Comment Of The Week: The Motivations Of Anti-Gamers

Nick S explains the psychology of anti-gamers:

In my experience of MRA circles, there seem to be two types who dislike Game. There are the social conservative, often religious, types who are still to some extent emotionally attached to the idea of women being less carnal and more moral, and who dislike more than anything the fact that Gamers/PUAs are holding up the dirty linen of women’s less than admirable sexual nature for all to see. These are closely related to father’s rights supporters. They tend to have a beta-first mentality that men who do the right thing and contribute to society are more deserving of being given a break ahead of the players and alphas.

Then there are the nerdy beta types who are so socially inept that they tend not to get laid much, who resent the alpha males who get a lot of pussy, and would prefer to pretend that their lack of success in the sexual marketplace is part of some principled decision to not compromise their values and integrity for the sake of getting some. Feelings of moral superiority are too often the psychological refuge of the failure.

I am not 100% pro-Game. I am generally pro-Game, but with some reservations on a few things. I am not opposed to have a critical discussion of Game. But many of those who oppose Game are so irrationally contrary and hostile to the whole thing that it is obvious they have their noses out of joint about something and are incapable of being even remotely objective.

This meshes with my impression as well. The socon types usually have good intentions, but road, hell, and all that. Many of them resent the free spirited players who get to have all the fun while they grind away in indentured betatude. Others are trapped in an anachronistic mind warp and prefer the comforting lies they were told about women’s Mother Mary purity. Not all socons are anti-game. One would think that those of them with sons might be more amenable to game, having the opportunity to impart to them the wisdom of the ancients and give their sons the gift of true, lifelong happiness. Then there are the former socons who have either suffered, or witnessed a friend suffer, a divorce raping at the hands of a woman come into the game fold and see the light.

The second group — the sperg herd — occupy male ranks from beta all the way down to the untouchable dregs. As Nick S said, some of them feign principled objection to game to ameliorate the pain they feel from being losers in the mating market who can’t say “hi” to a woman without loading their footy pajamas. But some spergs hate game because they imagine the player as iconic representation of the bullies who used to (still do?) hang them from locker hooks by their underwear. To them, it’s better for their egos to rationalize game as useless and manipulative (they’ll never see the contradiction in that), rather than own up to their failure and try to improve. Paging tokyojesusthimbledick.

There is a third group who have reservations about game — call them human nature realists — who have a pretty good grasp of social dynamics, history and the lessons of fallen man and woman, but may not be particularly religious or family-oriented themselves. These types are few in number but strengthened by a worldview that is as close as one can get to reality given innumerable informational input variables and active propaganda campaigns waged against them. They generally accept the effectiveness of game, but they worry that widespread adoption will be antagonistic to civilizational health. Their concern is for the society at the expense of the individual.

The only group to engage seriously is the third group. The first two groups are lost to reasonable discussion. Socons ride like white knights on gimp hobbyhorses, and SMV rejects troll away their powerlessness. At their best, they serve as amusing cat toys.





Comments


  1. The third group, while more savvy that the spergs and the socon white knights, still demonstrate massive denial and misunderstanding of the social forces at work, for the overwhelming cultural forces that necessitate the study and practice of game were unleashed decades ago, and have been gaining momentum ever since. There’s no stuffing that genie back in the bottle. Society is going to keep changing, whether we practice game or not.

    We as gamesmen are merely adapting to social change in the best way we can, following the genetic dictates of our reproductive algorithms.

    Within the rubric of that third group’s concern, it’s possible to the practice of game itself is more likely than anything else to help rebalance society, because this is the primary method of remasculation. That task of comprehensively rejuvenating the masculine ethic will probably never be completed, due in large part to the endocrine chaos caused by the xeno-estrogenic industrial chemical byproducts that saturate our food, water, and consumer goods. Coupled with dietary problems of too much carbohydrate and soy, both estrogenic in some way, society ought to count itself lucky to have men such as ourselves so focused on preserving and developing masculine energy in any form.

    Like


    • on November 8, 2011 at 7:06 pm humansocialdynamics

      I agree that gamers have a clearer view of human nature (of course I would) but it’s far too early to pass judgement on the broader social implications of that.

      You can just as easily make the opposite argument to yours. The most important part of the US economy today is its science and technology advantage, both in Silicon Valley and its university system. Do you really think that a lack of manliness is a problem for them? That learning to be alpha instead of chasing external gratification would help anybody? Come on. Nerds study as much as they do because they don’t have more exciting things to do, like chase models. The MIT blackjack team did not go on to be top students.

      The future belongs to the nerds. Alpha is a great way to get ahead in today’s world, but society needs more smart people a lot more than it needs more alpha people. Our problems are not going to be solved by social reorganization. People are what they are, and as we all know, they don’t change. You can’t remake society any more than you can take a P&D’d lawyer and make her wife material. Human instinct is too powerful. Our problems, and I mean our real problems, like oil and commodity shortages, will be be solved by technologies invented by sexually frustrated nerds. Worrying about the role of marriage in modern society or the influence of feminism on young boys is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

      And hell, most nerds are so beta that a truly alpha person is more disruptive to their workplace than helpful. Facebook’s 2IC is a woman, and that was a good choice; she injects some much-needed social skills into the place.

      Like


      • The top silicon valley firms actually don’t like to hire stereotypical assburger nerds. They look for really smart engineers who also have broad interests, athletic hobbies, big social networks, etc. Software targets the mainstream consumer, and they want relatively ‘normal’ people building it. (Not to mention that Apple/Google/Facebook employment carries a lot of pull on the local dating market.)

        Like


      • on November 9, 2011 at 12:24 am humansocialdynamics

        My brother interviewed for Google last year down in Mountain View. By his description, Google does a great job promoting (relatively) alpha types into management positions. However the vast majority of people he met were still very beta. Yeah, they’re not totally socially retarded, but they’re not dick swinging alphas by any means.

        Hell, even in the military you get a lot of fairly beta people. Outside of the Army, that is, Army combat officers are some of the biggest amogs you’ll ever meet.

        Either way, the epidemic levels of autism in Silicon Valley and amongst IBM employees everywhere is evidence enough that they aren’t quite as socially skilled as they let on. See Baron-Cohen’s assortative mating theory, or the fact that hunter-gatherer tribes seem to be autism-free.

        Like


      • Well, it almost goes without saying that any large organization is filled with betas. There’s also a big difference between the Apples/Googles and the places that do enterprise software. At the latter you’ll find the stereotypical omega untouchable type nerds. They also tend to have a very heavy-handed management structure because nobody has any social intelligence.

        It is kinda funny how the valley screws with woman’s dating market perceptions though. They’ll hear about a guy who works at Apple and assume he shoots iphones out his dick. And then they find a SWPLish ‘normal’ guy with a chubby asian girlfriend.

        Like


    • I would consider myself partially within the third group.

      The idea that the solution to the problems of the world involves getting women off the absurdly high pedastel they seem to have aquired and bringing them back down to earth has a lot of merit, but game alone will not do that.

      Women are after all being protected by their new daddies, the State. To get back to some of the good aspects of patriachy the welfare state needs to collapse as well.

      I don’t think that a critical mass of men can now be turned back from Betadom without some sort of major wide-ranging social or economic event.

      Like


  2. Re: the third group… that’s why I don’t think the umbrella of Game is acceptable as one-size-fits all, and why I divide the alpha males into Vultures and Hawks.

    If Game is merely about notch count, I can understand the MRAs taking issue with it. Many MRAs are fathers, so notch count isn’t their focus. If Game is about full security in one’s determination, I can’t see MRAs having any beef.

    The Game Initiates are likely here for PUA mastery, at first. Some will likely bore of that aspect and desire to live life beyond the bars and bedsheets. It’s those who I fit in with, who want to succeed in business and in their home, with their family.

    If an MRA can be brought to understand the diversity of Game (notches versus social+business+family power), the antagonizing would likely end, or at least be greatly diminished by the third group.

    Even those in the first and second MRA groups might have a change of heart, if they see that studiers of Game aren’t only about getting random women high or drunk to score another notch.

    Like


    • Maybe I lack imagination, but vulture is hard to reconcile with alpha for me…

      Like


      • I just picked birds because of imagery.

        An alpha whose life revolves around “picking the scraps” of damaged broads is a defining attribute of the Vulture class. Bragging about nailing women with borderline personality disorder isn’t showing power or reputation. Those girls were already ruined by others before them — anyone can have them, and many before already have.

        The Vulture isn’t at the top of the food chain, just at the end of it. They know where the scraps congregate, and spend their lives going there for those scraps.

        The Hawk alpha builds his domain first. He focuses on power, reputation and reach.

        There’s nothing wrong with the Vulture alpha, but why not be more? No one is here to save the world, but life is better when you’re on top of it, versus just picking the diseased and rotten flesh the Hawk ignores for better quality.

        Like


      • colossal analogy. really gets at the heart of the matter. great stuff there, cheers!

        Like


      • An interesting distillation of diverging alpha strategies, with immediate intuitive appeal. An excellent example of the hawk vs. vulture dynamic was the face off between Putin and the bike gang leader:

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031752/Vladimir-Putin-leads-biker-gang-Alpha-Dog-photo-opportunity.html

        Both men arose from a thick bog of dark triad humors, yet their individual manifestations of these traits led them down different paths. Though they are cut of the same cloth, Putin’s absolute dominance is unquestionable.

        Like


      • As told in many of the great books for men (Mises, Rothbard, etc): it’s about time preference.

        Those who don’t value their time go for fast returns with diminishing value.

        Those who value their time take calculated long risks with economically and socially higher rewards.

        Still, some would rather be the top of the shitpile than the bottom of the gold pile.

        Like


      • IIRC, Julius C. commented on that last thought as he passed through some Gaul village. He noted he would rather be the first man in that village than the second man in Rome.

        Like


      • on November 8, 2011 at 7:08 pm humansocialdynamics

        The Vulture sounds more like almost-alpha than alpha. What kind of leader of men goes for the scraps?

        Like


      • Alpha doesn’t necessarily mean leader of men. It means potentially powerful.
        Biologically speaking, Alphas are the most attractive individuals to the opposite sex.

        Leaders of men generally have an indirect power, think about a general or a high ranking official. He’s basically an old man sitting all day long in an office, making calls and signing papers. No wonder young hot chicks don’t throw their panties at them.

        Otoh, a rock star is the leader of a crowd. A gangbanger can pull his gun and kill a rival instantly. That’s direct power, and that’s what get pussies wet.

        Leading men doesn’t mean shit, you can sit home all day long and still be an alpha if you hold your frame, don’t fail shit tests…

        Like


      • ()
        and still be considered alpha by a chick. Because a strong frame is direct power. You display the potential of being powerful, and thus alpha.

        Like


      • Have you ever seen the types of broads a musician or biker gang leader goes after? No, they’re not HB8s. Ever watch one of those types age? It isn’t pretty.

        The Vulture alpha could be the frat bro, or the club bouncer — could also be the investment banker or the political speaker — but by lowering their time preference (“more now, less later”) they generally lose their status over time.

        Again, I won’t disparage the poon-only focus. I did that myself in my early 20s. But if I had this site and others in 1993, i’d want someone to mention that long term reputation, a solid savings, and some power in my field was more important.

        Beta to PUA to Alpha leader is a good path. Don’t get stuck in the first two.

        Like


      • “Ever watch one of those types age? It isn’t pretty.”

        That goes for 99.9999999% of women. The vast majority of women over age 25 are pig disgusting. Only young nubile teens and early 20s turn me on.

        Like


      • That is precisely why I dont think a vulture screwing fucked up chicks is alpha. At best he’s an opportunist.

        Like


      • Those fucked up chicks can still be 7s or 8s or higher.

        just have to make sure to get them before 21 while they can still do the cheeky smile without sloppy edges.

        Like


  3. This ignores the group who just do not give much of a damn because they are busy doing something else – for whatever reasons.

    I know a couple of guys who are just a lot more interested in building their business (or making a lot of cash, but it is more common with entrepreneurs) than chasing poon. Others do not care for ONS and just travel way too much to bother with anything else.

    Interestingly, most of the ones I met are fairly knowledgeable about game but simply lack the inclination to make much of it. Some may be nerds and somewhat screwed up in their head (but who isn’t?), but universally by their socioeconomic status they are not low SMV.

