Why I subscribe to Game.

5 May

There’s a lot less of Game disparaging now that Jennifer is no longer commenting, but I figured now would be as good a time as any to talk about how I came around to taking the red pill.

I grew up believing the standard churchly evangelinist dogma of men and women being Equal and that dating should be very egalitarian as to who initiates and all that.  (I had read an unfortunate article in a teen magazine that stated that guys LIKE it when they are asked out.)  When I got to college, it didn’t take long for this advice to blow up in my face.  The older I got, the more experiences I had, or my friends had, that ran counter to the prevailing C.W.  Still, this wasn’t enough for me to disembark full stop from the cultural ship, though the thickness of cognitive dissonance was gradually wearing down.

It was when I read that Weekly Standard article, which subsequently led me to seek out Roissy’s blog, that everything clicked.  The more I read, the more a litany of experiences made sense that I previously could never make sense of.

It explained why I had had crushes on the guys I had had crushes on, even though the crushes were hopeless and I knew they were hopeless, yet I couldn’t stop being attracted even though I wanted to.

It explained why I never was attracted to guys that I felt I should be attracted to.

It explained why I never believed girls who claimed until they were blue in the face that they couldn’t stand some guy.  It explained female group behavior.

It explained why on my college campus, a handful of guys went to every single dorm dance.

It explained why it’s futile to try to convince women to walk away from truly bad relationships.

It explained why self-professed ultra-liberal feminists can rationalize away being some guy’s part-time #2 as A-OK.

It explained why I’ve seen so many guys who probably could have a wife/girlfriend at least 1 to 2 SMV points higher, if the guy would just gain a smidgen (more?) alpha attitude.

It explained why so much Christian dating advice is terrible and doesn’t work.

It explains a friend’s current endless choice, self-imposed emotional drama over two guys, neither of whom she can have, yet she has been angsting over her feelings for both of them for years.  It explains why women would prefer to be stuck in an infinite dramatic loop of their own making rather than going out to face “the real world” and get serious about genuinely available options.

I’m not saying that Game is pure Natural Law, but I have yet to come across a theory that better explains the behavior of the sexes.  Since I have red pilled, I’ve seen very few, if any, relationships that can’t be analyzed pretty accurately according to Game.

My feelings about Game can be summed up by this monologue by Meryl Streep from The Devil Wears Prada:

Advertisements

48 Responses to “Why I subscribe to Game.”

  1. Fred Mok May 5, 2012 at 10:46 pm #

    I’m surprised you didn’t immediately connect game to its biblical underpinnings. I red pilled when I read neil strauss’ seminal text but it was always obvious to me as a Christian man that confidence is attractive. Perhaps I was lucky in that almost all my male role models had a streak of alpha. But I don’t think evangelicalism is totally off here – it’s just that church teaching has been distorted by feminism and the positive self-esteem movement. I know you’ve taken on Josh Harris’ stuff elsewhere in this blog but the traditional view of men and women is still alive and well in many churches.

  2. DC Al Fine May 6, 2012 at 5:40 am #

    “It explains a friend’s current endless choice, self-imposed emotional drama over two guys, neither of whom she can have, yet she has been angsting over her feelings for both of them for years.”

    This drives me nuts. The girl can’t decide between Guy A or Guy B, when both have steady girlfriends that are 8’s when she is a mere 5. The level of delusion is fantastic.

  3. none May 6, 2012 at 7:18 am #

    Watching that clip made me want to stave Meryl Streep’s character’s head in with a shovel.

    If I had been that girl: “Yes, I do find something funny. You. All of you.”

  4. y81 May 6, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    I’m not opposed to ruling the world, whether as an unacknowledged legislator like Miranda Priestley, or as a centurion (i.e., the equivalent of a NCO) in the empire of finance capital like myself. Why I think game is silly is that it involves aping the airs of the rulers of the world in order to score with insecure girls in nightclubs. If that’s really your life aspiration, then you have your reward. Likewise, I can’t imagine anything worse for a girl than to be married to a guy who doesn’t rule the world, but treats you as if he did.

