levels tested? What range are they?

    I’m 32 next month and have been on a similar journey..I’m hoping to avoid TRT for as long as possible.

    Btw I am astounded by the carb reload days.. I have endomorph genetics but have been lifting 5-6 times a week.
    I have felt the need for 2 carb reload days a week where I eat lots of pasta and even garlic bread…
    Yet because I’m lifting so hard, I keep losing bodyfat while getting stronger!

    Amazing what lifting does

  3. Regarding your post,

    More and more I’m finding that most ‘seducers’ of the past were soft mommas boys who took advantage of the time they were in- free love, male dominance society etc.

    Not really hard to be a womanizer then.

    As I’m reading Mishima and Bronze Aged Pervert more, I’m beginning to see the warrior as the only really legitimate form of man.

    At least be the warrior first. Then do whatever.

    Most of these Casanovas of the past were hardly warriors though..just emotional sissyboy libertines…kind of I was like in my teenage years and early 20s

    • Sounds like you’re hating on players and just making excuses. Are you kidding, it was easier back then? When you would get killed for sleeping with the wrong guy’s daughter? These days we have tinder and the sexual revolution.

      “I’m beginning to see the warrior as the only really legitimate form of man.”

      Sounds to me like you couldn’t get the “lover” aspect right, now you’re rebounding towards a pure “warrior” mindset.

      Ideally, you should be both.

      • Without warrior there is no lover. Warrior makes any society possible.

        And who the fuck wants to waste time with mentally ill, unfeminine tinder sluts.

        Women in Anglo countries are absolutelt repulsive to be around today. Sex with them is underwhelming.

        Sure in the past you had to evade the men, but the women were more feminine on account of not having unlimited options on a goddamn smartphone

    • > More and more I’m finding that most ‘seducers’ of the past were soft mommas boys who took advantage of the time they were in- free love, male dominance society etc.
      > Not really hard to be a womanizer then

      Oh, so… in the past, women easily spread their thighs for “soft mommas boys,” thus… “not really hard to be a womanizer then.”

      There is nothing so consistent as the laws of the SMP. Any time in history, any place in the world… the rules are the same. [It’s important to understand how different C18 life way. There was the “quality” and the peasants, with a far larger disparity between them than now. There were frequent famines. This story is just before the French Revolution. Paying French and Swiss girls for sex then was like when Gary Glitter goes to Cambodia to pedo brothels with starving third world peasants in them. Casanova was the JMULV or Bradicus of his time. K.]

      • > Paying French and Swiss girls for sex then was like when Gary Glitter goes to Cambodia to pedo brothels with starving third world peasants in them. Casanova was the JMULV or Bradicus of his time.
        — Krauser

        Yeah.

        I almost brought up the guy that goes to Cuba/Philippines/Thailand with pay-to-play and thinks that has anything to do with Game. It is weird to think that Casanova was essentially a guy like that.

        I have never paid for sex, but I don’t have a problem with guys paying for it. It’s serves a function for both parties. I can include real intimacy. But thinking it’s Game is ridiculous. And exploiting poverty and having an ego about it is particularly clueless.

        (I am currently thinking of the “Salt Daddy” Game that was pushed by some guys as SA became more mainstream. I have a real distaste for anyone pretending to be a john and then essentially cheating a whore out of her money. That is low. Fucking a pro for free is real Game… pros (hooker/stripers) can be Gamed and might be worth it and a good experience for the player and the girl. That is straight up Game. But coming in as a “customer” and BSing your way to quick steal is super low value and base… cheaters mindset.)

        > Casanova was the JMULV or Bradicus of his time.

        Yeah. Okay.

        I don’t know Bradicus but I know JMULV is a disturbed guy.

      • “I have never paid for sex, but I don’t have a problem with guys paying for it. It’s serves a function for both parties. I can include real intimacy. But thinking it’s Game is ridiculous. And exploiting poverty and having an ego about it is particularly clueless.”

        The problem is that, in countries where the women are getting more unfeminine, and the dating market more about looks, the question that arises is “what is game?”

        Goldmund describes game as “displaying your value”. Well, if the main value women in the Anglosphere countries are screening for is looks, is game just an in real life version of tinder- ie approach enough girls till one likes your look?

        I am nearly 32, and in the nightclub/university days of 2007-9, Australian girls seemed to scan for much more than looks.
        Charisma and personality were assets then.

        Today,though, it feels extremely different.

      • Casanona another bites the dust. Where are the real gamers then? It’s indeed a rare breed. I remember 3 years ago I meet this guy on a Facebook RSD group, I never met any “PUA” before that, I was just a guy interested in the psychology of the game and with a terrible desire for pussy. So this guy was in his 40s and not very attractive. When he met he told me how great a seducer he was and talked about all his techniques.

        We went for night game (bars and nightclubs) and he did like 50 approaches on that night but it was all terrible, I went out one more time with him but oh god terrible, terrible, he was rejected left and right. Basically, most of my friends who didn’t ever hear of game were far better than him.

        The only guys I know who swam on pussy were either rich or extremely good looking. Even so, there was something lacking, they rarely approached, they only fucked women below their level, if they saw a woman they truly craved they were powerless…

        I’ve much respect for guys who can seduce women hotter than they are with just game but to be fair I think I never met one.