    [Heartiste: I’m not arguing with your assertions, but, you know, it is possible to both chase poon and chase other goals in life. It’s not a mutually exclusive proposition. But I guess to some anti-gamers, this is crazy talk!]

    Like


    • That largely depends on the poon you are after. In either case, a 100 flights a year are not too conducive to chasing poon

      [Heartiste: Unless you are a gold star member of the mile high club.]

      Like


      • I do 100+ flights a year, and I still have plenty of opportunity meeting new dames. I don’t chase poon, though.

        Some alphas decide they’ll spend the night looking to get laid.

        Some alphas decide they’ll spend the night with one of their regulars, or reading a book or working on a hobby, or entertaining customers — but if a cute gal enters their territory, they’ll open them and maybe find a new addition to their stable.

        Those who travel often and engage regular dames in frequently visited cities fulfill the “girl in every port” label of alpha.

        What’s it take to meet a gal when you’re entertaining clients? 5 minutes of social proof, humor and DHV? That’s not a big investment. I feel bad for the guys wasting 4 hours bar bouncing with only poon on their minds. Why not earn some dubloons instead and let the poon hop on board then?

        Like


    • I’m a young entreprenuer, just starting to make good cash. I understand game well enough to play most women… but I can’t be bothered with most. Point blank: 90% of women annoy me. She’d better be a 9 or 10 for me to be bothered putting in the effort.

      Like


      • Solid. You’re on your way.

        Now, mask your wealth. Learn to not be a pack rat. Own a few very nice things, but focus on few as much as on nice. Build bridges everywhere, knock down walls. Value long term reputation over short term financial gain.

        Keep the “I’m too busy for you, but I’ll make an exception, so don’t fucking waste my time” attitude with friends, family, clients and dames and you’ll succeed by 35.

        Like


      • on November 8, 2011 at 6:35 pm humansocialdynamics

        Y’know, given that your online persona is your real life persona, isn’t all your talk of how you mask your wealth kind of a case of you… not masking your wealth?

        Crazy bitches have Google too.

        Like


      • My mentor passed his knowledge on to me. He was happy for probably 30 years before he died. I have been happy for the past 6. I have need of nothing else.

        Latelly, my life has revolved around taking on young bucks and hellping them start businesses. I also help them with diet and the dames. I am n a decent path, I have great dames in my life who know the score, so I have nothing risked by being public. Most guys don’t have the optin of being public because they have a boss, girlriend, etc.

        Some day, that will change for the rare few. Maybe I’ll be a part of that change.

        BTW: I am not wealthy. Most of my income is reinvested in new small businesses across a spectrum of markets. In time, I hope they profit enough to reap big rewards, but I’m not sitting on millions of liquid capital. I disclose my 1099 and Schedule Cs every year, as a vesting of sharing to build reputation.

        Like


      • on November 9, 2011 at 9:28 am humansocialdynamics

        You come across as someone who either has their shit together, or is so overconfident that you’re overlooking serious flaws in your shit.

        I hope it’s the first, because I like most of what you write. Not to be a dick, it’s just hard to judge people over the Internet.

        Like


      • I write about my flaws, too. No point in hiding them, being public about them tends to bring sagely advice from others who’ve been through the same shit.

        Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

        Always an open invite to come hang out, I have places in Chicago, Ft. Lauderdale and Houston in the States. Judge for yourself.

        Like


  4. The third group should worry less about tactics and focus on application. Wives don’t stop being women when the ring slips onto the finger. Society benefits from wives who are tingling for their husbands. As most individual men are not, and never will be, alpha harem masters, game can benefit both society and the individual.

    Like


    • on November 8, 2011 at 11:56 am So, Do the Zonk

      “Wives don’t stop being women when the ring slips onto the finger.”

      Exactly. Want to be a successful PUA? Know about game. Want a happy marriage? Know about game. Reality is reality.

      Gravity is what makes buildings hold together, whether you are building home sweet home with a tree house for the kiddies, or the gilded palace of sin, people are people, same good and bad and neutral features, and if you misunderstand them, whatever you are building will fall down or never get built at all.

      Like


      • It has worked for me. Women are happy and satisfied with that relaxed, euphoric look in their eyes if they love their man. Marriage goes from being a burden to a blessing in that environment.

        Like


  5. Anti-gamers seem to keep claiming that game involves “supplication”, “begging”, “submitting”, etc. They hammer on that point obsessively.

    In other words, anti-gamers have a very powerful emotional conviction that getting along with women is the same thing as being pussy-whipped. You know who else believes that? The henpecked khaki-clad IT guys I work with, who joke about marriage being a poor substitute for suicide.

    If, just once, they handled a woman effectively, the scales would fall from their eyes. But as it is, they still think that their failures with women are due to not groveling enough. They don’t know what game is (to know it is to accept it), and their imagination is limited to what fits into their pussy-whipped relationship paradigm. Therefore, when they try to imagine what game is, the best guess they can come up with is to imagine that game must be a better way to grovel.

    They are utterly, fundamentally pussy-whipped. I do appreciate the work MRAs are doing for men, though.

    Like


  6. Since an Alpha is almost defined as someone whom the 16 year olds will lie to as being 18, you can’t be a good PUA without being a PUA/MRA.

    This blog is basically PUA/MRA and the resulting hybrids that result from reading here will eventually take the mantle of MRA away from the above-mentioned 3 types.

    They won’t put up much of a fight. They never had much fight in them.

    Like


  7. I’m not anti-game but I’m kind of lazy. It seems that being an alpha is a lot of work, and that in some sense, if you’re getting more, it’s because you’re paying more, i.e., in terms of the amount of work you have to do. It’s like television production, you have to put on the show that gets your ratings up in the hot babe demographic.

    [Heartiste: Game gets less labor-intensive with practice.]

    I had a young alpha bar-hopping friend who seemed to be doing well, and I liked to tell him, “I may only get ten percent of the babes you get, but I do it with one percent of the work.” I’m not sure if that makes me ten times more adept than he is, or vice versa.

    [It is a lot of work to date three women at once. So even some men with the skill to do so will prefer to relax with one woman at a time.]

    I guess whether it feels like work or not depends on whether you enjoy the process. Some say, “it’s not the kill, it’s the thrill of the chase.” Well, I’m the other way around.

    [Oh, there are plenty of men like you who don’t relish the chase.]

    To each his own.

    [The thing about the chase is this: even when you have a predilection to enjoy it, the chase doesn’t really become fun until you are getting good at it.]

    Like


  8. So what do you say to the third group? I consider myself a member. Game works most of the time, but are we better off because of it? If we had better divorce laws would you favor marriage?

    I tend to think society is perfectly suited to me, giving me lots of choices and options, which I am conscientious enough to handle without consequence. However lots of folks are very undisciplined and our society’s lack of social structure causes much pathology. Say there was still a large social stigma on per-marital sex, bad for me, bad for you, but would that cut the illegitimacy rate? Would this be a more effective anti-poverty program than welfare? Should we care?

    These trade-offs are important and should be discussed.

    Like


    • You’d have a lot of 7 month babies, like used to happen if we returned to the old prohibitions on pre-marital sex for both sexes. People love to fuck, we just complicate things too much in the process with our hang ups. My Great Grandfather (WWI veteran)was known in town as the “Pferdebimmel” or Horsedick in English. All the women in town wanted to ride that pony.

      Like


  9. As for the bigger picture, why would an alpha care the slightest about the anti game movement?

    [Heartiste: Why does an alpha care about anything? Maybe he just likes to chill in his downtime with a hobby or two.]

    Like


    • There is something inherently irritating about people spouting irrational beliefs, and engaging in irrational behavior. Of course there is a paradox in dealing with it.

      Provebs 26:4-5
      Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
      or you yourself will be just like him.
      Answer a fool according to his folly,
      or he will be wise in his own eyes.

      Like


  10. Third group = King A + Gbfm.

    Forget about Gbfm, he’s untouchable. But what is the benefit in engaging seriously someone like King A? If he had power, he would line up all of us players and chop off our dicks.

    And how can we compromise?
    We want pussy in this temptation-filled new world, but he doesn’t want us to get pussy.
    We want to avoid commitment, because urban modern sluts are unworthy of it, but he wants to force us to choose among the damaged goods and try to transform them into respectable wives… against our most primal instinct that forces us to stay away from sluts and other undesirable mates.

    Fuck that shit. The only way to engage King A is reading his stuff, like if you were listening to Mozart or something, and then get back to business as usual.

    Like


  11. Back in the days of the sailing ships, when able bodied sailors would have to climb to the top of the rigging to reef a sail in a blow, the ship heaving heaviliy to and fro.

    They had to hang on for dear life yet get the job done to save the ship and their dear life.

    The saying they had was, “One hand for the ship and one hand for yourself.”

    Same today. We want access to the best poontang and some variety, yet we don’t want to screw the pooch of society. Too much game and then there’s no children; economic failure spreads and freedom is lost. Look at Russia, for example.

    So count me in the realist camp.

    BTW, when I had my three teenage sons in the house, I’d buy condoms by the case and put them in the hall closet for their free access. With my two current daughters, I’m strick and keep a sharp eye out for their would-be seducers. It’s nature’s way!

    Like


    • That’s basically how I feel about game. Individually its great, but when its the social convention it can destroy that society. We’re really exploiting social decay here. A healthy society wouldn’t tolerate a lot of gaming women. Game is good stuff and in many ways, its just about men rediscovering their inner male and learning to use it. It is necessary in a marriage more than money even. If I were 25-35, I’d be advocating game from a libertine bachelors perspective. Now that I’m 50, I see the good and the bad in it. For us, in this time and place, its the only effective way to fight back. The number of trolls we attract tells me we’re effective.

      Like


    • on November 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm humansocialdynamics

      I don’t think Russia’s problem is too much game… Google Krokodil sometime, but overall, Russia, like many countries, suffers from an environment where the unrestrained pursuit of power trumps all else.

      I’m reading a book called Before The Dawn at the moment, and it makes a good case that urban living requires specific genetic-behavioural changes to allow greater cooperation. In that case, it’s likely that a society with too few people who have a relatively unselfish instictual life strategy is doomed to inefficiency. But people avoiding reproduction using game are a miniscule part of the problem.

      More likely, people who really like kids are already outproducing those who really like sex. This trend will accelerate and marriage-avoiding gamers will find themselves in the dustbin of evolution. But that doesn’t really matter, evolution operates far too slowly for them to mind.

      Like


      • This may come true only because DNA testing was discovered and marketed.

        Before 1992 alphas had no problem getting betas to raise their children for them.

        One has to discuss the evolutionary effects of DNA testing, not game itself.

        Like


  12. Of course, it should be noted that the belief that women are morally superior is NO PART of traditional Christianity, and any socons who believe that women are born without original sin are not only stupid, naive, and destructive of the civilization they seek to defend, they are bad Christians. The belief that women are morally superior is a product of Victorian denial of reality, not Christainity. If you had told St. Paul that women were morally superior to men, he would probably have laughed his head off…

    Like


    • Eve ate the forbidden fruit, resulting in the banishment of mankind of the Garden of Eden. ‘nough said.

      Like


    • Could not have said it better myself…the conflation of Christian theology with male inferiority is a catastrophic error…when historically did it begin, I wonder? As Tschafer correctly points out, such a laughable view would have been incomprehensible to the Biblical authors (e.g. the story of Jezebel, etc.)

      The Church could perform an invaluable practical, and simultaneously moral, service to society by speaking the truth about female nature.

      For those concerned about game’s deleterious effect on society (i.e. CH’s groups 1 and 3 above), take the story of ‘Dave from Hawaii’ as inspiration of what game can accomplish within marriage. I have, to my great benefit.

      Like


    • Indeed, current day ministers and pastors in the US have the lowest testerone levels of ANY occupational group.

      We are ALL sinners – most of us would like to be saints and we certainly hope that our wives are, all the time.

      Like


      • on November 8, 2011 at 9:47 pm humansocialdynamics

        Ya know, my thesis is that testosterone isn’t the alpha hormone, it’s the competition hormone. When you’re almost alpha, you work really hard to get over that line. But once you’re there you chill out.

        Although there’s a huge selection bias at work in terms of the type of men who would want to be a minister, it’s entirely possible that they have low T because of, not in spite of, their positions as leaders of their community.