  5. modernguy May 6, 2012 at 11:48 am #

    The whole mechanism is silly. It’s totally superfluous. If you consider that aping an apex status works just as well as having it, then you might as well abstract the manners and mannerisms as what really counts and ask yourself how they relate to the products of a life. In themselves they produce nothing, but for women they are a necessity. For women, the superfluous is necessary.

  6. Badger May 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm #

    “There’s a lot less of Game disparaging now that Jennifer is no longer commenting”

    Not commenting, or banned/moderated by every major blog she used to hang around at?

  7. Gorbachev May 6, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Being banned: even Marcotte has admitted that, though sexist, bad sexism!, Game has hit on a real feminine nerve and actually works. On many girls. Not just weak and impressionable ones. But men shouldn’t do it. And other feminist bloggers are reluctantly admitting that it seems to be bang on. But are unsure what to say about it, except that it’s not fair.

    Not fair that they were wrong, and women just won’t play ball. Because the human race is programmed that way.

    I wonder what justification they’ll find for men not learning Game, despite the fact that it works like a charm.

  8. Badger May 6, 2012 at 2:12 pm #

    “Why I think game is silly is that it involves aping the airs of the rulers of the world in order to score with insecure girls in nightclubs. If that’s really your life aspiration, then you have your reward. ”

    Oh for crying out loud…when is this “game is for banging bar sluts” meme going to die? Nothing against y81 himself, but people who parrot this are showing their cartoonish worldview.

  9. David Collard May 6, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    A modicum of Game works very well in my marriage. I can see, looking back, why I managed to attract my wife and why we have been pretty happy over a long marriage. It explains why some things I tried worked, and others failed. I can see that clearly now.

    It also explains some other odd things I used to notice. Like girls being attracted to self-centred men.

    It explains why the best advice I ever heard on women was “treat ’em mean to keep ’em keen.”

    I was thinking about Game this morning. I would say it explains a great deal about male-female relations. Not everything. But a great deal. I have always been fascinated by women and how they think and how the male-female thing works. Game is the greatest advance in popular understanding that I have seen. There are hints of it in some of the older popular writing and books, maybe in the 1960s, but since then the truth has been largely submerged under feminist BS. Perhaps this will change slowly.

  10. David Collard May 6, 2012 at 7:13 pm #

    Good looks and kindness are also important. But they are nowhere near as important as most people thing for men to succeed with women. I know a lot of good looking men of good character who ended up with very mediocre looking women. I used to wonder why. Now I think I know.

  11. y81 May 7, 2012 at 6:51 am #

    “men of good character who ended up with very mediocre looking women”

    Maybe they were looking for women of good character. Maybe they were looking for women who made them feel special. One of the problems with Roissyism, which Haley seems to have swalled hook,line, and sinker, is the insistence that physical appearance is the only important female attribute. As I have said before, a brief trip to the church nursery should quickly dispel the theory that good looks are the secret to finding a man. If you think, a la Roissy, that church men are losers, then a brief trip to a meeting of the wives of the Goldman Sachs executive staff, or the wives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will teach the same lesson.

    Of course Roissy would insist that those men too are losers, precisely because they aren’t boinking multiple hot young babes, but that is assuming what is to be proved, aka begging the question.

  12. Uncalledfor May 7, 2012 at 7:31 am #

    Gorbachev: “…even Marcotte has admitted that, though sexist, bad sexism!, Game has hit on a real feminine nerve and actually works…. And other feminist bloggers are reluctantly admitting that it seems to be bang on.”

    Links? What are the most recent examples?

  13. David Collard May 7, 2012 at 10:32 am #

    Of course character is important. Nor am I disparaging religious men, being one myself. But appearance in a young woman does matter to most men, as it should. It bothers me to see good men stuck with frumps who cannot make an effort to keep their weight down or dress decently. Someone has taught these men to settle, at an age when they should expect more.

  14. Hana May 7, 2012 at 1:48 pm #

    I might have to think about this a little more, but I’m trying to figure out why some aspects of Game have never quite made sense to me. The idea that Game makes a man more attractive, and the idea that men value physical attractiveness in women, makes sense to me. Maybe I just disagree on the extent to which Game is important.

    Recently, some enterprising member of my extended family sent out a list of all my cousins’ birthdays, the birthdays of their spouses and their wedding dates (quite an endeavour, since I have about 40 cousins on that side of the family and most are married with children!)

    I decided to use this list for some calculations. It seems that on this side of the family, the average age of marriage for women was about 23.5 and the average age of their husbands was about 25. On the other side of my family, the average age of marriage for women is: 22.8; men, 24. I know the majority of the girls on this side of the family were dating their future husbands by age 9.

    Maybe this explains why some statements in the manosphere don’t fit with my experience of the world – like the idea that most college-aged girls are “riding the alpha carousel” and most college-aged guys are betas who can’t even get dates with average girls. I have a handful of cousins who were beautiful and were rejecting lots of (probably beta) suitors, but they were still married/engaged by the age of 23. And most of my male cousins are not alphas, but they still managed to get married young. And most of the marriages seem happy and stable 10-20 years on.

    I think it has to do with cultural expectations…the average age of marriage in North America is a lot later than the average age of marriage in my family/in a more conservative Christian culture. I feel like if the peer pressure to marry young is stronger than the peer pressure to hold out for the “perfect mate”, girls will be more likely to date betas – and boys will have a little more natural “alpha” and be more confident about pursuing girls. It doesn’t mean that the girls won’t feel a spark when they meet an alpha, but they probably won’t spend years pining away for one, either. Because that would waste too many prime marrying years!

    I’m still trying to reach a conclusion on this – but I feel like there’s a happy medium between Boundless (which always downplays attraction and takes a very pragmatic approach…whatever happened to Song of Songs in their worldview?) and pickup artists, who explain all male/female behaviour by the lowest common denominator.

    I think I partially agree with y81, except for the part about Game only working on girls in bars.

  15. Hana May 7, 2012 at 1:49 pm #

    Uhhhh–I mean most of the girls were dating their husbands by age 19, of course! Not 9. :S Because that would be a little young even by the most conservative of standards…

  16. atholkaymarriedmansexlife May 7, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    I’m surprised you didn’t immediately connect game to its biblical underpinnings.

    If that was true, wouldn’t the church have been teaching Game for the last 2000 years?

  17. The Man Who Was . . . May 7, 2012 at 6:36 pm #

    I’m surprised you didn’t immediately connect game to its biblical underpinnings.

    Game used to be much less useful. Being a provider beta used to have much more cache with the ladies when they couldn’t work themselves and needed someone to provide food for their kids. So, the traditional advice was to work hard and become reasonably successful materially. And it worked, mostly.

  18. David Collard May 7, 2012 at 6:43 pm #

    The Christian Church used to teach the headship of the husband very plainly. That gave men more automatic cachet, alpha if you like. In a sense, the Church did used to teach Game.

  19. y81 May 8, 2012 at 7:09 am #

    “appearance in a young woman does matter to most men, as it should. It bothers me to see good men stuck with frumps who cannot make an effort to keep their weight down or dress decently”

    Thiis is the problem I always have with devotees of “game.” They always start out claiming to offer an unvarnished depiction of reality, just describing how men and women really are, without exception. When you point out that many people live according to very different norms, they go all deontological on you. They start saying that men *should* be interested in physical attractiveness first and foremost, that women *should* dress stylishly. (I think it will be hard to find scriptural support for that last proposition, but I’m willing to learn.)

  20. David Collard May 8, 2012 at 9:23 am #

    There is nothing wrong with wanting a wife who makes an effort to look nice.

    I am amazed that this is controversial.

    I have been married 26 years. I have never regretted marrying a woman who was attractive to me, as well as her other qualities.

    There is nothing in scripture about being clean and smelling good either. Doesn’t make it undesirable.

  21. Abides May 8, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    One of the problems with Roissyism, which Haley seems to have swalled hook,line, and sinker, is the insistence that physical appearance is the only important female attribute.

    That’s completely false. Physical attributes (not just appearance, youth/fertility is equally important) is the most important attribute as to attractiveness, but not the only one, and attractiveness is just one thing to consider. Roissy has written many times that personal history also matters a great deal: a lot of partners is good if a man is looking for a sexual relationship, few partners is good if a man is looking for emotional bonding. He has also quite reasonably argued that hormonal profile matters a great deal too.

    Most of Heartiste/Roissy is pretty much unblinkered common sense. Where I disagree with him most is the explanation of why women are turned on by more sociopathic males: he thinks it’s evolutionary biology, I think it is seeking the feelings their imaginary daddies gave them when they were 13 or so.

    There is another major difference consequent to that, and it is whether “gina tingle” addiction is unavoidable or is “curable”: I think it is curable, but it happens very rarely.

  22. y81 May 8, 2012 at 1:15 pm #

    Why would fertility matter if you’re having a one-night fling with a girl you met a bar? Are you hoping she gets pregnant?

    I guess not believing in evolution makes it hard for me to believe in evolutionary psychology. On this topic, I recommend the work of my old law prof, Phillip Johnson.

  23. Elspeth May 8, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

    First, I really like the clip from The Devil Wears Prada. Great movie.

    This conversation has been interesting to say the least. I think Y81 is right to admonish fellow Christians to tread lightly when espousing Game. It is very easy to drink too much of the kool-aid and go off the deep end.

    He’s right about the fertility thing too. Yes a young fertile woman is attractive, but those markers are there for one purpose, and it’s not for a fling.

    That said, it is and has always been true that men want attractive women and women prefer dominant men. Where this whole thing goes terriby wrong is the assumption that women only want so-called alpha men. It’s not a jungle out there and we are not animals. We’re people.

    Most men have bought into the conventional wisdom Haley referenced and have chucked their manhood at the door of potential relationships. What is needed is a return to unapologetic manhood and one need not put on airs and pretend to be an “alpha” to achieve that. He only needs to kow how to manage his own woman.

    Easier said than done, I know. But so long as we continue to preach the gospel of animal instincts even though we are blessed with a higher level of consciousness than dogs, it’s not going to get better, but worse.

    I’m rather thankful that I’m not out there in it, TBH.

  24. coloradoconfederate May 8, 2012 at 3:31 pm #

    Apparently cartoonist Charles M. Schulz even believed in Game.

    http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1952/04/03

  25. proclusishere May 8, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

    “Why would fertility matter if you’re having a one-night fling with a girl you met a bar? Are you hoping she gets pregnant?”

    The idea is that our brains evolved to solve certain adaptive problems. Our problem used to be that we needed to copulate as much as possible (roughly speaking) in order to make sure our genes survived our short, nasty, brutish lives. So our brains evolved, as it were, to help facilitate this process. We became wired to follow certain rules: bang females that have outward signs of fertility and do it often! We don’t have this adaptive problem anymore, but this doesn’t mean our brains have changed much in the short time it’s taken for technology to help us overcome these problems instead. Or at least that’s the story. (Compare our current desires for sweet, fatty foods. In our past these desires had a purpose–when food is in short supply, get calories and fat when you can as easily as you can. But this is bad advice now, given the relative ease with which we get food. And yet I still love Twizzlers…)

  26. David Collard May 8, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    Elspeth, I think you underestimate the amount of unconscious and conscious alpha a man needs to “manage his woman”. It is actually very hard, and that is why a lot of men seem to have just given up. I think men need all the help they can get.

    I don’t think there is too much risk of men going wild from Game advice. That kind of highly assertive man is not going to be reading Game advice anyway. It is the beta/alpha types who are most likely to benefit, which is desirable I think.

  27. Elspeth May 8, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    I think you underestimate the amount of unconscious and conscious alpha a man needs to “manage his woman”. It is actually very hard, and that is why a lot of men seem to have just given up.

    My husband makes it look easy, LOL.

  28. nitouken May 8, 2012 at 7:21 pm #

    And if he didn’t, Elspeth, he wouldn’t be doing it right.

  29. David Collard May 8, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

    That is “the art that conceals art”.

    It is not always easy underneath.

  30. Doc May 8, 2012 at 8:49 pm #

    @Badger

    Oh for crying out loud…when is this “game is for banging bar sluts” meme going to die? Nothing against y81 himself, but people who parrot this are showing their cartoonish worldview.

    I couldn’t agree more – although I’m a lot older than most guys here – pushing 50 – I came to the realization of how to get women long ago and have never looked back. While it’s true that when I was in grad-school “bar sluts” were my target of choice – I quickly evolved beyond that for a simple reason – no challenge.

    These days it’s the doctors and lawyers and others who I enjoy bringing around to my way of thinking. It’s amazing how women that others would say are “feminists” long for what their grand-mother had, and they see it as being denied to them. And they are right – they cannot have it all, and most can’t even have what they grew up dreaming of. I’m completely honest with them, that I’m not looking to get married to any US woman, or even to a foreign woman while in the US as they become warped. That doesn’t mean that I won’t enjoy them and let them share my bed, or treat them like they want, need to be treated.

    It’s amazing how women with “power” careers just long for a man to take control – long to put their mind in neutral and be seen as a sex-object. I tell them, I couldn’t care less about what they do during the day – it’s what they do at night with me that matters. And they love it, need it, crave it.

    So let the “sour grapes” crowd try to convince themselves that only bar-sluts are attracted to men with drive, ambition, confidence, and who make their hearts race, and find themselves wetting their panties when one of those men are around. Maybe it makes them able to get through the day. It really doesn’t matter to me… I enjoy all women, from the lawyer, to the waitress – they all have what I want, just as I apparently have what they all want. It’s unfortunate that there aren’t more men able to deliver that sense of excitement to the ladies, I think more people would be happy that way.

    But I didn’t make the world as it is, but I am responsible for my enjoyment of it. So to me, that is all that matters. So, the “sour grapes” crowd can call the lawyers and doctors, or the bored little wives “bar sluts” if it makes their days easier to bear.

  31. Abides May 9, 2012 at 5:57 am #

    It’s amazing how women with “power” careers just long for a man to take control – long to put their mind in neutral and be seen as a sex-object. I tell them, I couldn’t care less about what they do during the day – it’s what they do at night with me that matters. And they love it, need it, crave it. So let the “sour grapes” crowd try to convince themselves that only bar-sluts are attracted to men with drive, ambition, confidence, and who make their hearts race, and find themselves wetting their panties when one of those men are around. Maybe it makes them able to get through the day.

    As to this I’ll repeat what I wrote above: my impression as to what causes the “gina tingle” that women crave is not that they want to be treated as a sex object by a social leader, but that they want to be treated as a little 13 year old girl who gets to finally fuck her fantasy of a daddy, the detached provider of safety and direction and exciting adult mystery, whose attention she must earn by being a bit annoying and challenging. How happy are little girls when daddy pays them some attention instead of to their mom or their brothers.

    My interpretation implies that it is (theoretically at least) possible for women to outgrow their fixation on their fantasy of a perfect daddy figure, while the evolutionary biology explanation does not allow escape from the attraction to the socially dominating male. In my experience it is indeed possible for women to outgrow that fixation, and to start appreciate men as people, rather than daddy impersonators. Unfortunately the consequences are extremely sad.

  32. David Collard May 9, 2012 at 6:33 am #

    That rather Freudian theory is too complex. The simplest theory is that women instinctively seek the genetic material of socially dominant men.

  33. y81 May 9, 2012 at 9:19 am #

    Doc: That doesn’t sound like the good life to me. In my experience, aging lotharios without wives and children are generally figures of mild ridicule to their peers, and embarrassment to their family members. Now possibly, a succession of sexual encounters with insecure, unhappy women means more to you than the respect of friends and family, in which case, indeed, you have your reward.

    Abides, David Collars, et al.: Both Darwinian and Freudian theories are fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. Obviously, questions of this magnitude cannot be intelligently discussed in blog comments, so I will simply observe that there are very sound reasons to reject the intellectual underpinnings of your theories, which in turn causes your conclusions to fail.