  4. Nick what happened to Bodi, he disappeared off twatter. Did he get doxxed?

  5. Interesting how all the sisters resorted to prostitution so quickly. They didn’t all need to join in out of desperation. The youngest probably lost her virginity that way. And it was just accepted by her siblings. Bit of a red pill there. They wanted some extra money to improve their lifestyle and so became whores.

  6. > Casanova was full-rabbit and addicted to hedonism. He was also unscrupulous about how to achieve his fixes. Perhaps worst of all, he took real pleasure in trying to ruin broke-ass young girls who hadn’t even finished puberty.

    Uhhh.

    When I did my dive into Lolita on my blog, I had a similar feeling for Humbert Humbert, and for the same reasons:

    “I quickly discovered that I didn’t like the book’s main character, Humbert Humbert. Not at all. He was the worst part of the book and I am glad to be away from him.”

    > whore-monger who paid for most of his lays.
    > He wasn’t really a seducer, he was a libertine.

    Yeah.

    And a big take away from reading Lolita for me was that Humbert-Humbert was a whoremonger as well and a GAMMA. He had his delusions of grandeur, but he was a very small man that would endlessly compromise himself to get his fix… while seeing himself as the hero a lot of the time. It was gross to be “close” to him as I read that book. There are “taboo” things I appreciate, but he is not the man I would associate with.

    Thank you for killing any impulse I might have had to mine Cassnova’s work for interesting reference experiences or details on female psych. I assume (like in Lolita) both are available in his books… but I bet I could find better ways to spend my time.

    (SIDE NOTE: It is interesting for me that “rabbit” can be used as such an insult. I happen to think of “rabbit men” in a similar way.)

    • Good points about Lolita and Humbert the gamma. I read it as a young man. At the time, I believed a lot more of what the mainstream tells us than I do now, and I accepted it as a “great” work of art. I never thought that Humbert was heroic in any way, but I thought the value of the book was exposing the inner thought processes of a pedo and how he justifies himself (much like the third Casanova excerpt above, the one K. has correctly labeled “pedo sophistry”.)

      Now that I have many more years of understanding, I still think Nabokov got the thought processes right, but they’re entirely mundane, not the stuff of great art. Nabokov got it right because he had pedo tendencies himself. Some of the scales fell from my eyes when I read in an essay that Lolita was not a one-off for Nabokov; he returned to the well of pedo-writing again and again.

      Nabokov’s style remains beautiful, of course, and the opening paragraph of Lolita is still poetry. But the book’s content is crap, and it’s evil crap.

      • > I still think Nabokov got the thought processes right, but they’re entirely mundane, not the stuff of great art. Nabokov got it right because he had pedo tendencies himself.

        I can’t help but think that as well.

        I learned a lot in reading the book and doing my analysis. I think there were things to learn about female psych. Humbert has his affair with Lolita’s mom… so they have a romantic triangle for some time… and the mom’s psychology is exposed well. And Hubert has this alcoholic (he doesn’t call her that, but that is what she is) lover after Lolita, and seeing that relationship has more insight…

        For me, I am interested in the ORIGINS of female sexuality. When does a girl have her first sexual experiences? When does she first learn to “spar” with the sexualities of adult men? I am not at all interested in underaged girls… but when I date mature girls they come with experiences that originated long before I met them. Lolita was very instructive for me to see how she was aware of her sexual power, how she used it, how the other girls her age used it, as she dealt with Humbert (as well as the “director” she met while doing her after school play).

        Humbert was disgusting to me. He is a guy I would walk away from if I heard him talk in real life… but some of those scenes were illustrative of situations I will face with grown up girls, or of experiences my girlfriends will have had when they were younger, as they put together their own sexualities.

  7. “I am not at all interested in underaged girls… but when I date mature girls they come with experiences that originated long before I met them.”

    How do you distinguish between underage and mature? Purely by age of consent laws, or on a case by case basis?

    Something I’ve struggled with lately in retrospect is the delination of the age of consent. I’m pretty sure Nick has admitted to banging sixteen year olds in EE. I never managed to pick up such a girl but I have paid for high end call girls who claimed to be that age, and obviously that is the age of consent in most of Europe. I certainly didn’t feel like I was doing anything criminal, but many regular folk would consider this a heinous act. In hindsight and with a waning sex drive, I’m also left considering what I might have thought of such an act if I had happened to have a sixteen year old daughter of my own.

    I might also add that I spent more time than I care to admit paying for instruction with a vagrant hustler slash seducer, who unashamedly admitted to banging a fourteen year old at a party in Slovenia. Needless to say that made me very uncomfortable indeed. [Nope. Last time I banged a sixteen year old girl I was sixteen myself. Since I hit my twenties, the youngest girls I’ve banged were seventeen, two of them. I think it’s an absolute disgrace for an adult man to bang a fourteen year old but I know nothing about anyone doing that. Typical seedy rabbit behaviour IMO. K.]

  8. How I’ve missed these blogposts 😊

  9. I just started the 4th volume in your memoir. Fun tidbit, there once was a time you respected Casanova:

    “I plan the full quadrilogy to be a story of elaborate scope and detail, of a kind that has probably not been since Casanova…put quill to paper (though I don’t flatter myself that I am his equal in achievement).” -Krauser 2016, Adventure Sex Introduction

    “Casanova was a worthless piece of shit.” Krauser 2020, blog

    Quite the turnaround! Casanova’s books were on my list, but in light of the few pages printed here I no longer think there’s any value in doing so. [I hadn’t read him till 2018. K.]

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.

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 )

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: