Why Game & “Choice For Men” Elicits So Much Hate

by Obsidian on November 12, 2009

With a major snag being hit with the House passage of the Healthcare Bill that involves public monies being used to pay for abortions, and in the light of my recent “debate” on Game with the lovely Susan Walsh of HookingUpSmart.com, I thought now would be the perfect time to address exactly why these two powerful “correctors” of the sexual marketplace-Game and Choice For Men-has drawn the ire of both, Women AND Men.

Let’s put our Occam’s Razor-assisted thinking caps on, shall we, gentlemen?

OK…

The reason why Game is reviled, and why “Roe For Men” elicits the ire of Women and Men alike, is very simple:

Because it gives maximum options to a maximum number of Men.

That’s why.

Keen students of Game understand well that its underpinnings come from the insights gleaned from Evolutionary Psychology & Biology, the study of human behavior and the adaptations that had to take place many tens of thousands of years ago on the African savanna to meet the demands of the environment. Human beings evolved and moved away from said environment, but by then the “programming” had taken hold; it takes many thousands of years to “reboot” the system.

So, what we have today in our time, is essentially this-we have all these toys and gadgets and big ideas, but we aren’t that far removed from our savanna past.

Game is the proof.

Now…

As we all know, the key mating strategy of the Female is to get the attention of the Alpha Male-the leader of the pack. He is the one best equipped to provide resources to her children; he is the one best able to defend her and her kids from any threats.

For thousands of years, this was a fairly easy thing to do for the Female; the Menfolk were quickly sorted out, either by rivalry within the tribe, or warfare with other tribes, or by being killed off during hunting trips, etc. All the Females had to do was pick the “winners” of these and other situations.

Now, barring Rape-which was quite a common mating strategy for Males for thousands of years in its own right-the deal was, the Alphas got the best Females. If you weren’t an Alpha, your chances of passing on your genes into the future were dim-you either had to hope you could sneak one in while the Alpha was away, or, get the leftover Females nobody really wanted, or, bust a Female upside the head and take her by force. Failing that, you were facing an Epic Evolutionary Fail.

Women are wired to “screen out” all but the Best Men for the purposes of mating and *longterm commitment*. Remember this one, folks, its very, very important. All lesser guys need not apply. Down through the Ages, Women have evolved to come up with ways and means to separate one group of Men, from the other.

This highly attuned “radar” if you will, on the part of Women, is in large part “fooled” by Game, because it gives the average guy the tools needed to ape the behavior of Alpha Males. This in turn gives him more chances to mate-in other words in our time, get laid-and this in turn causes mucho stress for the Ladies, because Game makes it so they cannot as easily determine who’s who. For a Woman, this is hugely important-as I’ve pointed out before and it bears repeating, a Woman risks a heck of a lot to have sex. Much, much more than Men do. Aside from things like Rape and STDs, one of the biggest risks is in her giving it up to the wrong guy, and having to deal with the fallout from that. And, as I’ve also noted before, and it also bears repeating, Good Guys-essentially Alpha Males-are hard to find. This means that, by necessity, all the guys cannot get laid:

From a female’s point of view, it’s very important that the number of guys getting lucky is restricted.

If every Tom, Dick and Harry could get laid at will, with the more topshelf honeys, it would wreak havoc on tens of thousands of years of delicate programming for the Female-important programming that helps her “sort out” the Males into two distinct groups: Alphas, and everybody else. Game in essence, seriously messes with that programming.

Which is why Women have so many problems with it.

So, that explains the Female side of the equation-but what about the Male side? That too, is also simple.

When one has a fundamental grasp of Human Nature and of Game, which is really Social Sexual Dynamics, then one understands why one can see much Hateration from certain quarters of the Menfolk on this issue. For Men, competition to mate, and with the choicest Females, is FIERCE. In Nature, Males display, and Females choose-this means that not only does a Male have to have the best “display” but that it’s in his interest to restrict the number of competitors he has to contend with-the more guys in the round, the lesser his chances of “winning”. Again, Game gives more guys more chances to “win”-and quite a few guys, operating from the Reptilian Id, DON’T LIKE THAT.

This is why you’ll hear these guys dress up their evolutionary hateration in flowery terms like “trickery”, “deception” and the like, not to mention a goodly bit of White Knightery-when you really break it down, the issue is, that more guys will have options if they have Game. Simple as that.

Before I move on to Roe For Men, let me say this…

Remember my recent debate with Susan Walsh? She made quite a big deal about the “neg”, a powerful method that one soon learns when first receiving Game training. And she’s not alone-just about every single, female critic of Game will crow loud and long about this one teeny wittle aspect of the science. And do you want to know WHY so many Women complain so loudly and long about the Neg?

BECAUSE IT WORKS, THAT’S WHY.

And worse, there is no defense against it. Why? Because it is deeply embedded in a Woman’s psyche to submit to a Dominant Male, and negging is what Dominant Males do. In fact, the astute among my readers might have picked up on something in the aforementioned exchange. Hmm…

So-teaching average guys about the why’s and wherefores of Negging again, essentially screws up the inherent Alpha Radar Women have-can you see why they’re so upset now?

Another example, and then we’ll examine “Choice For Men”…

Recently, I wrote about the issue of paying for dates. Although I didn’t get a heck of a lot of responses enlist, I did get a goodly number from WOMEN offlist, complaining about what I said. Now, keep in mind-I didn’t say I wasn’t gonna pay for ANY dates; I simply said that it wasn’t a good idea for a guy to go all in on a first date with a Women he really doesn’t know and hasn’t had sex with in any event. Even given the comments in response to what I wrote, by other guys, The Fifth Horsemen amon them, what I wrote was quite fair, balanced and reasonable.

Still, the Ladies were feeling some kind of way.

Do you know why? Go back and review what I said: it’s because, the mere mention of saying what I said means that I’m not needy for sex, and the vast majority of Men are-which means, in effect, they’re signaling that they’re NOT ALPHA. So when a guy blows a C-Note on a gal he hasn’t been in bed with yet, he’s saying “I’m so horny!”-and that tells the gal that he ain’t The One. Epic. Evolutionary. Fail.

She WILL however, take his money, in the form of lunches, dinners, nights out on the town, flowers, baubles, you name it-and hey, why not? As the Wise Man once said, a Fool and his Money are soon departed. I betcha all those Women who wrote to me offlist, had NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER either doing what I just wrote above, and/or know, and fully endorse, other Women doing it. Yet, they have a problem with little ole me. Why?

Because hipping guys to the realities of paying for dates too soon basically screws with the “radar” again, AND WOMEN DON’T LIKE THAT. Only Alphas are supposed to have sexual options. See what I’m saying here?

OK, so let’s now move on to the Roe For Men issue…

People, its real simple: in America, we have this thing called Equal Protection Clause-which means, that you can’t make laws that benefit only one group, and not everyone else, or worse, target one group with a set of laws. It’s either all or nothing, and it works very well across the board, no matter what the issue is.

When it comes to Reproductive Rights, as it currently stands, we have an inherently un-Constitutional situation happening, because only Women can have the right to choose whether they want to be a parent or not. Men, don’t have that right.

Again, once one understands Game, which is deeply rooted in Evolutionary Science, it is easy to see why Roe For Men is so vehemently fought against, by Women and Men both.

For Women, the issue is very easy-despite all the many advances Women have made, they still desire and demand that they get maximum resources from a Male-ideally the actual dad, but in a pinch any guy with good prospects will do (watch the Maury Show)-and failing that, the State. For Men, again, basically freeing up Men to fully explore their sexual options without any encumbrance of being a parent involuntarily, would mean more “competitors” in the marketplace; as it currently stands, forcing guys to pay child support acts as a check on their sexual activity. It removes potential players from the field.

Going back to Women, remember what I said earlier: their “mission” isn’t only to mate with the Alpha, but to get his long-term commitment in the form of resources. If Roe For Men would be allowed to pass, that latter part of the deal collapses. But it would uphold the basic premise of the Equal Protection Clause, yes? If Women can decide, w/o regard to her sex life, when and if she becomes a parent, why can’t Men? Its really simple. And just note all the rhetorical jiu jitsu the “pro choice” crowd engages in when confronted with these facts. I mean, come on.

So, to recap:

Game & Roe For Men greatly threaten the sexual marketplace, by giving the average guy much more options than he would have had previously. This is a great concern to Women and Men alike, albeit for differing reasons. For the former, it messes with their finely attuned radar that’s set for weeding out Alpha Males from everyone else; in the latter case, it promises more direct competition for the better females.

OK, my job is done here.

Now adjourn your confused and befuddled asses…

The Obsidian

{ 179 comments… read them below or add one }

Cannon's Canon November 12, 2009 at 04:16

i googled “OBESE-dian the ASS-trologer” and The Spearhead came up! Who knew!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6
Zammo November 12, 2009 at 05:51

If every Tom, Dick and Harry could get laid at will with the more top shelf honeys it would wreak havoc with tens of thousands of years of delicate programming for the Female – important programming that helps her “sort out” the Males into two distinct groups: Alphas, and everybody else. Game in essence, seriously messes with that evolutionary psychological programming.

It all boils down to this one sentence. [note - I revised it a bit.]

Women absolutely loathe Game. This is the strongest endorsement of Game’s effectiveness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Stanley November 12, 2009 at 06:33

Right now, if I make a mistake and she gets pregnant, I have can get a lawer on my defense. Because she has ABORTION RIGHTS, so do I.

Isn’t that simple, Cannon’s Canon? Guess what? —-At 1000 years old, I have an equal chance to have kids like a 16 year old boy.

Let’s say PRO-CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
epiclolz November 12, 2009 at 06:37

Women absolutely loathe Game. This is the strongest endorsement of Game’s effectiveness.

actually I guess if you think about it… this applies to most things as well. The more haters you have, the more likely you are doing something they feel ‘really’ threatened by. You rarely see people ‘hate’ on ‘unsuccessful’ examples of people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Kimberly November 12, 2009 at 06:42

Ok here is my .03 on the whole dinner/date tactic. Now please keep in mind that this is the way “I” view this, and perhaps other women do not think this way.

When a man is taking me on a first date I will know his full intentions based on whether he buys or ops to have me pay half. ANY man paying for half sends me a signal that ALL he wants is sex, or he really has no interest in me what so ever. A man that pays for dinner has more options, because basically I can’t read him. Maybe he just wants sex, maybe he’s not interested or maybe he is very interested.

Now it’s my job as a woman to ask to pay half, that’s when you decline and act insulted, THAT IS A NEG. Telling me off in a polite manner. :0) It’s also my job to pay for the tip and thats where you conceed. I’ve put in my part and it’s opened the door for me to ask you out, or “repay” you. And you know that a woman of quality would at least ask to pay half, and would put a little somtin, somtin on the tip.

Now with the whole neg thing. My only problem is this, yeah it works on most women. But for me, the split second I see you walk through that door or when you are about to approach me I’ve given you the once over and decided in a matter of seconds whether or not you can “get” it. So no amount of negging and game is going to make me go home with you or give you my numbe unless you are one of the lucky few with whom I deem worth….its those few seconds that matter most when dealing with me. But that’s just me…that’s not other women.

As for the abortion/choice issue….I’m not sure why all the focus is on this. Why aren’t men focusing on birth control for men. It think it will be a far more powerful tool to keep men safe from false accusations, and what not. Let’s not even get to the point where the women you are sleeping with gets pregnant and you don’t have to worry about having that choice. Oh and putting more effort into demanding paternity test for every birth! To help combat women who cheat and lie. I’m all for it. Wont hurt me any.

Besides, I can’t stand condoms or hormonal birthcontrol. I know there are other women who feel the same way.

Kimberly

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 12, 2009 at 06:58

When a man is taking me on a first date I will know his full intentions based on whether he buys or ops to have me pay half. ANY man paying for half sends me a signal that ALL he wants is sex, or he really has no interest in me what so ever. A man that pays for dinner has more options, because basically I can’t read him. Maybe he just wants sex, maybe he’s not interested or maybe he is very interested.

-Kimberly

A man who buys you dinner is indicating that he will give you stuff to get laid. You can read that like a billboard, and you know it.

Now it’s my job as a woman to ask to pay half, that’s when you decline and act insulted, THAT IS A NEG. Telling me off in a polite manner.

LOL. Nice try. That’s a female fantasy neg like what you’d see on daytime soaps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
globalman November 12, 2009 at 07:03

Women ‘hate’ it when it rains because it ‘makes then feel depressed’.

Once you understand that sentence you understand exactly how much attention a man should pay to a woman who says she ‘hates’ something. Dick Masterson taught me one of the most valuable lessons I ever learned about women.

“Women are attention whores. Refusing a woman male attention is the most severe punishment you can inflict on a woman.”

Game allows betas to emulate alphas and to get the pussy that goes with it. Women are so lacking in intelligence they cannot see past a simple deception like ‘game’. LOL! Women want to get more for doing less. They are inherently greedy and selfish without the male quality of being willing to work for their privileges. Who cares what they ‘hate’? Who cares what they think?

If you don’t get one pregnant you don’t have to worry about ‘male choice’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
globalman November 12, 2009 at 07:08

“Kimberly November 12, 2009 at 6:42 am”

Don’t you have a fish to feed or a bicycle to ride? A woman talking about ‘game’ is like a child talking about nuclear physics…..cute but all that comes out is meaningless drivel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Kimberly November 12, 2009 at 07:08

What I’m telling you Welmer is that the experiences I’ve had have been that men who have allowed me to pay for dinner end up in one of two catagories. 1) they just wanted nooky for the night 2) he has no interest, I know this because he never called me back.

This is not what I “want” or deem a fantasy. It’s real world experience.

Not sure what else to tell you.

Besides…most of my dates are at coffee shops anyway…that’s how I weed guys out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Kimberly November 12, 2009 at 07:12

Globalman obviously you don’t know me…so let me introduce myself. My name is Kimberly and I’m an anti-feminist. My post was based on personal experience. Not what I WANT to happen. Because I hate dating and would rather just have an arranged marriage at this point….lol (half kidding, half serious)

“Don’t you have a fish to feed or a bicycle to ride? A woman talking about ‘game’ is like a child talking about nuclear physics…..cute but all that comes out is meaningless drivel.”

Was that a shaming tactic? You should try harder….

Kimberly

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 November 12, 2009 at 07:34

@Kimberly

But the guy who didn’t pay dinner (as just a part of his alpha behavior) still got sex with you, isn’t? That’s all that matters. Period.

About the Don’t be a Slob post, since I do those things already didn’t care too much, but seriously: Lack of personal hygiene or taste with clothes (which are the things demigrated in the Slob post) distracts her of your Game. God knows that there’s enough distractions (starting with the damn text message permanent gossip network) without adding more to it. I would have added Don’t Smoke to the list, reasons obvious.

It’s a sexual arms race now more than ever. Women hate that the males win and men hate that other males win. Women also hate that other women win, that’s why they advice to more shit tests, more bitch shield. The full circle. What a male should do is evaluate the force of the shit test against her beauty. If the shit tests weights more, walk away.

It’s a better day when you do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
djc November 12, 2009 at 07:42

Geez, I’m reminded why I don’t even bother with women any more. Just reading all this game BS wears me out. I’m a little past middle age. And call me what you will. But to me, women just aren’t worth all this trouble.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Yeesh. November 12, 2009 at 07:53

Why does a date have to involve anyone paying for anything? If the intention is two people going to dinner, then go to dinner. If the intention is a meet & conversation, do that. If the attention is being together, be together.

Fuck the ulterior motives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
rebel November 12, 2009 at 08:00

Wouldn’t it really be better if everyone would pay for his/her expenses on a date? Even the first one?

It would set expectations to zero and therefore induce no deception.

We all know what the other sex wants: men want sex and women want money: that’s a given.
From this point on, one can deal on a business level, like: how much for a night in bed? How much for a kiss, how much for a caress.

Love, being a merchandise, can be dealt with in a very professional way, using all the rules of proper accounting.

Then everybody is happy: men get rid of an itch and women can buy shoes.

Wouldn’t that really be much better for everyone?

In short, let’s see sex for what it is: a merchandise and let’s get rid of the crap and the whining.
Sex as a commodity was probably the best idea that came out of the 20th century. Why don’t we all take advantage of it and quit worrying about small things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
3DShooter November 12, 2009 at 08:05

I’ve always believed men should use the feminists own words against them:

Her Body, Her Choice, Her Re$pon$ibility

They should realize they have no claim on a man just because they spread their legs and in invited him in; and they should be damned appreciative when stick by them to raise their children together. Instead, they foul up their marriages with infidelity (financial or otherwise) then expect a handout. That has to end!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Kimberly November 12, 2009 at 08:07

@ Gx1080

No, actually he didn’t get sex…I don’t roll like that…sorry if that disappoints you.

BTW, I was with my ex for 3 years…..he bought me dinner…all the time. I miss him to death….and it’s not because he bought me dinner.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Talleyrand November 12, 2009 at 08:13

When you say women select for the “best” man, O, it really means the best man in the wilds.

Not the best man for civilization, as we see that with unfettered choice, they choose sociopaths, bad boys and generally run a culture into the ground.

What they select for is dominance.

At least men select for beauty, something that intrinsically betters the species over time.