  34. nitouken May 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm #

    y81; regardless of the incompatibility of Darwinian or Freudian theories, or even the failures of the conclusions (all of which are arguable), the functionality of the model is inarguable – it works, and it works for more than bar sluts. Virtually every woman wants a man who is, if not a ruler of the world, at least a ruler of himself and his household. Show me a woman who claims otherwise, and I’ll show you a liar, a lesbian or a dominatrix. Heck, game is Biblical. Ephesians 5:22-33 is one of the most succinct summaries of game in history.

  35. bskillet81 May 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

    Game gets a bad name because of its heavy use by the PUA community. But it is valuable even for marriage-minded Christian men. Contrary to the emasculating current of culture and church, Game teaches that women LIKE masculinity, and men shouldn’t be afraid to express masculinity. It is not wrong, it is not sinful, and in fact it is liberating to accept the God-given role as leader.

  36. bskillet81 May 9, 2012 at 2:01 pm #

    @Elspeth

    What is needed is a return to unapologetic manhood and one need not put on airs and pretend to be an “alpha” to achieve that. He only needs to kow how to manage his own woman.

    My feeling as well. If good men knew that it was righteous for them to be masculine (when in fact the church teaches them to emasculate themselves), the natural result would be men who have a touch of Game without even realizing it. Game, like many other things in life, is a good tool but a terrible master. The useful–and Biblical–thing Game has taught me is that women naturally desire strength, stability, and leadership. When I read Ephesians 5, I realize that God desires this from men as well. When I read other parts of the Bible, I discover that fornication and selfishness are condemned by God. Any use of Game for these is unacceptable for the Christian.
    As always, the virtues of wisdom and discernment are key.

    As for Jennifer, today I had a dust-up with her over at Dalrock’s, where she accused Dalrock’s readers of being baby daddy’s, in order to excuse the sinful behavior of Janine Turner. I will probably be banning her from my blog as well, but on the other hand, watching her hamster wiggle is quite entertaining for me.

  37. y81 May 9, 2012 at 2:18 pm #

    I am all in favor of unapologetic manhood, but that is not “game.” Roissy has made it very clear that being fit, well-built, intelligent, good-looking and professionally successful only turns you into a “greater beta.” To achieve alphahood, you need to be psychologically manipulative in a silly, juvenile way. Just take his datability quiz. For example, he urges that you don’t say “Excuse me” when you get up to go the bathroom, just disappear. That way, the insecure, neurotic woman you are with will wonder where you are, be confused yet attracted by your moodiness and unpredictability, etc. (A secure woman, like my wife, would probably get up and disappear herself.) I really don’t think that’s what Ephesians 5:25-29 has in mind.

  38. bskillet81 May 9, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

    Having just read Roissy’s test, there is a level at which it doesn’t work. It works for airhead bar women. No doubt.

    It won’t work for mildly intelligent professional women. The underlying principles will, but things like not excusing yourself won’t. The reason, which Roissy doesn’t seem to get, is that such women want to take you to their upscale social circles and show you off. As such, they want someone who has more of an air of James Bond than James Dylan. “Shaken, not stirred.”

    He also subtracts 1 point for having an IQ over 145. As I’ve found, this is true, until you mention you went to an Ivy League school. Then it’s +5. Drop that casually when asked where you went to school, and in my experience, the next thing out of her mouth is—to a one—“Woah!” It all depends on how you frame things, and with whom you are conversing.

  39. David Collard May 9, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

    I am a Catholic and a keen Darwinian.

    Game works on my wife. I see no reason why it would fail to work on intelligent women, any more than intelligent men are uninterested in pretty women.

  40. nitouken May 9, 2012 at 8:03 pm #

    The thing that is often ignored is that Roissy, although he is morally void and psychologically manipulative (both points I will concede with no contest), is espousing principles, not specific actions. It is repeatedly pointed out on his blog that you can’t just take canned routines straight off of the wall and use them. And he’s absolutely right that being ‘fit, well-built, intelligent, good-looking and professionally successful only turns you into a “greater beta.”’ At best. Confidence and social deftness trump everything. Sure, there are manipulative techniques that one may use to increase the appearance of confidence, in certain contexts, but the principle holds true everywhere. A lawyer, met in a bookstore, wants the same thing, broadly (no pun intended) speaking, as the 22 year old Women’s Studies major in a bar.

