I read Roosh, but only because he is so controversial. I do agree that his detractors show their hostility to free speech, but I don't think Roosh is much more than an opportunist to make money off of angry men in the manosphere. He is certainly not laying down any proper ideas that recognize men and women both in a dignified way. 

The problem with him, and others, is that they want nothing more than for women to be slutty with them, and then they go ahead and shame women for the very same behavior. 

The idea that women can and should have sex for pleasure has been supressed for milennia. Ayn Rand was pretty radical in this regard. I am not talking about hedonism, just the idea that a woman can also appreciate man's physical attributes too. Men don't like to be judged in this way, especially when they realize that only a minority of men are truly sexually attractive to women.

Is it any wonder that Ayn's heroes were physically masculine, with angular jaws and fit physiques? It's been said that she first approached Frank based on nothing more than his looks. 

Men who are rejected by women can really develop hard feelings, and that really is at the core of the manosphere. It's hard to accept that we're not God's gift to women, some guys are not even close. If you are born short with an ugly face, you may never get a woman, except one that is highly unattractive, or perhaps by being a provider. But women will never love a provider the same way they love a man who they truly want to get fucked by.

Oh, and regarding casual sex, it is a topic that is hard to pin point. Agree that we don't have a definition of it. Trotting out anecdotal examples of people who had destructive sex lives is not an argument.