The beauty of game is not only does it upend this psychology, it puts the ability in the hands of men that can actually make a difference.

Once you understand women, you understand there is no reason to give them anything, to give to any demands, that is where the real fear is for women, if all men understood game, women would have no power,, none, zippo.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Zammo November 12, 2009 at 08:22

Fuck the ulterior motives.

You don’t know about women, do you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Yeesh. November 12, 2009 at 08:35

Zammo-

Oh yes, I know all about women and ulterior motives. Believe me.

But I actually think men and women are both shitty with ulterior motives. Even in the business world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
G November 12, 2009 at 08:35

Talleyrand, I disagree.
When women select the best man, it is infact a double edged sword. The competitive, self-confident, risky, challenging Alpha man is what made humanity growth. This is why we landed on the moon.

On the other hand it is true the sociopath bad boy is damaging for society. But the masculine characteristics are still present in him. I believe a little boy with those exact genetics traits, raised with a good masculine role-model and good education, will completly reverse the trend. We see anyways that the badboy types are raised by single moms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 November 12, 2009 at 08:39

@rebel

The problem with that is that women would have to have sex with the beta guys that they despise so much. If you haven’t noticed, they don’t want to.

@Kimberly

I should have been more specific, obviously you got confused. I’m not speaking about the Nice Guy ™ that didn’t have any money, apologized and acted guilty all the date. I’m speaking about the cad that barely payed for a drink, if at all. How many times did you open your legs for him and others of his kind before your beauty started dissipating and the signs of a used whore started to show?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 08:56

Kimberly—no one is saying that the claims of Game work at all times against all women, no exceptions. Only that they are true on average. Game is generally less effective—and, thank God, less necessary—against women who aren’t sluts and evaluate men on actually substantative criteria. You sound like you may fit this description.

So, while I appreciate your post, please don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back. You’re the woman that Game has created. Which is cute. But most women aren’t like you—so Game can and will continue to work, in aggregate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Hope November 12, 2009 at 09:22

My general critiques of game are here and here.

A man who does not sleep with women on false pretenses (pump & dump) and who is very careful about his own STI screening (regularly gets screened) using game to find a woman who is compatible with him — no problem. But when game and the conquest for sex become his whole reality it starts to resemble a horror show.

I’m sure most men have no problems with a woman who wears light makeup and fashionable clothing to make herself more attractive. It’s when she starts getting multiple plastic surgeries and spending tons of her time “improving” herself one-dimensionally rather than developing herself as a whole person, that it starts becoming rather repulsive to even a sizable portion of men.

In any case, I live my own life. My fiance has also written on the subject. He withdrew from the dating market for years (and he is in his 20s) rather than use the game knowledge he had to get laid. He is certainly charming and intelligent enough to be good at picking up women, but he chose not to participate in an already immoral and degenerate situation. As he describes it: 1) men lament there are not enough good women who will not have casual sex, and 2) men want easy sex from slutty women who respond to game. He skipped part 2.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary November 12, 2009 at 09:53

Kimberly,

As for the abortion/choice issue….I’m not sure why all the focus is on this. Why aren’t men focusing on birth control for men. It think it will be a far more powerful tool to keep men safe from false accusations, and what not. Let’s not even get to the point where the women you are sleeping with gets pregnant and you don’t have to worry about having that choice. Oh and putting more effort into demanding paternity test for every birth! To help combat women who cheat and lie. I’m all for it. Wont hurt me any.

Besides, I can’t stand condoms or hormonal birthcontrol. I know there are other women who feel the same way.

Even with effective male contraceptives, a paternity test would still be needed (unless the method is as effective as a vasectomy), in the many cases that would inevitably develop with women cheating on their beta boyfriends with outside alphas. And in the cases where the contraceptive did fail, the man would still be stuck with no recourse–just as if he had used a condom, and it broke.

These are among the reasons why choice for men is harped on more heavily as an issue; it provides the last minute nuclear option that is available to women, but has no male opposite. Those who propound it aren’t necessarily against the existence of a male pill; it just doesn’t provide the same protection as what they feel they need.

Hope,

Game exists as a reaction to the behaviors of women. If your make-up analogy accurately predicted the way most women perceive the heavy practitioners of game, those practitioners would alter their tactics until that perception were no longer a problem.

The right analogy to the devotion of large quantities of time to the learning and usage of game is not to the woman who slathers herself with make-up nonsensically. It’s to the woman who spends hours painstakingly preparing just the right look for a social occasion. And, while you may not want to engage in a long term relationship with the players who act as a male equivalent to that female behavior, that doesn’t make that behavior inherently inappropriate or unsuccessful.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
tspoon November 12, 2009 at 10:14

@G – “Talleyrand, I disagree.
When women select the best man, it is infact a double edged sword. The competitive, self-confident, risky, challenging Alpha man is what made humanity growth. This is why we landed on the moon.”

Actually we landed on the moon because of the collective scientific nous and progress of several thousand years of higher IQ beta males. The alpha guy driving it was the equivalent of the monkey the russians first used in their program.

The fact is, the meteoric rise of homo sapiens from savannah dweller to space traveller in only 5ooo years was only possible once a system was devised to stop women having a monopoly choice in mate selection. That system is patriarchy, without it we’d still be eating dirt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary November 12, 2009 at 10:18

The alpha guy driving it was the equivalent of the monkey the russians first used in their program.

That’s a little unfair given the difficulties in landing the thing.

But only a little unfair–he certainly would never have gotten there on his own.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hope November 12, 2009 at 10:43

@Arbitrary

while you may not want to engage in a long term relationship with the players who act as a male equivalent to that female behavior, that doesn’t make that behavior inherently inappropriate or unsuccessful.

Sure. I am not here to dictate what the majority of the population should do. If men wish to practice game and pick-up, that is their prerogative.

My fiance and I may judge “game” to be distasteful, but we also recognize that from another, more popular perspective, it may be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

They go their way, we go our way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brazilianguy November 12, 2009 at 11:05

Thank goodness for PUAs and Game!

Love it, love it, love it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
roissy November 12, 2009 at 11:06

hope aka she who will tremble before the id monster:
A man who does not sleep with women on false pretenses (pump & dump) and who is very careful about his own STI screening (regularly gets screened) using game to find a woman who is compatible with him — no problem.

what about a man who doesn’t reveal any pretenses but pumps and dumps anyway because he digs it?

But when game and the conquest for sex become his whole reality it starts to resemble a horror show.

you seem to suffer the same sort of pinched psychological myopia that infects so many women — you have trouble putting yourself in shoes other than your own. commitment-free sex is a rather easy trick for men. from a woman’s perspective, that may be a horror show, but from a man’s perspective it’s just a day at the job.

He withdrew from the dating market for years (and he is in his 20s) rather than use the game knowledge he had to get laid. He is certainly charming and intelligent enough to be good at picking up women

sort of like your lying ex who you also claimed had the skill and charm to bed tons of hot blonde bimbos back before he married you.

As he describes it: 1) men lament there are not enough good women who will not have casual sex,

correction: men lament there are not enough good women who will have casual sex with them.

and 2) men want easy sex from slutty women who respond to game.

all women respond to game. sluts just need less rationalization.

He skipped part 2.

so all he does is lament? if you’re gonna lament, may as well bust your nut while you’re at it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Neil November 12, 2009 at 11:25

Seriously, Obsidian… you are mastering the art of pernostic writing.

Consider it a constructive criticism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
NothingInNovember November 12, 2009 at 11:43

I can’t say I blame men these days. Game is essentially how to deal with mentally ill modern leftist/liberal women (Darwin Award Winners) in a confusing “diversity IS NOT our strength” multicultural environment (Ref: Robert D. Putnam). Men don’t have any other choice. Modern women are so far gone, nobody’s really too sure what they are. I know what they aren’t: wives, mothers and companions. Yes, I know modern conservative women aren’t much better.

What are men who practice game loyal to? Nothing. Not their race, not their religion, not other men, not family pride, not their country, not their culture, ancestry, heritage, etc. Nothing. Zilch. They worship modern “rotten to the core” culture. That’s their religion.

What are women who must be gamed loyal to? Everything but their race. That is to say, Career, Feminism, Materialism, Narcissism, Selfishness, themselves, etc.

Game is lost “men” dealing with the psychosis of liberal/leftist women brainwashed by Cultural Marxism. Interact with a woman NOT brainwashed by Cultural Marxism and you’ll understand what I mean. These are the women you have families with. Not with the black widow women who need to be gamed.

Game is how you deal with women who FAIL TO PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR RACE, and instead pledge allegiance to pop culture, feminism, career, materialism, selfishness, narcissism, miscegenation, etc. Game is using psyops on nutcases with NO INTEREST IN RAISING STRONG/HEALTHY FAMILIES. Hence, a dead culture.

It makes perfect sense to me why White Europeans will soon be a minority in the USA. Congratulations White European Men & Women.

I have to hand it to the Cultural Marxists & the Multiculturalists, they’ve definitely destroyed you.

The Battle of the Sexes = No Racial Loyalty = Confusion = Failure = Genocide.

roissy, of course, represents the ultimate race traitor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Hope November 12, 2009 at 11:55

@Roissy

what about a man who doesn’t reveal any pretenses but pumps and dumps anyway because he digs it?

As I said, he can go his way, and I shall go mine. I’ve left your blog, and I no longer have any interest in trying to persuade the game community into giving up the pump & dump.

you have trouble putting yourself in shoes other than your own.

When I put myself in the shoes of people who engage in a lot of casual sex, the pleasure seems temporary and hollow. I can understand why they need ever greater stimulation and variety to keep feeling good. I do concede that it could be truly fantastic for those who simply do not feel anything beyond the physical.

sort of like your lying ex

My ex got me when I was 15 years old. I was a young and naive dimwit teenager. That was also a long-term relationship lasting over 8 years, thus not exactly commitment-free sex. If your point is that I prefer to go for the “players” who will never commit, that has not been the case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 12:08

“tspoon November 12, 2009 at 10:14 am
@G – “Talleyrand, I disagree.
When women select the best man, it is infact a double edged sword. The competitive, self-confident, risky, challenging Alpha man is what made humanity growth. This is why we landed on the moon.”

Actually we landed on the moon because of the collective scientific nous and progress of several thousand years of higher IQ beta males. The alpha guy driving it was the equivalent of the monkey the russians first used in their program.

The fact is, the meteoric rise of homo sapiens from savannah dweller to space traveller in only 5ooo years was only possible once a system was devised to stop women having a monopoly choice in mate selection. That system is patriarchy, without it we’d still be eating dirt.

Arbitrary November 12, 2009 at 10:18 am
The alpha guy driving it was the equivalent of the monkey the russians first used in their program.

That’s a little unfair given the difficulties in landing the thing.

But only a little unfair–he certainly would never have gotten there on his own.”

As a Geek, bred from a “passive nerd” father and a “alpha-white-trash” mother (who happens to be as brilliant as she is crazy, which is to say mildly), and whose brother is a standard Alpha-male, I agree, for what its worth.

Women like risk taker sociopaths, because they make shit happen, but not in a smart way, but in a way where the vast majority of them are going to perish in their attempts. Nature deviced a way to keep these useful idiots in abundant supply. Nature made women attracted to them.

Think of it like this. Alpha-sociopaths go off to fight the other tribe for their tribe. That is who you send; fearless men with no qualms about killing and pillaging. They go off, conquer, and come back with valuable resources. Only one problem, 3/4ths of them died in the battle. What is nature to do? A tribe can’t have its protectors and warriors constantly dwindling down in numbers. I know? Nature will make women ginas tingle for the blood drenched surviving Alpha/Sociopaths. They will cuckold their husbands, and the next generation will have the appropriate mix of Alphas, Betas, Omegas, and outliers. One problem. What happens when a civilization doesn’t have continuous wars to cull the herd of Alpha/Sociopaths? Answer. Look around you.

I’m not saying all Alphas are sociopaths, nor all sociopaths are Alpha, just that there is substantial overlap, as the qualities of sociopathy allow for the dominance required to become Alpha.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 12:10

“roissy, of course, represents the ultimate race traitor.”

I’m not sure if I understand you. Oh, never mind, I get it now…you’re not making any sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 12:21

I take that back. I was being condescending. Your white-supremicist values came through loud and clear.

If you are so concerned about other races, you don’t have a lot of confidence in your own, do you. I don’t worry about white people’s grasp on power slipping away, as I’m white, and my firm grip on personal supremacy can’t be taken away from me, no matter what color someone happens to be, white, black, brown, yellow, red or even green. Yeah, thats right! Let the aliens come and breed with our women for all I care. Me and my offspring will still come to dominate the land despite the half breed martian men. I am my own race, a step in evolution for our species, I will call us….Geeks, and we are the master race. (Rednecks and white trash need not apply. Blacks are welcome. Asians, your already one of us.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 12:35

@ Hope

As I said, he can go his way, and I shall go mine. I’ve left your blog, and I no longer have any interest in trying to persuade the game community into giving up the pump & dump.

If Game continues to have as much fantastic success as it’s been having, then eventually it’s practitioners will have to give up the hit & quit (or pump & dump, if you will) because women will finally have to learn that the only defense against it is to decrease their own promiscuity.

That’s the great promise of Game. That if it’s adopted and deployed widely enough, then women will have no choice but to alter their behaviors and selection criteria, and in numbers large enough that can only be to the benefit of everyone. If they don’t they don’t, then Game can continue to work on it’s own terms.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
rebel November 12, 2009 at 12:39

“It makes perfect sense to me why White Europeans will soon be a minority in the USA. Congratulations White European Men & Women.

I have to hand it to the Cultural Marxists & the Multiculturalists, they’ve definitely destroyed you.

The Battle of the Sexes = No Racial Loyalty = Confusion = Failure = Genocide.”

It has been said repeatedly that the West is plagued with a death wish. From the first time I read that, until now, I have observed the world from that angle of view. The statement makes perfect sense. It began with women. And now, more and more men are joining the ranks. As was predictable IMO.
This means to say that if women don’t take things in their own hands and rectify the damages they have caused, no one will. Men will not take the helm back until the ship sinks.

Women are at the helm now. If they don’t rectify the trajectory, we shall all witness the collapse of our society.

Men have left the building… How true this is!
Can our society be redeemed? It depends mainly on women now. The onus is upon them. Atlas, too, had a role reversal..

The world now rests on the shoulders of women in the true sense of the word. They are supposed to make this a better world. We shall all see what will happen. Vamos con Dios!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 12:43

@ NothinginNovember

You can say a lot about why “Western Civilization” is declining, if you even think that’s true or that there is even a “Western Civilization”. But if you’re honest, then it’s time to admit that interracial dating or race betrayal isn’t even in the top 500 million reasons.

Get a fucking clue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
lurker November 12, 2009 at 12:51

It’s amazing: when Obsidian stops his obsession with race and stops blaming hatred of Nobama on racism…

He can present a coherent argument that I agree with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 12:52

” dragnet November 12, 2009 at 12:43 pm
@ NothinginNovember

You can say a lot about why “Western Civilization” is declining, if you even think that’s true or that there is even a “Western Civilization”. But if you’re honest, then it’s time to admit that interracial dating or race betrayal isn’t even in the top 500 million reasons.

Get a fucking clue.”

To further that point I have two words: Tiger Woods. Now imagine if he put his discipline to use as an MRA activist instead of a golfer. Hmmmm? Makes you think. In the future, we might all look like tiger, and hopefully the women will look like his wife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 12:54

Lurker, I missed you. Will you be my freinemy? XOXO

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 12, 2009 at 12:56

NothhingInNovember

No Europeans in their right mind would want to live in the US after being there!
Like Dragnet put it: Get a fucking clue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zammo November 12, 2009 at 12:59

Here’s an interesting scenario – Game combined with effective and private male birth control.

Think birthrates are low now?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 13:01

In the future, we might all look like tiger, and hopefully the women will look like his wife.

Call me nuts, but I don’t find his wife attractive. It’s not racial—I’ve dated white women before and am dating one now. But she just doesn’t do it for me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 13:03

She makes my penis tingle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 13:04

And what the hell does “pernostic writing” mean? I can’t even google an answer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 13:05

And what the hell does “pernostic writing” mean? I can’t even google an answer.

LOL. I tried to google too—zilch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 13:06

Speaking of race–hehe, Obsidian bait here—I have often wondered about the extreme hatred men have when women are with black men.

Now, every race likes their own, and a girl who goes outside their race gets bashed, but not to the extent if the girl goes black.

For example, many East Asian guys rightly get upset that many of their women get vanilla fever—but many will admit that if white women got yellow fever and if the East Asian guys didn’t get stuck with lousy stereotypes about penis size and submissiveness, their anger would be sublimated in the new blond pussy they’d be fucking. Many will take back an East Asian girl who’s dated white guys.

However, if a girl has dated black guys, East Asian guys—and white guys and South Asian Guys and Mideastern guys, etc.—cross her off the list completely. No way they’ll touch her.

Basically, what I’m saying is that, it isn’t “once a girl goes black, she don’t come back” but instead “once a girl goes black, she’s not taken back” i.e. guys who find out about her black dalliances immediately reject her, or at least stringently screen her more so than, say, if the white girl had slept with an Asian Guy or Mideastern guy.

About the only exception to this rule is if you’re dating a former fattie (FF), where you get the impression that black guys were her sole option during the chubby years.

Thoughts? I will readily admit to having a knee jerk response in this area, and I’m not alone. If a girl I’m with has had East Asian, South Asian, etc. boyfriends, it doesn’t bother me; I may tease her, but I’m not bothered by it. But if I find out she had a black guy, it bothers me, and I find myself studying her more closely. And several of my friends—one Irish, one Indian, one Korean—have agreeed with me strongly: something is strongly offputting about a girl of their race dating black guy, more than all others.

I remember checking out a 7 Indian girl (I’m white) while waiting in line at Duane Reade, and wanted to go up and chat her up, but her black boyfriend came to her at that moment. I immediately was put off, and looked down on her—despite the fact that she was of a totally different race than me, and, in fact, her skin color was almost the same as his.

I’m sure some here will chalk it up to cultural racism, but that doesn’t seem to fly: Korean guy is FOB, and in many cultures, dating black is taboo.

Thoughts?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Hope November 12, 2009 at 13:09

@dragnet

Call me nuts, but I don’t find his wife attractive.

You’re nuts. Elin Nordegren is gorgeous.

@Jabherwochie

I will call us….Geeks, and we are the master race.

That was funny. You should write a Geek Manifesto. Sing the praises of intelligence, diligence, innovation, talent, skill, imagination, knowledge and ingenuity… and great video games for all geeks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 12, 2009 at 13:10

Jab her wochie

Malicious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 13:11

“Elin Nordegren” (Tiger’s wife) is a typical hot trophy wife, but what annoys me about her is that when they started dating, she had a spokesman come out and say that, “Unlike American women, she didn’t like him because of his money or fame.”

Yeah, right. I’m sure she’d date Tiger if he were a mid-level analyst in Spokane, Washington. (P.S.—doesn’t he look like a computer geek? I’m just saying…)

Women are such liars.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 12, 2009 at 13:11

We´re going to take over this place and call it Planet Geek !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 13:16

The Geek will inherit the earth. That whole “meek” thing was a typo. God’s thumbs are too big for his Blackberry bible Ap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 12, 2009 at 13:18

Kimberly

Besides, I can’t stand condoms or hormonal birthcontrol. I know there are other women who feel the same way.

Copper IUD.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimski November 12, 2009 at 13:20

Jabherwochie

LMAO !!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma November 12, 2009 at 13:21

They hate Game because it crashes their little pedestal.

The very pedestal upon which sexist-laws, marriage myths, and divorce/alimony decrees are based on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Doug1 November 12, 2009 at 13:30

Kimberly –

As for the abortion/choice issue….I’m not sure why all the focus is on this. Why aren’t men focusing on birth control for men.

Because being required to pay for 18 years of child support=alimony at extremely high after tax rates, 1/3 of a man’s after tax (take home) income or even more, when the man would have aborted or given the kid up for adoption if he’d had those choices as every American woman does today, is purely and simply interdentured servitude.

She’s giving him nothing he wants on an ongoing basis. It’s taken at the point of guns and on pain of jail. It’s at unprecedented levels. It’s deeply unfair. Women were supposed to have to give up guaranteed sex in return for male support for themselves and their children traditionally in this and every other society.

It’s quite literally indentured servitude.

Don’t you agree Kimberly?

Why aren’t men focusing on birth control for men.

I am avidly following the progress of the plug method of reversible vasectomies, which is in clinical trial in Australia and perhaps India. The trouble is that it doesn’t look anything like fully reversible, particularly if the reversal decision is made a number of years later. The plug can be dissolved readily enough. There isn’t the risk of being unable to sew the tubes back together or of a second surgery. The trouble is that antibodies often develop to sperm eliminated through the body rather than through the penis. Antibodies that can make men infertile. Would love to see numbers on that. Doesn’t appear to be a small percentage problem though. Less than half of cases, but a sizable percentage. So it doesn’t look like it could be mass recommended to young men, who might someday want children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 13:36

However, if a girl has dated black guys, East Asian guys—and white guys and South Asian Guys and Mideastern guys, etc.—cross her off the list completely. No way they’ll touch her.

I haven’t noticed this in aggregate. I’m sure it happens, but it’s not very common now. And I’m from a place where interracial dating is fairly common.

Black people traditionally have had very distinct and separate cultures that they maintain, no matter where they are found. For instance, in many Western societies, Asians and Latinos have, by and large, been assimilated into the dominant white culture—but blacks have not, and for various reasons. Blacks have traditionally fiercely resisted cultural assimilation—for good or for ill. Also, it easier for the prevailing cultures to prevent assimilation, as we are easily darker and more phenotypically obvious. As such, this sets us apart as a readily distinct group wherever we are found, skin color aside. No matter when you are, someone has got to be the nigger.

The thinking could be this: that a white/Asian/Latino etc, woman who has dated a black guy is looking for something so fundamentally different from what he is, that it wouldn’t be smart to date her because he’s not sure he would be what she is really looking for. I think that’s silly, but it carries a certain logic if you really believe that black men are genuinely different from other men, in a way that whites, Latinos, and Asians aren’t.

In other words, good old-fashioned racial animus. Just slightly more reasoned, if still bunk.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 13:38

faggy draggy, perhaps I should have specified forintelligent responses. Then we wouldn’t have been subjected to your nonsensical blathering liberalism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 13:38

“Thoughts?”

Povocative, but true to a large extent. Black men, to a certain degree, are more physically imposing then white me, in terms of muscle and swagger. I’ve seen the penis being larger thing debunked scientifically, although I can’t cite that right now, but I’m sure many white dudes believe it still. Apparantly its larger when flacid, by the same size otherwise compared to white men on average. White men might be intimidated by the women’s desire for the physicality and what I call “inherent black coolness”, ie swagger. That and racism. I have my theories on why blacks are the way blacks are, but I don’t want to start any animosity between people here. Different does not mean better. And despite any examples of a stereotype being reinforced, I tend to focus on outliers. I judge a person as an individual, and to do that, I try to get to know them. I’ll leave my snap decisions to times like walking down a dark ally with a lot of cash on me. Sometimes a little racism can’t hurt. All I know is a lot of black people go to my comic book store (and hell, a lot of them still look pretty thugged up, cultural pressure I guess, not like whites haven’t aped the style) and those are my people. Black geeks get overlooked a lot because the thugs hog all the attention.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 13:40

“I’m sure it happens, but it’s not very common now. And I’m from a place where interracial dating is fairly common.”
—you haven’t noticed it because any man who dare suggest it or hint it is banished as an evil racist ChimpyMcBushHitlerHaliburton. So if someone you know does have this feeling, he’s keeping it under wraps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 13:43

Way down yonder:

“Black men, to a certain degree, are more physically imposing then white me, in terms of muscle and swagger. ”
–that’s less so than they are culturally allowed to do so. If a non-black does it, he isattacked by feminists and ridiculed by other non-blacks. but do so on blacks is racist.

“I’ve seen the penis being larger thing debunked scientifically, although I can’t cite that right now, but I’m sure many white dudes believe it still. ”
—more importantly, I’m sure many non-black women believe it. And we all know how well the public responds when science disproves their cherished myths. That’s why we still have feminism today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 13:46

@Lurker

Dragnet made a thoughtful post and you know it. I want to say something clever at this point, but my mind is a blank. I’m sure you’ll flame me for that. I deserve it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 13:48

way down yonder:

“I have my theories on why blacks are the way blacks are, but I don’t want to start any animosity between people here. ”
—grow a pair.

“Different does not mean better.”
—sigh. Stop being a pussy. I don’t agree with Bill Maher on much and I think he’s an asshat, but he did make a great point in his act once: drawing cultural equivalency is lunacy. We are in a better society than those in Saudi Arabia And Iran. Our religious leaders don’t exectue people, our religious nuts don’t organize into rogue cells and fly planes and bombs into buildings. Our Friday night TV isn’ t stoning a woman to death for not wearing a burqua. So when liberals try to argue about cultural equivalency, its just lunacy.

Same thing here. It is objectively reasonable to say that non-black society in America is better than black society in America. Lower crime rates, lower violence in general, more wealth, more community protection, more families, more tolerance; it is objectively better to not run around like you’re an impulsive land pirate, fighting “the man” and ruining the atmosphere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 13:51

faggy draggy:

“Also, it easier for the prevailing cultures to prevent assimilation, as we are easily darker and more phenotypically obvious. As such, this sets us apart as a readily distinct group wherever we are found, skin color aside. No matter when you are, someone has got to be the nigger.”
—that’s right, faggy. It’s all the man holding you back. Non-black people want violent, classless thugs roaming around and wreaking havoc. It’s all about the conspiracy theory.

Or….its all black people’s own doing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 13:55

“Black men, to a certain degree, are more physically imposing then white me, in terms of muscle and swagger. ”

Yep. But there’s a good reason for this too: black culture is much more encouraging of traditional masculinity than the prevailing white culture. This is one outcome of black people being more likely to resist cultural assimilation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 14:00

faggy draggy:

“black culture is much more encouraging of traditional masculinity than the prevailing white culture. ”
—black culture doesn’t support traditional masculinity. It supports the cartoon of flase, flashy masculinity—mainly because black culture denigrates true mascuilinity in favor of female created player-thug masculinity.

The only traditional masculinity pushed culturally by American blacks is the Nation of Islam, which emphasizes family, patriarchy, self-reliance, and non-flashy, non-drug using intelligence. But its also massively racist and practically a shakedown operation in many places.

But you do note how whenever they show up, your female created player-thug masculinity runs for the hills right?

“This is one outcome of black people being more likely to resist cultural assimilation.”
—no. it is the outcome of a female-dominated single child society, where little boys get the ideas of how to be a man from skanky women. See T A Ricky Raw.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 14:07

black culture doesn’t support traditional masculinity. It supports the cartoon of flase, flashy masculinity—mainly because black culture denigrates true mascuilinity in favor of female created player-thug masculinity.

This isn’t wrong it’s just a really incomplete picture of what black culture actually is. This is just one aspect of it. Sure, you have the player/thug culture, Nation of Islam, but a you also have black conservatism, a strong religious culture, black nationalism (separate and distinct from the Nation of Islam), hip-hop culture (different than the player/thug you described above, more properly describe as “gangsta” culture) and still other subcultures besides. To group those into just “player/thug” and “Nation of Islam” is a really cartoonish view of black people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
True that November 12, 2009 at 14:09

Lurker-
I dated an african american woman and she would agree with everything you said.

In general, the alpha male archetypes in popular culture for all races are incredibly one-dimensional and shallow. Which, I would argue, is to promote the cause of consumerism than anything else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 14:16

faggy draggy:

“you also have black conservatism,”
—black conservatives are routinely rejected by the black community and called uncle toms. Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes, Condolezza Rice, and Coin Powell have all been cast out of the black community for even moderately conservative view points. Heck, Juan Williams was called a porch monkey on MSNBC by another black pundit for daring to point out that the criticisms of Rush Limbaugh were based on lies.

Black conservatism is rejected by the black community.

“a strong religious culture,”
—which is merely a cover for “blame whitey” sermons. On Jeremiah Wright’s insane sermons, many so-called black leaders defended him on the grounds that “it wasn’t much different than the typical black pastor’s sermons.”

Do you realzie how insane that sounds? If the vast majority of the black churches have speeches like these,t he vast majority of black churches are really just insane meetings of conspiracy theorist who want to be told It’s Not Your Fault.

And if not, the black religious community is doing a piss poor job at creating any family or masculinity in the modern black community anyway.

“black nationalism (separate and distinct from the Nation of Islam),”
—more crazy black guys calling themselves the Black Jews from West Africa?

“hip-hop culture (different than the player/thug you described above, more properly describe as “gangsta” culture)”
—first: pop music is not culture. Hip-hop is not a culture, its a bunch of pop stars pretending to be gangstas and playas on TV and kids following them as a fad. No different than a lot of kids in the 1950s wearing cowboy hats because Gunsmoke was on. To quyalify that kind of superficiality as a culture is to show just how shallow the cultural thinking is.

Second: try to claim that acting “gangsta” isn’t acting “thug” is like claiming Azure isn’t blue because it has a different name. The false masculinity of rappers is gangsta is thug. There is no difference.

” To group those into just “player/thug” and “Nation of Islam” is a really cartoonish view of black people.”
—to try to claim that it is cartoonish is to defend the indefensible with stupidity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
lurker November 12, 2009 at 14:21

True that, I know. Some black women have woken up to the fact that they’re creating this problem.

The problem is really 2fold: black communities promoting it, and non-black communities failing to condemn it out of fear of racism.

This is how we get Ebonics courses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead November 12, 2009 at 14:24

I went to a high school reunion several years ago. There was a lot of social activity outside of the reunion itself, with old personal acquaintances of the opposite sex arranging ‘dates’ – a chance to catch up with each other, at coffee shops usually.

Not once did any of the old school-mates I caught up with expect to be paid for, nor did I offer. Such a gesture would have said something entirely out of place. But were these encounters sexless? Hell no. The sexual undertones were bubbling away furiously. I didn’t bother developing them, but judging by the invitations for second meetings and the extra efforts being made to be pleasing company, I would have had to have part of my brain missing to not notice how easy it would have been to do so.

Paying for women announces you as desperate, but it takes a different context to the usual ‘man takes women to dinner’ scenario to make it obvious. The dating ritual of the past has become a tradition, and tradition always dulls clear thinking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 14:29

“you also have black conservatism,”
—black conservatives are routinely rejected by the black community and called uncle toms. Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Alan Keyes, Condolezza Rice, and Coin Powell have all been cast out of the black community for even moderately conservative view points. Heck, Juan Williams was called a porch monkey on MSNBC by another black pundit for daring to point out that the criticisms of Rush Limbaugh were based on lies.

Black conservatism is rejected by the black community.

“a strong religious culture,”
—which is merely a cover for “blame whitey” sermons. On Jeremiah Wright’s insane sermons, many so-called black leaders defended him on the grounds that “it wasn’t much different than the typical black pastor’s sermons.”

Do you realzie how insane that sounds? If the vast majority of the black churches have speeches like these,t he vast majority of black churches are really just insane meetings of conspiracy theorist who want to be told It’s Not Your Fault.

And if not, the black religious community is doing a piss poor job at creating any family or masculinity in the modern black community anyway.

“black nationalism (separate and distinct from the Nation of Islam),”
—more crazy black guys calling themselves the Black Jews from West Africa?

“hip-hop culture (different than the player/thug you described above, more properly describe as “gangsta” culture)”
—first: pop music is not culture. Hip-hop is not a culture, its a bunch of pop stars pretending to be gangstas and playas on TV and kids following them as a fad. No different than a lot of kids in the 1950s wearing cowboy hats because Gunsmoke was on. To quyalify that kind of superficiality as a culture is to show just how shallow the cultural thinking is.

Second: try to claim that acting “gangsta” isn’t acting “thug” is like claiming Azure isn’t blue because it has a different name. The false masculinity of rappers is gangsta is thug. There is no difference.

” To group those into just “player/thug” and “Nation of Islam” is a really cartoonish view of black people.”
—to try to claim that it is cartoonish is to defend the indefensible with stupidity.

I honestly don’t know where to begin. The “black conservatism” I describe is very different from the political movement conservatism espoused by Thomas Sowell and Alan Keyes. I know because I was raised in that kind of household. Conservatism isn’t the same everywhere. Republicans aren’t Tories who aren’t necessarily monarchists. And black people haven’t disowned Colin Powell—the opposite, in fact. We haven’t even disowned Clarence Thomas. OJ on the other hand? He’s been gone.

Most black religious culture has nothing to do with blaming whitey. Sure you may here it here or there—but you can on occassionly here white preachers railing against blacks or interrical relationships. Most black religious culture is about worshipping Jesus—which I destest, being fiercely anti-religious. But I was raised in a preacher’s household and attended black bapitist churches every Sunday for 20 years. Never once heard a blame whitey sermon.

And if you read closely, I said that player-thug culture and gangsta are the same thing—but that it differs from hip-hop culture. That remains the case even if you don’t acknowledge it. It just means you don’t know difference between hip-hop and gangsta. And why would you?

And yes, you do have nutty black guys claiming to be Lost Tribes or Black Jews from Africa. But this only scratches the tip of black nationalism. It goes much, much deeper.

The point is that black people are no different from anyone else in the diversity of ideas and subcultures that comprise us. White people can’t be divided just into “Southern” and “Yankee”—no way. And black people can’t be divided just into “Nation of Islam” and “Player/Thug”.

Keep posting lurker, this is getting interesting…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
lurker November 12, 2009 at 14:38

faggy draggy:

“I honestly don’t know where to begin.”
—and you never did.

” The “black conservatism” I describe is very different from the political movement conservatism espoused by Thomas Sowell and Alan Keyes. ”
—typical liberal: change the definition of words when they start hurting you.

“Conservatism isn’t the same everywhere. Republicans aren’t Tories who aren’t necessarily monarchists.”
—lol. American conservatism is. Trying to draw in British examples makes you teh stupid.

“And black people haven’t disowned Colin Powell—the opposite, in fact.”
—yes, I remember the big parades when Powell became the first Black Secretary fo State. Oh wait, he was called an Uncle Tom for supporting Evil Bush.