        Like


      • I’m still dissagreeing with you on your ideas of risk, competition, testosterone, alphahood, and their relationship.

        Until shown evidence to the contrary I’m going with the presumption that a rise in status will coincide with a rise in testosterone and selfishness.

        I’m going to guess that high risk preferring personalities likely have an initially higher T starting point, regardless of status. From what I’ve heard some of the entrepreneurs with greatest success got there through leveraging all they had in high risk ventures. Rupert Murdoch is held up as an example. It would make sense that a small percentage of clever and ambitious gamblers would eventually find their payoff. That’s been the story of my life – calculated gambles year after year, decade after decade, always trusting in my abilities, until the eventual payoff.

        After taking many hits from my risks I’ll admit to becoming more conservative – even as my success grew. But my guess is that a risk oriented personality has a higher initial T set point. It would be a learned trait to temper the lust for risk – hand getting burnt too many times. I think T is related to drive, which is related to risk. And eventually can be related to success. Some of the most driven men keep going with drive and risk. Some of those loose all – only to get back on the heap decades later (guilty as charged). Some get several successive successes.

        But success and T have been studied to be directly related.

        Like


  13. Anybody who doesn’t think Game is good has not read Chateau’s Relationship Game Week moster post (about Dave from Hawaii I believe – and which should be a prime link in the header of this blog). That post is the Matrix for married dudes. I got plenty growing up, but I never knew how off I was in so many social/pickup settings. I never knew shit tests, or proper stance, or openers, or negs, etc. Looking back, I face/palm over so many missed opportunities too. My marriage would have been so much stronger than it is if I had know this shit sooner. In a modern world of family life, and tuck-your-balls-in work life, Game gave me back my fire. So go ahead and poo-poo Game. I’ll be teaching it to my son so he’ll know the reality of life and women. Your sons will hate you for not teaching them.

    ps. And a man doesn’t have to be a complete dick to use/benefit from Game. Even a toned-down version of mild ribbing will improve a man’s life in spades with women.

    Like


  14. Here is an example of a defeatist American male at 4:18:

    Like


  15. I am beta, and I don’t alphas. in fact i am thankful to them for providing such valuable insights of their experiences with women. I use this to my advantage, I am regular reader of CH and HUS. see my posts i never criticized alphas.

    In fact i have taken CH maxim don’t get married to heart. I am not going to fund a pussy which had ridden on a other cock, i will earn money travel and enjoy the P & D. Thank you Alphas for providing a service like this to society.

    Like


    • I’m glad that there is a growing minority of virgin fetishists around here. It means that another truth is slowly emerging: only virgins are worthy of commitment.

      It is obvious to most men around the globe, but even the red pill isn’t enough to make it obvious again to most of us stupid brainwashed western dudes.

      Like


      • that’ll be tough. are there any after say,25? and if so maybe something is wrong with them.

        may be best to go for a low count, not zero.

        Like


      • But who dates older than 25 anyway?

        Like


      • Betas.

        Like


      • only virgins are worthy of commitment.

        Not really. There’s a happy medium out there too.

        Like


      • on November 9, 2011 at 1:29 pm (r)Evoluzione

        I hate to break it to you guys, but even virgins have hypergamous instincts.

        [Heartiste} Maxim #98: Marriage is no escape from the sexual market and the possibility that you may be outbid by a competitor with higher value.

        Virgins who marry betas may still get the tingle for alpha cock.

        Your best bet is to polish your alpha cred as much as possible, and then offer commitment only to a submissive woman of low partner count who adores you. The last part is key.

        Demanding virgin status will lower your potential mate pool by several orders of magnitude.

        Like


      • Everything that you said was worth repeating. But I’ll indulge in repeating this part

        (r)Evoluzione

        I hate to break it to you guys, but even virgins have hypergamous instincts.

        Like


  16. Why would I want to convince someone that game works? Hey, I’ve learnt about this thing that means I can have sex with a shitload more women than I could otherwise. If a guy doesn’t believe it works, I don’t give a shit. That’s one fewer guy I have to outgun. If a girl doesn’t believe, I don’t care. I don’t get paid to convince people of obvious shit.

    Like


    • lol this is why we don’t give a shit about the MRA guys. Oh noes someone disagrees with pickup concepts. Like we haven’t been thru that a thousand times with people who’s opinions we actually give a shit about.

      PUAs don’t give a shit about MRAs. They’re creepy and angry to us and seem like exactly the types who’s benefit from getting laid lol

      Like


  17. Every man should learn game like every woman should care about her clothes and make up. Talking to a confident guy who’s not afraid of women is 1000 times more fun than talking to an average betaboy.

    The problem with making love with too many women is that you have to break their hearts when you get bored of them … How can you guys do that?

    [Heartiste: Do you shit false premsies? It seems to be your M.O.]

    I would feel extremely guilty … so if I was a guy I’m sure I wouldn’t be a PUA .

    I don’t know what are the arguments that social conservatives and human nature realists have against game but I don’t think game could be the main problem (except that it sometimes produces lazy, repulsive guys like RooshV who blame women for their own uselessness). Women should be more careful and shouldn’t sleep with every random “alpha” and then complain when nobody wants to marry them. I believe that the real problem is (sex-positive) feminism. It literally encourages girls to become dirty sluts which is disgusting not only to men but to women as well. Megan Fox once said: “I would never date a girl who was bisexual, because that means they also sleep with men, and men are so dirty that I’d never want to sleep with a girl who had slept with a man.” and I kind of agree with that. I think having too much sex with too many men is just dirty. Sex is so filthy … What’s wrong with me?

    [Fake sincerity.]

    Am I a troll?

    [Yes.]

    Like


    • Mayaisatroll

      The problem with making love with too many women is that you have to break their hearts when you get bored of them … How can you guys do that?

      1. Insist she carry her weight in intelligent conversation.
      2. Go rawdog – finish with Dirty Sanchez
      3. have her meet my mom

      pick two out of three

      Like


    • Triangulate radical feminism against sex-positive feminism. It maybe counterintuitive, but it can be powerful.

      Like


  18. Here’s my problem with Game.

    I respect a minority of the writers of Game theory for their astute comprehension of the female mind and providing practical interpretations. It is in this regard that Game is most useful. However…

    Women are only human. I have a fundamental problem with comments alluding to “the exquisite pleasure of a beautiful woman’s sex and love”. Of all the women that I have ever experienced, they’re all kinda hoaky (for want of a better word). They might laugh at my jokes, but they never roll their own. They have no survival instinct. They don’t challenge my intellect. And ultimately, they all look the same without their clothes or makeup on, anyway.

    But most importantly, the prettier that women are, the dumber they are. And this presents a very serious limitation. Refer to my previous comment a couple threads back where I refer to the problem with the genocentric assumption that “life experiences (being provided for) are quite irrelevant to the cognitive skills that one acquires throughout life.” The provided-for, pampered sex with the universal, all-purpose pussy-pass cannot remain at anything other than a stunted level of psychological development. And the prettier that a woman is, the more pampered and provided-for she will be. Brains and beauty are, by necessity, mutually exclusive. Personality is not stamped into the genes but acquired through life experience (or, in the case of pretty women, the lack of it). If anyone adheres to the genocentric paradigm or its baggage, then they will never agree with me, so let’s agree to disagree on this one point.

    Sure, I agree there are other standards by which to judge women. But for me, those other standards have evolved to include words like “strong” and maybe even “moral” (who among my friends would ever have thought I’d come around to saying that lol). I’ve meddled in the Crimson Arts in the past, and I’ve never found that perfect combination of brains and beauty. Never. Ever. Not even close. Paint me picky, perhaps against my better judgement.

    Now obviously the topic can get quite complex, beyond the scope of an online forum. Culture comes into it. The women of some European cultures might sometimes inspire references to “the exquisite pleasure of a beautiful woman’s sex and love”, but the reality is that the feminist disease is going global. It suits me fine being picky. I know that my sex drive is not programmed into my genetic code. I value my freedom much more than I value pussy.

    The Truth (about genes) shall set you free.

    Like


    • “Of all the women that I have ever experienced, they’re all kinda hoaky (for want of a better word). They might laugh at my jokes, but they never roll their own. They have no survival instinct. They don’t challenge my intellect.”

      I’m in the same boat more or less. Growing up I had always wanted a women who could be my intellectual equal. I wanted a beautiful women who I could have deep conversations and connect with on an intellectual level. Through experience and the red pill, I soon realized that this was an impossible goal. Many women can mimic intelligence but none seem to have the deep mental faculties that men have. You think you hear the gears turning, but when you look under the hood, there’s nothing there. This was very hard for me to accept after a lifetime of “women are just as smart as men!” nonsense slammed into my head. The fact that I’m into very left-brained pursuits doesn’t help things either.

      I’ve decided to get mental stimulation from conversations with men and save women for what they are good at.

      This is why I could never understand guys who spend every waking second with their girlfriends. I know they’re not having sex that whole time, so what stops the guy from going insane listening to her crap?

      Like


      • on November 8, 2011 at 7:20 pm humansocialdynamics

        How fucking smart are you people? Yeah, if I was, I dunno, a Fields Medallist I might make your case. There are plenty of smart women. I meet them all the time.

        You have to consider the possibility that they simply aren’t interested in you though. I don’t mean to say that in a shit-talking kind of way either. I’m pretty sure that despite my exterior, being in the military and shit, people still see through that and instinctively realize I’m a bit of a nerd. Like seeks like, genetic sexual attraction and all that, and bang, smart girl in my bed. Whatever type you’re attracting, that’s probably because that’s what you’re compatible with.

        I don’t mean to say you’re stupid. But if you keep getting dumb sluts then your phenotype and behaviour is probably saying “I’m here to P&D you, don’t bother to bring any intelligence.”

        Like


      • What kind of stupid shit is that?

        Game is about skills, it’s not about vibe. If you do it right, you can attract all kinds of chicks. Phenotype is irrelevant, except maybe for pill-free LTRs, where i believe histocompatibility plays a significant role.

        Dan F is talking about chicks who combine booksmarts and streetsmarts. Maybe they do exist but i never heard of them.
        I had flings with a few high IQ chicks. They tend to be boring and even weird when the discussion becomes less theoretical.
        And i had flings with some of the dumbest sluts on earth, and well, they tend to be dumb on every single level.

        It’s difficult to find a chick who has the intellectual agility of some above average IQ guys, who can discuss pretty much everything and maintain the same level of relevance.

        That’s why many guys prefer the company of their male peers, and don’t seek intellectual companionship from chicks. Chicks are good for banging and cooking dinner.
        You’re still believing in the equalist crap. Wake up soldier!

        Like


      • on November 9, 2011 at 12:39 am humansocialdynamics

        I mostly agree with you, it just really bothers me when people speak in certainties. How do you know that your game attracts everyone equally? Did you work out all the different categories of people, then run a comparison on your success rate with each category? Of course not. So you don’t know.

        You say that book smarts and street smarts are largely mutually exclusive. No shit mate. That’s exactly my point, you don’t like intellectual girls cuz deep down you’re not really attracted to that, so instinctively you find it annoying, and girls like that don’t like you either. It’s like the “wide faces signalling aggression” thing.

        I actually like smart girls. That’s not equalist crap. I’m just like that. I run a relationship like anybody else around here, keeping girls on their toes, I’ve never been broken up with in an LTR, I don’t put up with shit. I’m not brainwashed.

        The fact is, some things are just attractive to certain people, probably due to assortative mating strategies. You remind me of the feminists who insist that patriarchal culture has brainwashed men into being attracted to looks, except you think that feminist culture has brainwashed men into being attracted to achievements. Nobody’s brainwashing anyone! It’s biology!

        Like


      • These girls do exist. There are even some hot ones, but they are super rare – even rarer if you posit that they need to be single. I meet like maybe one or two a year, at most and I work in a high to super high IQ environment. The problem with them is that they are one of the few things in the world that have any chance of making me lose my cool (I just dont give enough of a shit for most of the world) and the results are predictably a mess, every time. Also, they have spoilt average hot girls for me. Just ain’t worth the hassle.

        A more interesting point: most of them make for very good friends. Some are actually very open to introducing you to other girls (or even play girl wing man), too, but the whole thing falls down by the sheer scarcity…

        Like


      • I met one super hot genius high libido woman. She was all that. I seduced her when I was 39 and she was 21. I fell horribly, deeply in love, and she showed every sign of doing the same.

        She wound up marrying her fiance as he had the US passport she was looking for. Mine was only Canadian. She later stopped fucking the guy, got heavily into feminism, and became a lawyer.

        I’d like to think that if she remained with me, I’d have molded her better.

        But perhaps what really happened is that I dodged a bullet.

        Either way, I got over smart chicks. Smart is great, but it’s no assurance of anything. And it’s not my fundamental need. Intellectual stimulation can come from many places.

        I’ve dated several smart chicks. That’s easy for a smart guy, because smart guys are rare, so seducing a smart chick is relatively easy. But most of them had some smart problems.

        Like


      • That still leaves the big question where to find them…

        Like


      • My wife’s very intelligent. We talked about heavy subjects when we met, but now we mostly talk about everyday life topics. Its the nature of life together.

        Like


      • That.

        I’m reminded of some fictional story about a super smart rabbit.

        Intelligence is mostly a wasted useless appendage. A rabbit is a rabbit.

        I’ve got a good little rabbit.

        Ya, she’d be more fun with if her cerebellum were more folded. But she does her job as a rabbit.

        Like


      • I went through a similar adaptation tragectory. It took a long time to just give up.

        As was mentioned in another post, after you realize there are no other options, you stop looking for them, and can be satisfied.

        On the other hand, I’ve had some smart girlfriends, and even a few good conversationalists. No, they weren’t as mentally capable as a very capable man, but better is still better.

        But even with that, I’ll still opt, personally, for hot and sexy and mentally stable and warm and cheerful and doting, over smart and independent and masculinized any day.

        Like


      • I want smart, independent (if I wanted a dog to care for, I’d buy one. Alas, I hate the things) and pretty (IOW, 7.5+).

        I doubt I will adapt (it’s really what we usually call settling) – I’ve been known to no go for anything if I cannot get what I want. Being in a relationship that feels like settling just is not worth it.

        Like


    • i think you’re onto something regarding girlhood pampering and the ‘pussy pass’. other women are dull, most of them anyway. even one of my daughters at 16 said so- ‘they all talk about the stuff they have, and the stuff they’re gonna get.’

      the women i have for friends have the same qualities i prize in men-intellectual curiosity and a sense of humor. any of the ones who have that seem to be those from dysfunctional family backgrounds or had or once had some physical flaw,e.g., bad looks or fat. they may have had to develop non-looks related talents or a better personality so their girlhood friends would take them seriously. my 2 cents.

      could it be that you’re looking in the wrong places? because i know they do exist. not to blow my own horn, but my husband and i have trained our 2 girls _not_ to be airheads. they had no aptitude for it anyway. 🙂

      Like


      • Please do explain where to find them. I struggle to come up with a somewhat accurate heuristic – so far the best predictor for them being smart and nice to be around is an STEM background moving to a business role (straight STEM crowd is too narrowminded) but I find it hard to find enough of them…

        Like


      • I’m going to guess that feminine traits are antithetical to any intellectual curiosity.

        I’m guessing hormones that make a girl girly kill off any hope of being mentally stimulating to a man.

        Like


      • That would depend what you consider as girly. If it’s all emotional, uuuh babies type girlishness, then yes, that’s probably true. However, I would actually consider that to be an upside.

        If it’s be a nice person to be around, then I’ve found hot nerd girls to be very good at that – irrespective whether you bang them or not.

        Like


      • i pitched that question to my middle son (who’s something of a tomcat) yesterday. ‘did he think intellectual curiosity compromises a girl’s femininity?’

        he thought about that and said yeah, you had a point, but the tradeoff is well worth it. interesting.

        Like


    • “And ultimately, they all look the same without their clothes or makeup on, anyway.

      You lost me right there

      Like


      • Cosmetics and fashion create illusions that bear little resemblance to the reality. They create distinctions that just aren’t there. As I mentioned in a previous post, I like to undress women with my eyes, to imagine what they’re like without their makeup and their fancy attire, maybe even giving them a silly haircut. I’ve come to the conclusion that, provided they meet basic standards of health, skin clarity, nutrition and height (I like ’em tall), they all look pretty much the same without their clothes or makeup on. They really do. When you remove their cosmetics and fashion and group them by height, your sevens, eights, nines and tens are not goiing to be all that different to one another. And you can still exercise your personal preferences with their natural variations as in hair and skin color.

        Like


      • ” I’ve come to the conclusion that, provided they meet basic standards of health, skin clarity, nutrition and height (I like ‘em tall), they all look pretty much the same without their clothes or makeup on.”

        lol! all make up and clothes? i suppose that’s why model scouts go to tiny brazilian villages in the middle of nowhere. just to milk their expense accounts more than is necessary. my god man. there’s nothing worse than an ugly chick w makeup. you can take the healthiest chick w great skin whos tall but just has a fucking beak of a nose for an obvious EG. in many cases, makeup just accentuates and exaggerates the flaws in symmetry and bone structure. a 10 is light years away from a 7. a 7 is an average pretty chick; you find about 1 per 30 girls. a 10 is a victorias secret model; these types of chicks are one a million types (at least). if it were all makeup, scouts would never need to leave NYC.

        Like


      • Just as dudes without class or clue can implement good game badly, so too, women without class or clue can cake on makeup badly. You know when makeup is applied properly when it is difficult to detect – women who know their “beauty secrets” know what I’m talking about.

        Like


      • I like to undress women with my eyes, to imagine what they’re like without their makeup and their fancy attire.

        I don’t! That’s why I live at the beach.. The chicks are already without makeup and clothes. Up close and in full sun the difference between a 7 and a 10 is the clear difference between a millionaire and a billionaire. A 7 doesn’t need a wow factor on all her body parts. A 10 most definitely.

        Like


    • My wife’s pretty funny. She also tells good one liners and clever double entendres. I think most women are fairly shallow though.

      Like


    • on November 8, 2011 at 7:21 pm (r)Evoluzione

      “I know that my sex drive is not programmed into my genetic code.”

      With that comment, you’ve conclusively proven that you’re not educated on the subject enough to be entitled to an opinion about what traits are, or are not genetically driven.

      Take a basic physiology class. Or google the origins and metabolic functions of testosterone.

      Like


      • “Take a basic physiology class. Or google the origins and metabolic functions of testosterone.”

        And your source is….?

        Should I raise the matter of confusing cause-and-effect, I know that you won’t have a clue of what I’m talking about. Nor will you have a clue of what I mean by systemic effects. How do I know these things? Because in but one line, you’ve established the purpose of testosterone and its metabollic functions.

        Like


      • on November 9, 2011 at 12:49 am humansocialdynamics

        Dude, read some evolutionary psychology. It’s the foundation of all game.

        Learning game without evo psych is like building a catapault without F=ma. You can do it, but good luck troubleshooting the fucker. The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, or The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (Buss Ed., you can find it as a free ebook with a bit of hunting) are both awesome.

        Cause and effect are almost pointless with complex systems anyways. You’ll go chasing cause effect cause feedback loops all day long.

        Like


      • on November 9, 2011 at 1:21 pm (r)Evoluzione

        “And your source is….?”

        The basic functions of testosterone on libido is ubiquitously known and understood throughout the physiological and medical sciences. I need no source for what is considered common knowledge.

        You, on the other hand, are making claims counter to commonly accepted physiological fact. Therefore burden of proof falls on YOU.

        Like


      • So now we’re trotting out the old “everybody knows” chestnut. The relationship between biology and culture is shrouded in contention, and there is no “everybody knows” about it. I take it that you’ve heard about the nature/nurture debate.

        It used to be ubiquitiously known and understood (among Creationists) that god created the earth and the universe over a few days. To this day it is ubiquitously known and understood (among feminists) that men have, for millennia, been engaged in a wholesale conspiracy to oppress women and deny them their rights. But are either of these things true? There are a lot of “ubiquitously known and understood things”, depending on one’s persuasion, that are just as ubiquitously disputed or later shown to be bunk.

        Like


      • You’re stalling. Evidence or STFU.

        Like


      • (r)Evoluzione, the nature/nurture debate will never be resolved in this forum. If you think it is, then you are being naive.

        Like


      • Noballs, you must be a chick lawyer, with your constant obfuscation & demanding evidence but never providing any yourself.

        Like


      • This is actually possible, but a fairly rare phenotype. There are people who lack a “conventional” sex drive – some claim it’s something that ought to be treated, personally I very much doubt that. If the lack makes them unhappy, then by all means treat them for it but if they can live with it, I see no reason to mess around with it simply because society thinks you ought to be horny all the time

        Like


    • If what you say is the state of things, the only option you have is to
      a) adapt and adjust
      b) don’t adapt and adjust.

      Like


  19. The 1960’s Sexual Revolution fatally wounded a 2000+ years old civilization.
    The 2000’s Game will put a stone on it’s grave.

    Welcome to the jungle.

    Like


  20. I’m ultimately pro-Game and not in the “third group” because I understand that a negligible number of men have the aptitude, desire, and energy to be PUAs. An overwhelming majority of men want an LTR/marriage under conditions that make family-formation a viable option for them. For them Game is what gun ownership is to responsible citizens.

    And all this conservative sociology aside, Game is essentialy a quality of personal excellence that is man’s birthright. Beating or deceiving boys out of their natural striving to be as alpha as they can be is a crime inflicted upon the last two generations of men.

    Like


  21. All anti-gamers fall under one category described by this pic:

    Like


  22. I fail to see how group 3 are anti-game. I personally fall square into that group, and I would encourage any guy to learn game. The problem is that game, in isolation, is a societally destructive force, just like greed in isolation (see Libertarians, Ayn Rand devotees, etc.), or empathy in isolation (Operation Wall Street, Socialists, etc.) or ANY philosophy in isolation. While I would not fault anyone (except me) for choosing to keep a steady rotation of women, leavened with a healthy dose of one-night stands, I fail to see how someone can claim that to be a societally beneficial way to act. The same argument goes for those who argue for complete deregulation of trade, or controlled economies, or complete military non-interventionism. An isolated, extremist viewpoint is NEVER societally beneficial if it catches on too much.

    That said, extremist viewpoints are necessary; they act as a balancing force. Hypothetically, if 80% of the male population learned game overnight, it wouldn’t be very long before women’s priorities shifted.

    [Heartiste: I don’t know about that. Would men’s priorities shift if 80% of the female population became beautiful overnight? I don’t see men suddenly deciding that 8s, 9s and 10s are no longer sexually desirable because they’re all over the place. It’s an interesting speculation whether a massive increase in the number of hot babes leads men to play the field longer or lock down a woman in marriage or LTR sooner.]

    This is one area where I disagree wholeheartedly with our host; the current desire for an atavistic alpha male is only coincidentally similar to primal humanity. It is a reaction to prior values, not a regression. And as game catches on with the majority of men (which it will, eventually), women will shift in priorities back towards a beta provider. I rather think that it isn’t so much the alpha-beta spectrum which matters, as how much you stand out from the masses. Of course, that little bit of futurist speculation is of almost no relevance, since that shift probably won’t happen in our lifetimes, or our children’s lifetimes.

    Like


    • [Heartiste: I don’t know about that. Would men’s priorities shift if 80% of the female population became beautiful overnight? I don’t see men suddenly deciding that 8s, 9s and 10s are no longer sexually desirable because they’re all over the place. It’s an interesting speculation whether a massive increase in the number of hot babes leads men to play the field longer or lock down a woman in marriage or LTR sooner.]

      Fundamental difference in priorities. If suddenly 80% of the women were as beautiful as the current top 10%, men would ALWAYS shift towards the top 10%. If my stable included Meg Ryan, Julia Roberts, Andie MacDowell, Morena Baccarin and Hayden Panitierre, of COURSE I’m going to be spending most of my time in Hayden, despite the fact that all of them are good looking women. And I may be completely wrong in my speculation, but I think that uniqueness is actually the determining factor in women’s attraction to men. Currently, that means alpha, and it probably will for quite a while, so it is nothing but speculation.

      [Heartiste: Uniqueness is more important as a determinant of male attractiveness to women, because women are hypergamous mating machines. But female attractiveness is more objectively measurable. A sudden increase in total female beauty would mean more happy men and lots of better sex. In other words, a man will not perceive a female 8 as less than an 8 just because there are now more female 8s in the population.]

      Like


      • In other words, a man will not perceive a female 8 as less than an 8 just because there are now more female 8s in the population.

        Of course not, but they can still get jaded. Admittedly, the idea of being jaded towards women in the 8+ range is still EXTREMELY speculative, but right after losing my V-card, I thought I would never get bored of missionary position, either.

        Like


      • Go to Kiev and you’ll see exactly that situation.

        Like


      • That is not so much a function of appearance but mindset.

        Like


  23. […] my RSS reader. It reminds me to read the people who are blogging important stuff. Heartiste had a post today which was simply brilliant, dissecting the three flavors of anti-game men. I commented at […]

    Like


  24. on November 8, 2011 at 1:31 pm Manuel Dexter

    Love Systems has a new DVD set: Inside the Black Box, The 11 Essentials.

    Like


  25. I think this comment is incredibly short-sighted and condescending.

    See, it’s easy to categorize people into groups, but the reality is that most people span the spectrum between the groups or who don’t fit into any of the groups. It’s even easier to criticize your opponents by stating that their views are utterly without merit and that you’re “unwilling to engage” them in discussion.

    Just because the editor or the comment-writer disagrees with these’s people’s views doesn’t mean that their views are any more “right” than anyone else’s. People here forget that they are in a very small minority; most of society does not adhere to or agree with their views of dating. Even if it were correct to assign “right” and “wrong” labels to different views, it is hard to attach the label of “right” to the seduction community’s viewpoint when few people agree with it.

    Frankly, I tire of reading posts where self-proclaimed “alpha males” make fun of people who decide not to follow what the pickup artists say is right. The seduction community is frowned upon by these groups of people not because of religious corruption of women or the views of people without success, but because its members go overboard, turning confidence into arrogance and condescension.

    [Heartiste: In the arena of seducing women, arrogance and condescension beat defeatism and humility.]

    Rather than improving their lives, as the community promises to do, many members turn themselves into social robots, using their newfound skills at seducing women to make up for bullying and abuse from their childhoods. This commenter exemplifies this type of community member – someone who used to be one of the “beta males” he now so despises , and who became a pickup artist to prove that he is better than the other men with whom he previously associated. In the news media, this would be referred to as the bullied becoming the bullies. See, I can do this sort of farcical psychoanalysis too.

    I don’t have a problem with people wanting to be successful with women, but I do have a problem with those same people not minding their own business and leaving people who choose different lives alone.

    Like


    • So to summarize: there is no such thing as a “right” or “wrong” viewpoint. But if there was, yours would be wrong, oh so very wrong.

      Like


    • [Heartiste: In the arena of seducing women, arrogance and condescension beat defeatism and humility.]

      ———————

      That may be true, but condescension and arrogance are poor traits to exhibit for almost any other area of life than seducing women.

      [Heartiste: Maybe. Steve Jobs was an arrogant, condescending prick from all accounts, yet he succeeded wildly in areas of life not directly related to seducing women.]

      And that is where we disagree. You believe that the purpose of life remains at the bottom level to reproduce,

      [No, I believe that the meaning of life is to fuck. The purpose of life is the veneer with which we paint over the dispiriting meaning.]

      while I believe that life is about more than that. This is the core value about which the seduction community and its critics disagree.

      [I don’t speak for members of the “seduction community”, whomever they may be, but I can assure you that recognition of the core meaing of life does not preclude the pursuit of nobler aims.]

      Like


      • Heartiste wrote: “I believe that the meaning of life is to fuck. The purpose of life is the veneer with which we paint over the dispiriting meaning.

        This is an example of the casual nihilism I’m talking about below. It is a placeholder, a substitute for investigation so that he can get back to the naked assertions that promote his preferred mode of being.

        Also, it’s internally contradictory, completely dense, and an impossible blueprint for life.

        But it serves a function — so long as no one looks under the hood. And if you look under the hood, you are a “socon” with sexual hang-ups. This is the increasingly implausible narrative we are expected to accept.

        Like


    • quintin3265 wrote:

      I think this comment is incredibly short-sighted and condescending.

      See, it’s easy to categorize people into groups, but the reality is that most people span the spectrum between the groups or who don’t fit into any of the groups. It’s even easier to criticize your opponents by stating that their views are utterly without merit and that you’re “unwilling to engage” them in discussion.

      Nah, brother. You’re slightly off target here. This was a helpful post. It is a handy taxonomical reference written by Heartiste himself to describe his particular categories of straw men. It is practical insight into his perception of the critics which he believes himself to be engaging, a window into misunderstanding (or limited understanding), and it will be helpful in discerning the genuinely vincible disagreements from the insuperable differences based on gaps in knowledge.

      Straw men aren’t meant to be precise descriptions of types. They are meant to mirror the key components of a rhetorician’s argument. They are an anticipation of criticism for purposes of preemptive dismissal, as if to say he’s one of those types whom I do not have to engage because I’ve already addressed his kind before. Or, “Asked and answered. Next.” In that way they tell us what the rhetorician really thinks of the weaknesses in his own argument.

      When I’m called a white knight or mangina or asocial loser by Heartiste’s lesser mimics — as a pointed engagement typically devolves to — I can be sure we’ve arrived at the furthest reaches of some combox cruiser’s rhetorical capacity. The men I respect here understand the necessity of “agree to disagree” required by this medium, and they know how to end an engagement without unintentionally revealing how little they have to offer beyond the limitations of the arena. For instance, if someone is reduced to sputtering a one-line dismissal rather than remaining silent, it is a reliable sign he has nothing more substantive to offer and yet unable/unwilling to humbly recognize he is out of gas.

      Like


    • I am a critic, though I am far from “anti-game.” I am pro-game the way Jesus Christ was pro-O.T. I have not come to overturn the Mystery Method but to fulfill it. (And ground it in more reliable principles.) I fit none of Heartiste’s categories above, and, as quintin3265 remarks, the places of overlap are more interesting than his rather facile and random divisions.

      With the rise of easy argument thanks to the internet, straw men have become a crucial component of most aggressive rhetoric. The anticipation of a neat objection is simpler to deal and dispense with than a real counterargument in the limited give-and-take of bloggery. No one is going to hang around for a hundred-entry dialectical exchange to determine the precise nature of a disagreement, like Socrates and the sophists. The best one can hope for is a miniaturized Lincoln/Douglas exposition-criticism-response before the WWW has shifted its attention to a fresher and shinier topic.

      Now add to the straw man categories further assumptions of psychology and circumstance, and it’s an almighty farcical mess. This is no environment for a real exchange. The best he and you and I and any commenter or troll can hope for is to present our case as succinctly as possible and let it stand. The attempt at direct persuasion is a quixotic task here.

      Quintin, your placing scare quotes around right and wrong is touching on relativist hoo-hah that detracts from your otherwise legitimate observations. And Heartiste is correct to imply “arrogance and condescension” are irrelevant, particularly when a man has his argument locked down tight. Such fireworks simply do not faze the prepared, and if anything, they become weapons against their users.

      Finally, understand that Heartiste is just transmitting an inherited nihilism with which you should be familiar and comfortable in this culture. It should not distress, much less impress, and still much less intimidate you. It is all so much proudly inconsistent pseudophilosophy, intentionally shifting at will so as to be untargetable, like a raghead tango changing up safe houses to be one step ahead of the Predator drone.

      Like


      • KA,

        The question is: why are you terrified by what you characterize as “casual nihilism?”

        I want you to think on the following idea. The sense that life has a strong meaning and purpose is an occasional sense, more like a sensation than a conviction, and one that cannot be codified.

        The frightened and too often weaselly bombast of your posts is a product of fear, not thought.

        A truly religious man, a pious believer, knows that he will doubt his faith more often than he will be in the comforts of grace.

        Back to The Life of Johnson for you, buddy; you need to study an exemplary struggle.

        And, btw, no one is looking to Roisy for insights as to the meaning of life — one reads this blog because it’s punchy and funny and *very* accurate in its summed portrait of women.

        Like


      • n/a wrote: “… why are you terrified by what you characterize as ‘casual nihilism?'”

        Projection. I’m not “terrified” of a grammar-school understanding of the mysteries of life. “In utter contempt of” would be more accurate.

        “No one is looking to Roisy for insights as to the meaning of life”? You must not be reading his fanboys very much or very carefully.

        And this casual-when-I-wanna-be/serious-when-I-wanna-be shell game is having his cake and eating it. It’s intellectual cowardice, in fact. Either engage in a discussion of the fundamental thoughts that motivate your choices in life, or defer to those of us who have a facility for that conversation. You can’t just assert the “commandments” of how one should behave and then flee the room when it comes time for supporting your assertions.

        Either you have an answer to serious criticism or you don’t. Granted, these are some esoteric subjects, and it wouldn’t surprise me that they are fundamentally misunderstood by Heartiste himself or amateur nihilists like you. It is enough for me to serve notice that his philosophical foundation is cracked and sagging and unable to support the high-flown architecture he imagines it can. I’m just the engineer here, and I’m not even charging you for my inspection. Build whatever fantasy towers of Babel to the sky you want. No matter to me if he makes his life a ruin.

        Others, however, who stay silent and only read: theirs are the ears for my speech. They have already intuited something shaky about the whole project. I am simply putting words to their notions. I am backing up what I contend, unlike your otherwise esteemed webhost, who can offer nothing more than nihilist fortune cookies like you and laughable anthropological extrapolation-theory backed up by social pseudoscience.

        Like


  26. Differentiate between the political-social anti -game types, and those who do not judge PUA’s in general and accept the effectiveness of game but choose personally not to be a PUA for a variety of reasons and is a component missing in many of these comments. This group is not socially inept asperger types with two inch dicks who like obese sixty year old women feeding them from a bottle. Just keep it simple” I don’t judge you, You don’t judge me” I should read again the Paul Elam article, but I remember it as more of a cautionary tale and suggestion to consider the risks of pussy worship. This site offers great advice and observations but for such a dominant group of alpha males a lot of you get your panties in a wad real quick.

    Like


  27. Does anyone think that the anti-game stuff is just one massive shit test, at least when girls are saying it? Weeding out the guys who haven’t internalized this shit, at least.

    Like


    • on November 8, 2011 at 7:32 pm humansocialdynamics

      A shit test is a universal part of human relationships. Trying to gain control of a frame in order to judge the status of the other person is a universal tactic in both men and women.

      Trying to not read the outcome of a shit test, even an inadvertent one, is like trying not to read a roadsign. Your subconscious instincts do it automatically, you’d have to be a fucking Buddhist supermonk to turn that off.

      So no, it’s not meant as a shit test, but yes, it is interpreted as a shit test and should be treated as such.

      Like


  28. I think the third group fails to see the possibilities of using game for the improvement of society. The masses need leaders to provide purpose, motivation, and direction. Today men who score lots of beautiful girls are the most respected men (It used to be the bravest warriors) . The most optimal leaders to lead a Western revival are more like Chateau Heartiste and less like the types at the young Conservative conventions you see on C-span.

    The challenge is getting these men to see the importance of something outside of just bedding down women. In a lot of ways this is no different than having a drug habit. Yes, everything is OK when you’re inside a young, hot, tight vixen. Everything is also OK when you snort a line of oxycontin or smoke a bowl of meth.

    The main principles of game are critical for smashing the globalist-schmaltzfucker zeitgeist (Confidence and framing the situation). Leaders who can remain confident and reframe debate can best attack of globalist-pigdog-sckmaltzfucker discourse and narrative.

    After globalist-pigdog-schmaltzfuckers are neutralized, a better society can be built. The key to overcoming the pigdogs is leadership. The warriors-leaders of today are the great PUAs.

    So to the alphas reading this I encourage you to ponder the existential question: when you’re facing death will you be satisfied with what you’ve accomplished? Did not Achilles have a point in being remembered for thousands of years? Think about your reputation in Valhalla?

    OK, at the very least think about what your harem would look like if you did take on such a leadership role? There really isn’t a bigger “bad-boy” than he who takes on the globalist-pigdog-schmaltzfucker order. You show no fear when approaching a beautiful women at the club. but where will your fear level be at when approaching the struggle for a new Western renaissance?

    Like


    • So to the alphas reading this I encourage you to ponder the existential question: when you’re facing death will you be satisfied with what you’ve accomplished? Did not Achilles have a point in being remembered for thousands of years? Think about your reputation in Valhalla?

      ———————-

      When I’m facing death, I’ll be dying, not worrying whether I’m going to be remembered for what I accomplished. Some people seem to think that there is something special about the last hours of life. They live their entire lives because they are afraid of “dying alone.”

      Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t see why the last hour of my life, in the unlikely event that I am actually conscious to experience it, is somehow more important than the hour in right now writing this comment. Planning for retirement and eating well are good to ensure a good life while you are still alive, but I fail to see the point of planning 50 years in advance to experience a “good death.” Death is a horrendous experience and there are no mitigating factors, whether related to the game or to what one accomplished in business or family life.

      Like


      • “Perhaps I’m missing something, but I don’t see why the last hour of my life, in the unlikely event that I am actually conscious to experience it, is somehow more important than the hour in right now writing this comment.” (quintin3265)

        It’s not. I guess I didn’t explain the existential question good enough? At some point you’ll realize that death is upon us. We’re all going to die (or leave this plane of existence) someday. Knowing this, you have a choice on what to do with your limited time on earth. Existentialism advocates finding a mission for your life and using your gifts to accomplish it. I believe that this mission should be beyond material gain or pleasures of the flesh. However, I do believe having satisfying relations with beautiful women (whether LTR or just sex) make you more effective at accomplishing your mission.

        I realize taking on the revolutionary leadership role against the globalist pig-dogs is not for everyone. It will come with losses of status, economic opportunities, and possibly freedom. But like most things in life the biggest risks bring the biggest rewards.

        Like


      • You’re talking about the “immortality project”. Apparently it’s a common, if not universal human drive.

        People resolve that in various ways. It’s been said that there is a hierarchy of more subtle ways to resolve that drive. Ken Wilber has a book called “The Atman Project” which talks about that from a developmental pscyhology/perenial philosophy point of view. It’s a real fun read if you are into chewy ideas and meditation.

        Like


      • Meditation is good to help ground you or keep you “in the now.” It’s important to enjoy the moment while carrying out your life mission.

        Like


      • quintin3265 wrote: “Death is a horrendous experience and there are no mitigating factors, whether related to the game or to what one accomplished in business or family life.”

        The nihilism runs deep, I see. How sad. The embrace of nothingness based on a rudimentary intellectual error. How perverse men become to sustain their pride.

        But a clownish pride? If you’re going to declare the universe meaningless, at least do it out of a manly stubbornness. You’re not exactly Lucifer declaring non serviam! with your mopey little maxim there. You’re not even the Buddha fabricating meaning where you can find none. You’re just a dipshit philosophaster blowing yourself up in a metaphysical chemlab because you forgot to carry the 1.

        Like


  29. Let’s not pretend we are the cool jocks from teen movies here. Would we be commenting on a dating blog on the Internet if we were. Game is just seduction for nerds and losers, and that’s just fine with me.

    Like


    • I was captain of my highschool basketball team. I found my why here because of Vox Day’s blog that mostly deals with economics. I stay because even though I previously had an intuitive understanding of game even before hearing about the term, I recognize that an explicit understanding is better. That and the fact that the way heartiste lampoons feminism and trolls is hilarious.

      Like


    • Are steroids for the weak? Nope. Tons of professional athletes use them.
      I learned game for efficiency. Not because I couldn’t get laid.

      Like


    • Because everyone else is deep down just another version of you.

      Like


      • Look sperglord, just admit you are as beta as the rest of us reading a dating blog on the internet, hell maybe you were even an omega. That in no way says anything about game, and in fact is a credit to it. That you are so unable to even see that by virtue of reading a dating blog on the internet you will not, and cannot be an alpha by any rational definition is your own failure. That you have managed to get laid with Game is your own success.

        Embrace both for your own sake. “Inner game” is accepting what you have done and what it has made you into. Or are you still a scared, cunky wimp on the inside? And you have no inner game?

        Like


  30. Where do you put someone who has translated your Heartistian observations and arguments into radically archaic convictions about women’s utter and complete inability to play the game in the manner promoted by feminists and equalists without shattering social and spiritual dislocations and fatal consequences for our civilization?

    Like


  31. women are children you can fuck

    Like


  32. “BIG POST: The Ultimate Post on Why Long-Term Monogamy Doesn’t Work”

    http://www.fastseduction.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?action=retrieve&grp=9&mn=1240554210553038

    For the MRA guys here’s the general PUA view on marriage. We don’t sweat marriage laws because we don’t want to get married. It’s very clearly a losing proposition for a guy these days so fuck it.

    Like


  33. All three groups, were they not so pathetically starstruck by the alphas and women they claim to loathe, should be very amendable to overthrowing the post civilized structures that keep them pinned to the floor like a rug to be trampled on. But, at least thus far, most are so hopelessly indoctrinated, they still cling to some notion that there ever was something resembling a benefit to be derived from some facet of progressivism.

    Still, there are enough of these people to present a real solution to our current morass, should they just wake up and start chucking Molotovs, instead of whining about their hierarchical position, but accepting the existence of the hierarchy itself.

    My problem with Game, is rather that those practicing it are content to stand (or lay) by, while the (fewer and fewer, admittedly) good facets of the West are being set up for destruction by cultures that may be better overall, but still less good than what they could be if they accepted some key findings from “our” experience and history.

    Like


  34. on November 8, 2011 at 4:17 pm tokyojesusspergtroll

    Most ant-gamers dont oppose it out of *principles* – thats a complete misunderstanding.

    They oppose it because they dont like supplication and being a womans slave and doing everything to be liked by them.

    [Heartiste: What do you think the word principles means? Your principle, however misguided, is that men shouldn’t supplicate. Ergo, since you believe that game is supplication, men shouldn’t use game. If you were to use game, it would violate your principles. You can play trollboy semantics all day long, but your shit is as clear as shinola.
    Now naturally, you don’t like this pointed out to you. Because if it’s true, it means that your principles can be proven wrong or right. Since game involves NO needy supplication to women (and is, in fact, the OPPOSITE of supplication), your anti-game principle is held up for the load of nonsense it is.]

    Some guys dont mind supplicating to get things, and some guys do. Heartiste, you are one of the few honest gamers out there who admit they dont mind supplicating if it gets them sex.

    [You are either trolling or are very stupid, or both, but since I am in a magnanimous mood, I will spell out the moral of the previous “stupid anti-gamer meme” post for you: Enjoying the sex and love of women, and possessing the attitude that increases the sex and love gotten from women, is not supplication, and therefore I am not enslaved to my desires in the way you imagine I am.]

    Like


    • […Now naturally, you don’t like this pointed out to you. Because if it’s true, it means that your principles can be proven wrong or right. Since game involves NO needy supplication to women (and is, in fact, the OPPOSITE of supplication), your anti-game principle is held up for the load of nonsense it is.]

      —————–

      If game is not supplication, then what is it?

      [Heartiste: Fun.]

      Sure, you need to act arrogantly in order to attract women,

      [Not necessarily.]

      but in the end you need to jump through their hoops in order to be with them.

      [“Jump through hoops” is an awfully broad definition of “be a part of the human experience”. So broad, in fact, that it has dissolved into meaning nothing at all. Do women “jump through hoops” when they put on make-up, or act coy, or dress sexy? Does a physicist “jump through hoops” when he proves a theory that earns him the welcome admiration of his peers? Do parents “jump through hoops” when they change their infants’ diapers?
      If anyone is jumping through hoops, it is the beta male who mistakenly believes that doing exactly what women say they want will win him their sexual gratitude.]

      The “hoops” in this case are the rules of the game itself.

      [Life is a hoop to be jumped through. The only way to avoid any hoop-jumping is to retire to a cabin in the woods like the unabomber, and live like a hermit satisfied that you are not doing the bidding of anyone but yourself. Do you see a lot of people signing up for that kind of life?]

      Playing the game means you accept the rules the women have set forth.

      [No. Playing the game means you accept the rules which govern reality, and use those rules to your personal advantage.]

      Accepting the rules is supplication,

      [Is obeying the law of gravity supplication?]

      since women define the rules without input from men.

      [Women don’t define anything. They have desires formed over millions of years of evolution which guide their compulsions, just as men do.]

      Do you think that men would play the game with the same rules if they were the ones who were making them?

      [There will be pie in the sky by and by.]

      By contrast, those not playing the game can state that they do not accept the rules, and therefore they are not supplicating.

      [There he stands, alone with his principles.]

      Like


      • See, this is where we disagree. When one encounters something or someone with which he disagrees, he can take one of two actions:

        1. Use the existing system to gain personal advantage by following the rules of the current system; therefore reinforcing the current system
        2. Refuse to follow the current system knowing that he might be disadvantaged personally; therefore making some small impact towards a paradigm shift

        I chose to take the second. You obviously take the first.

        These two options are presented to people in politics all the time in repressive countries. Most of the time, nothing changes and the people who took advantage of the system win at the expense of everyone else. Sometimes, the government is overthrown and everyone wins the right to vote because a select few people stood up for what they believe in. Nothing ever changes unless a few people get fed up with the system and decide not to participate.

        The net effect of a man’s removing himself from the game by pursuing other hobbies, for whatever reason, is that one woman will not be able to get with an arrogant guy who treats women poorly to have sex with them. If she wants to be with someone, she will either have to get involved with someone who exhibits the characteristics of the “beta” males you so despise, or be with nobody.

        You can dispute whether forcing women to get involved in relationships with “kinder” men is better or worse, but you can’t deny that removing oneself from the game has real consequences. Like any market, if goods are removed from it, the value of those goods that remain increases.

        Like


      • The reason that I take quintin’s side of this debate is that women can also need/crave sex. The only reason that women can get away without having to account for their cravings is because men are willing to serve themselvers up on a platter before the gina tingles turn into an ache.

        Because women’s powerful sex drive is circumvented by over-eager males before women get an opportunity to express it, there is only one word to describe the one-way circus-performances of men. Supplication.

        Here’s a theory that merits testing. The reason that women outside of the Anglosphere are so easy to connect with (generally – there are exceptions, but these are usually based on moral/religious constraints) is because their men don’t pussy-worship like men from the Anglosphere do. You only need “Game” in cultures where pussy-worship empowers women to hold their cards close to their chest. Anglosphere women get away with an awful lot before pressure it put on them to own up.

        Like


    • on November 8, 2011 at 7:38 pm humansocialdynamics

      Why Everyone Else Is A Hypocrite by Kurzban. Read this book Heartiste.

      The thing is, people think about different types of things with different parts of their brain. Different parts that are built for different situations, and thus operate on different principles.

      It’s no surprise then that nobody ever uses a consistent set of principles in conversation. Of course, our rationalization mechanisms paper over this quite effectively, and then we get mad when it’s pointed out.

      Like


      • Ya, some people use the unreasonable part, and some use the reasonable part.

        Just because different parts are both parts of the brain doesn’t make the equal.

        Like


  35. Color me in the third or fourth group, those who view Game as not being applicable beyond a few dedicated and driven men. Game IMHO is like a martial art, only a few have the discipline, intelligence, and natural ability to apply it. Consider this, almost any major city and town has at least one martial arts studio, often with very skilled and astute instructors. Yet, what is the general fitness level and fighting ability of the average American male?

    Poor. Because while almost every male is aware of the power and proven effectiveness of martial arts, almost none has the dedication it takes to become proficient, much less a master. Even fewer have the inborn, natural talent (great coordination, balance, strength, endurance) to reach the highest levels.

    Game certainly works, just like martial arts it has been proven in the field even if little scientific research has been done. I just do not think most men are capable of the entire re-conditioning it takes to become even proficient users of Game, much less masters. Basically you are assuming that almost every guy will ruthlessly annihilate within himself basic personality, long-standing habits, well established patterns of socialization, and from-childhood assumptions to become more successful with women. What I see instead of Game adoption is “dropping out” by porn consumption, WoW/CoD playing, beer, and so on.

    The barrier is just too high. And it doesn’t help that instead of figures like Bruce Lee or Jet Li or Chuck Norris (men who other men instinctively admire, for their very evident physical and emotional power and control) … PUA and Game are represented by figures like Mystery or Russell Brand. Or Tucker Max. Who most men consider a joke, and unworthy of emulation.

    Game in short IMHO will do nothing to save Western Civilization, because most men just cannot adopt it.

    Like


    • Very good words.

      Like


    • Game is the natural expression of the charismatic man.

      That said, there are few charismatics, esp. among current middle-class men.

      Your main point is taken, Whiskey: very few beta males will ever make the effort to live playfully in the truth, which is also a good definition of game.

      Like


    • This post is total truth. I am one of those men who just does not have “what it takes”. Also game is limited in its effectiveness. Even our host has said all you can get with game is “2 points higher” Which means a 5 with perfect game can score at most a 7.

      Game is great for guys on the upper end of the scale or with the natural talent capacity for it.

      Those of us who are 2s and 3s are better off spending our time hiring a hooker to give us a BJ under the computer desk while we play WoW than working our ass off socializing to maybe score a 4 or 5 if we do really well.

      Like


      • “Even our host has said all you can get with game is “2 points higher” Which means a 5 with perfect game can score at most a 7.”

        Not what he said. He said 2 points higher than what you are used to. Not higher than looks compared to looks. Women don’t even rate based mostly on looks.

        A three can date a nine or even a ten.

        I’m a three. Game is largely about perceived fitness. Social fitness, intelligence fitness, status fitness which includes subsets such as financial fitness. Looks are only one thing females looking for sperm donors judge, when judging for fitness. They judge a lot by other proxies of fitness.

        Go somewhere and seek women where you are judge to be of high fitness. What’s your specialty? Or, can you move?

        Like


    • on November 9, 2011 at 1:56 pm (r)Evoluzione

      Lots of good points here, Whiskey. Especially the part about mastery, referencing Li and Lee. Few have the capability to do so, and even fewer have the drive.

      Yet despite a surfeit of mastery, the martial arts have changed society. 50 years ago, boxing was the predominant pugilistic sport in North America. Now, not so much. A casual poll will likely find that MMA is a much more common practice than boxing. There are likely other subtle changes authored by the martial arts movement, there to be unearthed for those who care to look.

      The lesson: though few masters of game emerge, we’ll see a few common elements bleeding out into society, changing the nature of male-female interactions.

      Two examples: the neg will become a (mangled) common game principle. This is already happening.

      Secondly, the concept of the shit-test and its significance, will shift gender relations if and when this idea is widely distributed.

      No doubt, if and when these two relatively simple ideas are widely accepted and used by men, women will develop some other behaviors to counter. Nothing is static.

      A further discussion might center on whether or not Western Civ as we know it needs to be saved, or if humanity and the planet is better off allowing this civilization to dissipate, while a new one evolves.

      It doesn’t appear that any effort will save western civlization as we know it. Even if that effort could be mounted, it isn’t happening. Further, the systemic and structural problems with western civ which are now causing its demise are reason enough to let it fall.

      No one knows yet, it’s still to be determined, whether or not the there is improvement in the new civilization that emerges from the ashes of this one. We probably won’t know for a while. Civilizations take decades or centuries to crash, and new ones don’t emerge from the chaos for a while afterwards. We may not see the emergence of a new order in our lifetimes, but simply witness the demise. And we might as well enjoy that process.

      Like


      • No doubt, if and when these two relatively simple ideas are widely accepted and used by men, women will develop some other behaviors to counter.

        Interesting idea, but I’m not sure about it. Women shit test subconsciously. It would take some time for evolution to re-wire their brains with an alternate strategy.

        Like


    • Game IMHO is like a martial art, only a few have the discipline, intelligence, and natural ability to apply it.

      If you define game as street or bar pick up, then ya. But if you define it as refining any of the broad range of sexual attraction triggers, you have to say no.

      Men tend to specialize in certain attraction triggers that work well enough for them. One good enough wrestling hold can be all that you need. I believe most men can learn good enough game.

      Like


  36. I’m definitely pro-game. It’s multitudinous, I’ve seen what it can do to formerly not so result-oriented guys in many different aspects of their life.

    Initially when I first stumbled upon this blog, I was rather ambivalent. I found the OP kind of douchey and purposefully provocative, but I’ve since become rather fond of him (or them). Some of the truths that was explored here made me rather uncomfortable, more specifically, the sexuality of women. It forced me to think back and assess my own dealings with men as objectively as I possibly could and I’ve found that a lot of them were spot on.

    Like


    • ‘Some of the truths that was explored here made me rather uncomfortable, more specifically, the sexuality of women’

      yup. i’ve been with my husband since our early 20’s, but would get infatuated at a distance with certain men. since i always prided myself on being rational, it shamed me. it was impossible to rationalize. since reading up on hypergamy here it all made sense. here i am someone who despises romance novels, but even i was driven by this. who knew?

      what is disturbing is that young women don’t have the strict sexually repressive indoctrination that i and women of my generation had, (early boomer) which kept most of us from succumbing to impulse. not that it was all good, but i worry for my daughters.

      Like


      • “since i always prided myself on being rational, it shamed me. it was impossible to rationalize”

        Yes, I too like to think of myself as fairly rational and intellectually honest, but I found it very difficult and quite disheartening to rationalize. It seemingly went against all my interests to initially admit to the fact that these methods and practices that comprise “game” are just as effective on me as the next woman and it has nothing to do with self esteem or lack thereof.

        “what is disturbing is that young women don’t have the strict sexually repressive indoctrination that i and women of my generation had, (early boomer) which kept most of us from succumbing to impulse.”

        We have feminism to blame for this. More specifically the bourgeois, obscurantist and barely coherent practice that is neo-feminism which wants to neutralize all differences between men and women, but only when it serves their interests of course.

        Women have now lost all conception of where they stand desirability-wise and are unaware of the kinds of men they can reasonably attain,. Since feminism has made it perfectly okay for women to indulge in all of their sexual and hypergamous impulses, a great deal of women now spend their 20s going after some of the most desirable men who will never offer them commitment in this life, but for one night. Must be a doozy. Luckily at age 23, as of Friday :), I’m at least fairly knowledgeable of what’s going and if you know how things really are, you can compensate for where there is weakness.

        I’m sure your daughters will be just fine since they have a mother who is obviously aware of the current sexual market dynamics and female sexuality in general.

        Like


      • No.

        It’s more likely that her daughters will spend rather too much time on their knees, precisely because they have that sort of mother.

        Daughters sense a mother’s position and *junk* it. That’s just how it goes.

        I’ve found the daughters of pointedly intelligent parents the easiest of all pickings. And it’s often — don’t blush — entirely possible to enjoy the mother as well as the daughter.

        Because intelligent women are far more addicted to erotic excitement than the dull ones.

        It’s true.–

        Like


      • You’ve offered no evidence to support that other than your anecdotal delusions of self grandeur. However, I’m open to something more substantive.

        Like


      • ‘It’s more likely that her daughters will spend rather too much time on their knees, precisely because they have that sort of mother.’

        good god… did your mom teach you these manners?

        ‘Because intelligent women are far more addicted to erotic excitement than the dull ones.’

        could be. i have no way of knowing. however, it’s well known that being law abiding and having good impulse control is positively correlated to intelligence.

        Like


      • to be sure, latter day feminism, particularly the mid-80’s ‘pleasure and danger’ school of thought, has sold us a bill of goods. i don’t know anymore what the happy medium is. perhaps the time when the goal was merely equal pay for equal work. the notion of a rollback to pre-female franchise aired here is just to get women’s attention to show them how badly the culture has deteriorated. i do hope they’re kidding, but i just can’t tell.

        but whatever. you write very well and remind me of my whip smart older daughter, also 23. good luck to you.

        Like


      • “i do hope they’re kidding”

        Nobody is kidding.

        Like


      • that’s what i was afraid of. it’s one thing for some callow boy to hold to that opinion, but a middle-aged guy?

        Like


      • I see that you don’t have any arguments against it.

        “I can’t believe he said that” is what passes for an argument, to females.

        Another good reason to remove the vote from them.

        Like


      • ‘I see that you don’t have any arguments against it.’

        of course i do, but it’s useless to argue a point settled 90 yrs ago. there’s no getting that genie back in the bottle.

        Like


      • Since feminism has made it perfectly okay for women to indulge in all of their sexual and hypergamous impulses, a great deal of women now spend their 20s going after some of the most desirable men who will never offer them commitment in this life, but for one night.

        And for the men who are harvesting the bulk of feminism’s pussy crop boon, why should they buy the cow when they get the milk for free?

        It’s not only women who bond less after fucking around.

        Like


      • Same here. I’ve been with my lower-alpha bf for 4 years, and while I love him, some (very few) men can just make me swoon in an instant. It definitely helps to understand why it’s happening and thanks to this blog, I can predict what would happen if I were to do anything stupid with these higher alphas and make a fool of myself/our relationship (ie, they would upgrade from me after 1 night).

        “what is disturbing is that young women don’t have the strict sexually repressive indoctrination that i and women of my generation had”

        Yup yup. When relatives tell me the stories of how they met/dated their husbands, I am secretly jealous that I wasn’t dating in the 40s/50s/60s. With hookup culture as the norm now, my options are even smaller because fewer and fewer guys are willing to even hang out with you for more than a couple of times if you don’t put out by the second “date”.

        Like


      • which makes me so glad i was born when i was. sorry, i do not envy 20 something girls who have to cope with and somehow make their way in this sexual dystopia.

        i once admired women who challenged the status quo, being too prudent or maybe just plain too cowardly myself. the double standard offended my sense of justice. when i was 15, neighbors kicked out their daughter when she turned up pregnant pre roe v. wade at college (they relented after a couple weeks). i felt it was an outrageous miscarriage of justice, the dad suffering no stigma. but there seems be a deeper reality beyond our inadequate notions of justice. it behooves us, esp. women to pay attention. it sucks, but it is what it is.

        my very strict catholic upbringing and basically cautious nature saved me from expressing my strong sexual feelings. what restrains women now?

        Like


      • nothing, carolyn. However, I am relishing this psycho-sexual clusterfuck because I have seen too many women make complete asses out of themselves. Women are filling up the pages of Plenty of Fish and they have no idea of how pathetic they look. Does anyone really care if a woman has a PHD in sociology…and a tattoo? What a sexual badass!

        Like


  37. tokyojesusthimbledick

    there’s a blast from the past. Tokyojesusfist. The old days on this board had their share of colorful characters.

    Like


  38. on November 8, 2011 at 5:54 pm Laughing Shadow

    This is an annoyingly accurate post. I was raised in a strict Catholic family and, even though I stopped practicing myself at age 20, I remember well the lessons that were imparted to me about women and that my Mom and sister still hold. I do know that my sister specifically would never fall for game as she is so religious that she’s never in bars and wouldn’t even befriend a man who wasn’t a practicing Catholic.

    Very few players are serious practicing religious types, which isn’t a bad thing but it somewhat explains the disconnect between players and so-cons. Being genuinely religious inserts a barrier between you and your instincts, most notably those instincts that this site describes well. Vows of celibacy and monasticism are only the extreme examples of an underlying religious sensibility that treats powerful emotions as suspect.

    The word “repression” is one that I’ve had several intellectual discussions about, specifically whether it deserves the pejorative connotations it has. Is an alcoholic who avoids drinking really “repressed”, or has he rationally recognized what will cause more pain than pleasure in the long run? Is a so-con that avoids, even if the reasons he gives are self-serving and ultimately untrue, really doing something wrong or is sex something that he senses viscerally will overwhelm him if he doesn’t reign it in?

    I don’t know the answers but there are very different personalities out there with different genetic proclivities that require people to adjust the extent to which they run with or run from certain of their desires. I can say with 100 percent honesty that if I slept with a different beautiful woman every night I’d feel shallow, unphilosophical and dull. I wouldn’t be able to look at myself in the mirror.

    Like


    • Good post. I think with So Cons you get both types you describe. I also reach a point where I want to stay with one woman and get to know her. Sex involves a powerful emotional exchange at the spiritual level if you will- the mystical union. It is a temporary melding of two people’s emotional states and the more its done the more one desires this sort of depth. Even casual sex creates this exchange. This is why you would feel empty and shallow with so many new partners. Jean Genet discusses this phenomenon in many of his novels. He’s an acquired taste, but he is a keen observer of human nature.

      Like


    • on November 9, 2011 at 1:04 am humansocialdynamics

      It’s interesting that you mention religion: I’m currently finishing Before The Dawn, an awesome book on human evolution and genetics. One of the things it covers is te evolution of religion, specifically how its behaviour-shaping purpose allowed early societies to enforce new types of social norms, like, ones that reduced the 30% murder rate or causes people to abduct and rape your wife.

      Pair-bonding is a great way to increase group size by giving beta males a buy-in to the group in the form of mating opportunies, however it only works if the men can be sure that they won’t be cuckolded. Now, if you evolved a strategy of just doing whatever the group told you, that’d be easily manipulated. But if you invent strong *religious* prohibitions, it makes it a bit easier to be sure you’re following the right proscriptions.

      The interesting thing about this is that when you think of religious as having the evolved purpose of maintaining group norms, like don’t cheat on your husband, it’s easy to see why vegans and shit are jokingly referred to as religious about it. They’ve literally developed an ideology that engages with the religion centers in their brain.

      Anyways, it’s not that game doesn’t work on religious chicks. The part of their brain that recognizes game still recognizes it, it’s just that the part which follows religious prohibitions overpowers it. Feminists with their modern religion would be similar, but they can’t get their shit together and agree on a single, sex-negative ideology.

      Similarly, you guys seem to be pretty religious about hating on beta males. Not saying it’s a bad thing, just saying to watch your blindspots.

      Like


    • Why not be further disabused? Your idea that your religious sister is immune to game is false.

      Religious women are in love with the melodrama of sin, and with the act that *stains* them.

      The first real beauty I had was a novice nun. Superb mouth. There’s nothing better than a pretty face sucking through tears.

      Women love to sin; they love it beyond anything.

      Like


      • “Women love to sin; they love it beyond anything.”

        There is a famous fictional story by some famous author that uses this theme. The premise is that sex is no fun unless it’s forbidden. He explains it in metaphor by creating a society in which foot rubbing between people is punishable by death – but they only catch and punish a few people occasionally.

        This makes the forbidden activity so much more exciting, that everyone does it surreptitiously.

        It’s true. Call a girl a slut and a whore, and she’ll get wetter.

        Like


    • Laughing Shadow wrote: “I was raised in a strict Catholic family and, even though I stopped practicing myself at age 20….”

      So your understanding of faith was arrested in a teenage mentality. This is the primary cause that created the dissemination of simplistic modern notions about faith while sustaining the last officially acceptable bigotry. (An observation, mind you, not a complaint. Send all the Know-Nothing Anti-Papism my way, it entertains me.)

      “… I remember well the lessons that were imparted to me about women and that my Mom and sister still hold….”

      Worse, much worse, your understanding of faith was filtered through women talking about women for the protection of women.

      “… I do know that my sister specifically would never fall for game as she is so religious that she’s never in bars and wouldn’t even befriend a man who wasn’t a practicing Catholic.”

      If she’s under 25 and not a manatee, your sister and I will get along. Give me her digits.

      Like


  39. So, in a way I guess I fall into the latter group. I don’t dissaprove of game, in fact I approve of it. My problems are that I have a problem with assuming that all women are these deceptive creatures that we have to play games with to get what we want to out of. My question is, “Are there women that exist that you don’t have to play games with?”

    Like


    • on November 8, 2011 at 7:45 pm humansocialdynamics

      Don’t think of it as manipulation. Is a woman manipulating a man by wearing makeup? Or is she looking pretty for him?

      In a few decades, game could easily become normal behaviour. At that point, not using game wouldn’t be “real” or “honest”, it would be selfish and lazy.

      Sometimes I feel like being beta around girls. Other time I feel like standing up during dinner and taking a dump on the table. In a perfect world, neither of those behaviours would be socially appropriate.

      Like


    • Its less a matter of playing games and more one of sending signals that will be favorably interpreted. How well can you talk with someone, how closely do your values mix. Women like to lead a care free life. They don’t generally deal with stress as well as men and create more of it artificially. However, all women want to be led.

      Like


  40. As for the whole ‘Game is just another way of supplicating to women’ meme, this is such an unbelievably silly and tedious argument. What the people who make such claims don’t seem to understand is that, at the end of the day, we all have to live in a world where we sometimes need things from other people and have to offer them something in order to get it. If I need food, shelter and clothing, I most likely will have to buy those things from someone. That is, I have to pander to someone else’s desire to make money in order to get what I need to survive! How pathetic is that. I suppose if I had the level of integrity and high-minded principles of some of these anti-Gamers I would starve myself to death rather than pander to some golddigging shopkeeper!

    As the old saying goes ‘only the impotent are pure’. Game is essentially about getting what you want from women with the least possible outlay in terms of resources and pandering.

    Like


    • on November 9, 2011 at 1:08 am humansocialdynamics

      Yeah, it’s mostly a clever linguistic exercise, ie frame control. By calling it supplication they try to force you to argue that game doesn’t involve changing your behaviour to suit women, which is of course false.

      Obviously game requires you to change your behaviour. Obviously you’re calibrating that change against the responses of women. Supplication is just a way to attach a nasty, beta sounding word to it.

      Meh.

      Like


    • There’s just one problem with the transaction on which Game is focused… you’re forgetting that women can also need/crave sex. The only reason that women can get away without having to account for their cravings is because men are willing to serve themselvers up on a platter before the gina tingles turn into an ache.

      The ultimate freebie must be getting paid to have fun (e.g, some prostitutes). Sure sex gets old very quickly if you’re a prostitute, but the principle is something that is utterly alien to men. Men and women inhabit different universes.

      Like


  41. “Inner Game” in a Dark Triad man?

    Dark Triad men, or perfectionist budist monks? I am clueless here, hehe.

    What next? Judaism in a Neo-Nazi?

    Like


  42. In my experience of MRA circles, there seem to be two types who dislike Game

    Just remember that there are many MRAs who like game just fine and think that the Game vs MRA war is silly.

    Like


  43. It’s interesting to note that this MRA/Game thought dissonance is now so obvious. When thespearhead first came out I was the first to publicly diss the attitude of the men there, in my usual style. At the time it had seemed as if the two groups could have been in nothing but harmony with nothing but mutual agendas.

    Like


  44. It would not surprise me in the least if I learned that feminist bloggers and manginas were all to happy to troll the internet as much as they could to make this online nerd-out as serious as it is.

    It would not surprise me in the least to find out there were a whole lot of Jizzabel sockpuppets staying up until the wee hours of the morning combing blogs to troll.

    Like


  45. I’m pro-Game, pro-anti-Game, pro-MRA, pro-SoCon, pro-1st group, pro-2nd group, pro-3rd groud, and pro-abortion!

    [Heartiste: and pro-ho!]

    Like


  46. Some guys are just devoted hooker-fuckers as well.

    I accept the reality of female nature and find women boring apart from sex.

    Given my current living situation, it is cheaper for me to bang escorts than to go out “on the prowl”.

    Like


  47. One reason that MRAs oppose “game” is that it contributes to womyn believing that their bodily orifices are somehow the fragrant flowers at the center of the universe. Any attempt to chase womyn, no matter how subtle, gives womyn power insofar as it allows them to jack up the price.

    Having said that, there are good reasons for men to learn “game.” The primary one is that it makes one understand what makes females tick. There are too many white knights, nice guys, manginae, and male-feminists who believe in any amount of nonsense when it comes to womyn, especially AW.

    “Game,” if you can get men to understand it, shatters these illusions. Of course, that is a mighty big “if.” Most men do not get it until they are standing in front of a judge, or are being beaten to a bloody pulp on a jailhouse floor.

    Even then, most of the time they do not get it about womyn.

    Another point about MRAs not being overly enthusiastic about “game” is that many of them are married or in relationships with foreign women. They see no reason to screw up a good thing by playing with AW. The long term implications of AW — STDs, illegitimate children, false charges of raype, or just being sucked into AW pathologies — hardly compensate for the transitory pleasures of access to female bodily orifices.

    Like


  48. Here’s my criticism of game which doesn’t seem to be described in the original post or any of the comments I read:

    It promotes superficial and false relationships in pursuit of the basest and most trivial ends, thus reducing the participants to being sophisticated animals bereft of the wonders and joys of being a human being. Game is great for advanced apes but it is no thing for human beings to play with.

    [Heartiste: Yeah, best to wait to have a marriage arranged for you.]

    Like


  49. on November 10, 2011 at 4:42 pm Recovering Nice Guy

    I used to think that getting a good education and having a good career was they key to enjoying the affections of a good woman.

    Imagine my surprise when I did those things and stopped long enough to look around, and noticed that low-level drug dealers and illiterate assholes are way more attractive to women than I am. I started acting like them, and started getting much better results.

    Do you think I would have gone to college for 10 years and fought my way up the ladder if I had known then what I know now? Think again.

    The third group is right. Men are rewarded for being COUNTER-productive. If most of us realized this, the deterioration we speak of would accelerate rapidly.

    Like


  50. There is this interesting thing going on where nerds don’t always want to learn to be non-nerds. I don’t know exactly why it is. Maybe laziness, maybe a sense of identity, maybe they just care more about other things than social dominance. I recognize some of that in myself. I didn’t *like* the popular kids, so I wouldn’t want to imitate them.

    Like


  51. “One would think that those of them with sons might be more amenable to game, having the opportunity to impart to them the wisdom of the ancients and give their sons the gift of true, lifelong happiness. ”

    What is game? It’s about getting a woman’s confidence, usually false, that they wish to have sex with you. This is much like getting someones confidence, that they trust you with their watch or their wallet or their retirement portfolio. In other words, game is a con game. It’s fundamentally dishonest and just plain wrong to con people out of sex or money or anything else even if it doesn’t rise to the level of being a crime. There’s a large gray area in which behavior is unethical but not illegal. This most certainly falls in that area. Yes you can use game, but no you should not.

    And you preach to how many thousands of young impressionable idiots that the secret to “true, lifelong happiness” is to con women, to have false superficial relationships, and to be a phony a fake a fraud? You and your game are false, not true, and judging from the profound moral spiritual intellectual and personal emptiness that characterizes this blog happiness is a concept wholly alien to your mind and soul.

    I must thank you though for providing the best illustration and explanation of this increasingly popular social practice that I’ve seen yet.

    Like


    • Spoken like a true hater/beta.

      I think it’s important to keep in mind that game is just that: a game. Do you also berate people for winning at chess, a political election, or tennis? All of these require manipulation as well. Both sexes make equal efforts to deceive each other (if you dispute this, I cannot help you). So by that logic, every word everyone speaks must have some unethical undertone behind it? Man, you need to lighten up!

      -Paco

      Like


    • “What is game? It’s about getting a woman’s confidence, usually false, that they wish to have sex with you.”

      False. Most men who learn these arts tend to be LESS obsessed with whether or not a particular woman will have sex with us. We’re less dependent upon women for our validation.

      Game is about learning to be self-confident, assertive, and without shame for our desires as men. It would better be called ‘charisma,’ and it would simply be what our father and grandfathers would have and should have taught us if they were capable, and if they were’t too busy being 80-hour a week cogs in the industrial machine (that men built.

      Call it ‘learning to have charisma,’ or the ‘charismatic arts,’ if the word ‘game’ and its connotations offend your delicate sensibilities.

      Like


    • I hate to break it to you buddy, but happiness is just a chemical in your brain. I think our host looks at it the same way which is why he looks at love and sex differently than you. Believing in true love may just be a luxury of natural alphas who can have a decent amout of success without thinking about it, congrats if you are one of those guys.

      Like


    • What a load of horse shit.

      The butthurt is strong in this one.

      Like


  52. Game is about being sexually appealing to women. It is up to the woman to make the choice – and frequently they choose to indulge in these flings – knowing fully well that chance of commitment is small. Ultimately game works because women want it – men are just adjusting to their psychology. This reality is hard for moralists to swallow who have a fairytale idea of female psychology.

    Also no point blaming heartiste for spoiling impressionable idiots. People are responsible for their own choices. How you use these tools is up to you.

    Like


  53. If I were single, I would just visit escorts. They make it their business to be pleasant and other women are just too much trouble.

    Like


  54. I belong to the third group, and granted still fight myself over it with my ego everyday

    Like


  55. A cynic is just a man who found out when he was ten that there wasn”t any Santa Claus, and he”s still upset.

    Like