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater; it is one thing to reject the moral attitudes of PUAs; you’ll find a lot of people (me included) who agree with you on that. But their moral attitudes (and even specific screwy examples like the one you cited) don’t make the principles wrong.

  41. David Collard May 10, 2012 at 12:26 am #

    Exactly. I have what most people would consider a strict Catholic morality, but I use Game in my day-to-day dealings with my wife. I think it makes us both happier. I used to do a lot of it naturally, but discovering the theory has helped as well.

    It works in a paradoxical way. But that is women for you. They are not robots.

  42. y81 May 10, 2012 at 4:12 am #

    To each her own, I guess. For myself, if I were a woman, I would much rather be married to someone like Will Wilkinson (whom Roissy discussed as a paradigmatic “greater beta”) than to someone like Roissy, but YMMV.

  43. bskillet81 May 10, 2012 at 7:43 am #

    For myself, if I were a woman, I would much rather be married to someone like Will Wilkinson (whom Roissy discussed as a paradigmatic “greater beta”) than to someone like Roissy, but YMMV.

    As would every clear-thinking woman (what few of them there are). PUAs like Roissy are not marriage material, and I’m they have no problem admitting this. They are clear they don’t want marriage. Greater betas can indeed be marriage material, and in fact are the ideal marriage material. Game can help them reach their full potential. Obviously, someone looking for marriage will use Game entirely differently than someone looking for hookups.
    Generally, a guy looking for marriage can use the aspects of Game that focus on women’s natural attraction male leadership, masculine strength, and stability. Manipulation tactics are less valuable in this, specifically because any woman who is easily manipulated by a man is not wife material: She’ll end up cheating.

  44. y81 May 10, 2012 at 2:29 pm #

    bskillet81: I think you and I pretty much agree, actually. I would only add that masculine strength and stability which flow from awareness from genuine ability and accomplishment are not a game at all, but an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual quality. I don’t know him personally, but it is entirely possible that Will Wilkinson has this sort of game, even if he says “excuse me” when he goes to the bathroom.

    I wish Haley would look for a man of genuine accomplishment who might be interested in an intelligent (if somewhat argumentative) woman.

  45. David Collard May 10, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    y81, there is no point in reasoning from “if I were a woman”, because you aren’t. It is like saying, “if I were a bat, I would spend less time hanging upside down and more time reading Proust”. It makes no sense.

    Another thing, Game is not manipulation. Done properly, it is not a bag of tricks. It is actually quite simple and straightforward. Manly. It does require self-control and moral courage, which are surely masculine traits.

    With Game, a woman responds naturally and becomes a contented woman.

    I am sure that the number one reason why married men don’t get the sex they want, to take one example, is because their wives don’t respect them and don’t want to be close to them.

  46. Inlone May 13, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    —-I had read an unfortunate article in a teen magazine that stated that guys LIKE it when they are asked out.—-
    I do like it. It’s an ego boost.

    As for the guys who ostensibly could get a wife/girlfriend 1 to 2 smv points higher — maybe they don’t need to? Maybe they’re genuinely attracted to the gals they’re with. (I know I’ve always had quirky tastes in women, not the norm.) Men aren’t as hypergamous as women.

    I’ll stop now, before I wind up channeling Jennifer.

  47. anon dude May 16, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    @ y81
    Why do you always suck Will Wilkinson’s dick? He’s a smug atheist Liberaltarian. Why is he your dream husband?

  48. y81 May 17, 2012 at 10:14 am #

    anon dude: Roissy had a long discussion of Will Wilkinson as a paradigmatic “greater beta,” which is why I mention him. I’m not sure who the current Christian equivalent would be, but imagine a 25-year-old Tim Keller and substitute him into the discussion. From Roissy’s and Haley’s perspective, he would rank the same as Wilkinson, i.e., greater beta.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s