But then he supported Nobama! So he was let back in for supporting a socialist moron. and rejecting conservatism.

“We haven’t even disowned Clarence Thomas.”
—lol. Right. Protesting wghenever he speaks. Anita Hill. Constant attacks on his opinions. Right. No Disowning there.

” OJ on the other hand? He’s been gone.”
—right. ‘Cause thats why black people cheered when he got off.

“Most black religious culture has nothing to do with blaming whitey. Sure you may here it here or there—but you can on occassionly here white preachers railing against blacks or interrical relationships.”
—lmao rofl. Not true. Non-black churches that engage in racial attacks are so few and far between. But black pundits were saying Wright was a normal black preacher. And every public black preacher—Al Sharpton, for example—is a blame whitey guy.

Not so with white ones. To try to make them seem the same is to counteract the facts.

“But I was raised in a preacher’s household and attended black bapitist churches every Sunday for 20 years. Never once heard a blame whitey sermon.”
–ever have a sermon comparing you to the Jews under Egypts thumb? Guess what…that’s blame whitey.

“And if you read closely, I said that player-thug culture and gangsta are the same thing—but that it differs from hip-hop culture. That remains the case even if you don’t acknowledge it. It just means you don’t know difference between hip-hop and gangsta. And why would you?”
—because there is no difference between Snoop Faggy Fag aligning himself with the Crips and celebrating violence and some black kid celebrating the crip lifestyle.

“But this only scratches the tip of black nationalism. It goes much, much deeper.”
—oh, do educate us on the wonderful intelligence of black nationalism.

“The point is that black people are no different from anyone else in the diversity of ideas and subcultures that comprise us.”
—lmao. Cultural equiavlency again. That’s why you have larger crime rates, more deaths, and vastly more illegitmacy andpoverty. Because your culture is exaclty the same.

“And black people can’t be divided just into “Nation of Islam” and “Player/Thug”.”
—right now, they can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 14:39

I thought it would be clear I wasn’t a pussy simply by disagreeing with you, as doing so provokes the unsheathing of your vorpal sword. Oh well then….

…..here is what I know;

Black men on average have a lower IQ then whites, but asians have a higher IQ then whites. This is scientific fact, you just have to dig it up, as the research has been buried.

Why? Genetics. In my personal theory, where blacks excell from an intellectual perspective tends to fall in these branches of the multiple intelligence theory tree; (although this tree is overly simplistic, but it serves my purpose here)

Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence (“body smart”)
Musical intelligence (“music smart”)
Interpersonal intelligence (“people smart”, “charisma”)
Naturalist intelligence (“nature smart”)

Where they are weak at is;

Logical-mathematical intelligence (“number/reasoning smart”)
Intrapersonal intelligence (“self smart”, “self awareness”)

What is debatable is;

Spatial intelligence (“picture smart”)
Linguistic intelligence (“word smart”)

As IQ generaly focuses on one of the areas that blacks have evolved to not be as proficient at, (Logical-mathematical intelligence (“number/reasoning smart”), as this is very important on the savannah, the IQ descrepency is explained. The problem is IQ accounts for jack shit unless you are in a an appropriate field, fields most of us are severely lacking in ability to take part in anyways, unless you are already a genetic outlier, which plenty of black men are (see below for related).

Take into consideration that blacks were selectively bred to be beast of burden. This took an already more natural physicality and athleticism and simply increased its size through selective breeding through the use of mandingos. This was cross pollinated with white genes, as slave owners would often slip a little baby batter in the female house slaves. American black men, distinct from Subsaharan African men (who have an even lower IQ), are there own race. A large athletic build with features evolved for a dry arid environment and a brain consisting of a mix between 3 parts specialization for a hunter gatherer society and 1 part that of elite white slave owning males. Blacks have given us jazz, blues, and thus rock n’ roll, have influenced our dress, language, and mannerisms, and continue to dominate in most sports fields. Blacks, being a racial mix, have just as much of a preponderance of “genetic outliers” as do whites. Any pure race suffers from lacking hybrid vigor. My overall point is that whites aren’t special, but there are special whites. Same goes for blacks. If the ability to do well on an IQ test is all it took to be a successful human, I would be in a lot better position myself. Take it from someone whose IQ has tested in the low 140′s. (Pre-intense drug use, but I’m happier now)

The difference between me and you is that I wish no ill will on any living person, and words have consequences, while you seem to gleefully wallow in your surperfluous callowness, exaserbating problems for a people who need a hand up, and not a hand out, while it rather appears you prefer to put your foot on their throat, as you cackle your way to an existential hell I hope you suffer on your death bed while a black doctor tries to keep you alive, because after this life your dust will mix with the dust of all the black men you seem to despise, and none of this will mean anything, as our alien overlords will reprogram all our DNA to serve as better pets. Happy now Lurker. Are you happy your taint has corrupted my already moral relativism to resemble an uglier shade of uncouth tactlessness. Well done Darth Lurker, well done.

What I want to know now, was how brilliant my previous post that got ignored was. I’ll repost it here. Thoughts?:

“Women like risk taker sociopaths, because they make shit happen, but not in a smart way, but in a way where the vast majority of them are going to perish in their attempts. Nature deviced a way to keep these useful idiots in abundant supply. Nature made women attracted to them.

Think of it like this. Alpha-sociopaths go off to fight the other tribe for their tribe. That is who you send; fearless men with no qualms about killing and pillaging. They go off, conquer, and come back with valuable resources. Only one problem, 3/4ths of them died in the battle. What is nature to do? A tribe can’t have its protectors and warriors constantly dwindling down in numbers. I know? Nature will make women ginas tingle for the blood drenched surviving Alpha/Sociopaths. They will cuckold their husbands, and the next generation will have the appropriate mix of Alphas, Betas, Omegas, and outliers. One problem. What happens when a civilization doesn’t have continuous wars to cull the herd of Alpha/Sociopaths? Answer. Look around you.

I’m not saying all Alphas are sociopaths, nor all sociopaths are Alpha, just that there is substantial overlap, as the qualities of sociopathy allow for the dominance required to become Alpha.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 14:46

“But then he supported Nobama! So he was let back in for supporting a socialist moron. and rejecting conservatism.”

I look forward to our Obama debate in the future, but I need to get home. He’s the Tiger Woods of politics. I won’t be back till monday, as Modern Warfare II will comprise my weekend activities.

Frienemy’s yet you jack ass? You never replied. Not that your answer matters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 12, 2009 at 14:49

“not very important on the savannah” if you didn’t catch that yourself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 14:50

“And black people can’t be divided just into “Nation of Islam” and “Player/Thug”.”
—right now, they can.

No, really, they can’t. For instance, we’ll take my parents and the city/environment I grew up in. We aren’t Muslims and my parents never had nice things to say about Farrakhan or Muhammed. But we were also forbidden to listen to gangsta rap, wear baggy clothes, cuss, smoke or drink—just like most other black people I knew in my (99 percent black) neighborhood.

Fast foward 15 years to me right now. I definitely don’t fit into the “black conservatism/religious” cultural hybrid that I was born into anymore, seeing as I don’t believe in Jesus and like to get hammered every now and then at a bar. But I’m still not a Muslim, still don’t listen to gangsta rap, went to an Ivy, have a nice job in finance—just like the most of the other blacks I know. You might call us “black middle class” or “professional” culture—the same as whites have their own young, urban professional culture. In any case, I don’t fit into “NOM” or “player/thug”, and of the many black people I know and hang out with, I don’t know any who do. But we’re no less black.

I think from the outside, if you aren’t particularly informed or observant, it’s easy to split blacks up into “NOM” or “player/thug”. But all it proves is that you really don’t know much about black people.

PS,
There are differences among conservatives even in this country—you don’t have to go across the Atlantic. Neocons are different from paleocons who are different from so-cons who are different libertarians, etc. And I say that as someone sympathetic to some strains of libertarianism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hope November 12, 2009 at 14:52

@ Jabherwochie

Good post. I also subscribe to the theory of multiple intelligences. I feel that I lack bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence and naturalist intelligence compared to many others.

As far as women consciously choosing sociopathic “alphas,” I posit that this is not a universal given. If you look at modern Asian pop culture such as anime or music geared towards women, the men who are portrayed as most attractive are often very sensitive, intelligent, and a bit effeminate. Even as a little girl I remember exclusively having crushes on the nerdy guys, never the violent jocks.

Most people blindly follow authority and cultural influences. When Western mainstream media glorifies cocky and sporty men who do not possess much mental substance, then those will be the sort of people who become the “alphas” of the society. What nation calls avid book-learners “nerds” and “geeks,” and portrays them as losers? What nation rewards its football players, rappers and Hollywood celebrities far more than its engineers, physicists and mathematicians?

The “alpha” traits, therefore, will be emulated by the unthinking masses and become the chosen traits of women in that culture.

A side note concerning blacks in Africa vs. America. My fiance lived in Ghana last year and taught math to high school kids. He was sent to a small village where school-aged kids must carry heavy buckets of water back to their homes. They also volunteer to clean the classrooms and the teachers’ homes.

There, violent, thuggish and sociopathic behaviors are unacceptable, and strict discipline and academic achievements are prized. His students referred to him as “sir,” and they received corporal punishment by school officials if they stepped out of line. Schooling is considered extremely important. Another footnote: Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the UN, was from Ghana.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 15:03

A side note concerning blacks in Africa vs. America. My fiance lived in Ghana last year and taught math to high school kids. He was sent to a small village where school-aged kids must carry heavy buckets of water back to their homes. They also volunteer to clean the classrooms and the teachers’ homes.

There, violent, thuggish and sociopathic behaviors are unacceptable, and strict discipline and academic achievements are prized. His students referred to him as “sir,” and they received corporal punishment by school officials if they stepped out of line. Schooling is considered extremely important. Another footnote: Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the UN, was from Ghana.

Well, yes. Violent, thuggish and sociopathic behaviors are unacceptable are generally frowned by by dominant cultures. These behaviors are selected for in “oppressed” cultures, because they are the only ways of insuring a modicum of protection for threatened minorities. In Ghana, Ghanians (Akan, Ewe, etc) are the dominant group. So yes, they would frown on such behavior. It has nothing to do with race.

But even this idea that somehow black Americans are naturally less intellectually inclined is bunk. How many black doctors (Drew), scientists (Carver), inventors (Banneker) have fundamentally changed the way we live our lives?? This list goes on and on. Our contributions have been second to none.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 12, 2009 at 15:13

What nation calls avid book-learners “nerds” and “geeks,” and portrays them as losers? What nation rewards its football players, rappers and Hollywood celebrities far more than its engineers, physicists and mathematicians?

A bunch do. This is true throughout the West, not just the United States. Geeks are also losers in places like Germany, Spain and Sweden. Asia is different, yes, but the West will never be Asia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith November 12, 2009 at 16:07

“Women are attention whores. Refusing a woman male attention is the most severe punishment you can inflict on a woman.”

This is so astonishingly wrong. Refusing her attention only matters if she wants your attention. A woman who thinks she deserves nothing less than a 7 won’t care if a 5 refuses to give her attention.

For example, consider me. I’m maybe a 5, partly because I’m short (5’6″), partly because I don’t have a symmetrical face, and partly because I have a displeasingly short limbs (I’d be over 6′ tall if my limbs were in average proportion to my torso). I’m not ugly (I’m no Eli Wallach or Ken Curtis), mind you, but one must face facts. Game only matters if you get the chance to speak. If she’s already mentally eliminated you before then (“too short, next!”) no amount of Game or attention refusal is going to matter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Bob Smith November 12, 2009 at 16:15

These are among the reasons why choice for men is harped on more heavily as an issue … Those who propound it aren’t necessarily against the existence of a male pill;

But, rather interestingly, plenty of women are against the existence of a male pill. Feminists are especially vociferous in their condemnation of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
dragnet November 12, 2009 at 16:58

“But, rather interestingly, plenty of women are against the existence of a male pill. Feminists are especially vociferous in their condemnation of it.”

Really? Can you provide a link? I’d like to read into this…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Tupac Chopra November 12, 2009 at 18:30

Hope:

I’ve left your blog, and I no longer have any interest in trying to persuade the game community into giving up the pump & dump.

Interesting that you plied your efforts at changing men’s behavioral adaptations instead of castigating your sisters who are the gatekeepers to sex, and hence, the ones who truly have the lock on male behavior.

Why is that, Hope?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS YO November 12, 2009 at 18:35

Adjourn your asses? Is that a Stringer Bell reference I detect?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tupac Chopra November 12, 2009 at 18:42

Hope:

Most people blindly follow authority and cultural influences. When Western mainstream media glorifies cocky and sporty men who do not possess much mental substance, then those will be the sort of people who become the “alphas” of the society.

I think you have cause and effect mixed up sweetie.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 12, 2009 at 18:51

I think you have cause and effect mixed up sweetie.

Precisely.

In 2009, women are the choosers, the discerners, and so on. Someone like Hope has her own categories now. But the “culture” is created by females — through their choices (which provoke male responses like Game) and through their intra-female pressures to snag an Alpha. Women have created this. Now that women have sexual freedom, they have untrammeled sexual power — the culture around these issues is determined by women, full stop.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 12, 2009 at 19:10

Let’s be honest about Hope, guys.

If anyone needs a good pumping, she does. Her wide-open, needy eyes, the picture of the rose in bloom… She’s just aching to be inseminated, over and over again. I know her type well — they’ll drain your essence until you are just a shell of a man with no purpose besides sating that insatiable hunger for sex that those women have. I wasted years of my life giving my essence to these women, but like tigresses they can never get enough.

Beware. They will steal your Qi.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
SpaceGeek November 12, 2009 at 22:54

For what it’s worth, I’m a straight woman, and I don’t hate game, mostly because it doesn’t affect me much. The super high status males and females have always attracted each other, whether because of beauty, wealth, or whatever.

As for paying for things, I always thought the rules were obvious whether it’s between all men, all women, or mixed company. If a person is *hosting* they should pay. (eg. “I want to invite you out to dinner.”) If a person is suggesting a joint excursion, each one pays for themself. (eg. “Hey, let’s all meet up at the steak house for dinner.”) It shouldn’t have anything to do with gender relations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JD November 12, 2009 at 23:17

The reason every bickers back and forth about negging is because nobody knows what the hell it even is. Mystery has given examples of 3 or 4 different behaviors with 3 or 4 different goals in mind and given all of them the same name.

I hope one day someone bans the use of that word so people can actually find out what the hell they’re even arguing about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JD November 12, 2009 at 23:19

Also, there are several different schools of thought with PUA ranging from style’s annihilation method to rosss jefrey’s neuro-linguistic programming. And being willfully ignorant, they paint everyone with the same brush.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
clarence November 13, 2009 at 02:04

JD your comment about the “neg” made me laugh out loud, though I do think there is a common definition in the community now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
clarence November 13, 2009 at 02:06

I like Hope and understand where she is coming from.

It’s too bad there aren’t more of her around. Finding a girl like Hope would have been my lifetime goal a few years back: Alas, I lacked game. :(

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 13, 2009 at 03:11

It is absolutely NOT necessary for a man to spend any money before having sex with a woman. This is one of the OLDEST and FIRST lessons of Game, that has been around since 1999 or earlier. I never have to pay for anything, other than the ingredients of the meal that I cooked for her at MY place. I certainly spent nothing before getting her to eagerly come to my place.

The fact that women still expect this shows them to merely be hypocritical moochers that want their free ride to continue. So much for claims of ‘empowerment’ and ‘independence’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
filrabat November 13, 2009 at 03:16

I know this is a little off-topic, but from a broader perspective.

Sure, they may be alphas in the mating game, but are they alphas in other senses? Like being able to provide? In the end, you have to question “What is the end-purpose of having a woman?” Nature’s end purpose is children.

However, if you shove aside your emotional and instincts, and look further down the road,you’ll find that the human race will one day go extinct. This is what every major belief system holds true (from religious to scientific) This makes both Alphas and Omegas doomed in the very long run anyway. Therefore, I see no real point in reproduction.

Furthermore, for those of a religious inclination, there’s also the issue of bringing into existence a child who could end up in eternal torment after he or she leaves this earth. Yes, you might be creating a person who will spend an eternity in paradise, BUT what about the possibility (in fact, IMO, probability) that they will not be “entering by the NARROW gate” i.e. among “the chosen FEW”?

So, all this makes “Game” irrelevant in the very long term scheme of things, even if it is good for procreative purposes. The best thing to do is to do great and wonderful things with YOUR OWN genes, rather than hoping you can sit on the sidelines and watch the next cultured batch will do them for you

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 13, 2009 at 03:20

Hope is merely proving Obsidian’s point perfectly.

She has no understanding of Game or the male point of view, nor does she have any intention of holding women accountable for their actions. Her pseudo-moral posturing is worthy of a male socialcon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hope November 13, 2009 at 07:42

Interesting that you plied your efforts at changing men’s behavioral adaptations instead of castigating your sisters who are the gatekeepers to sex, and hence, the ones who truly have the lock on male behavior.

I have been castigating other women’s casual sex behavior all along. If you read my link earlier to the sexual ethics post, you’d see that I do not only hold men accountable for their actions, but women as well.

I wrote this in the middle of 2008. Then this in the middle of 2009.

I am also on GirlGame with several other women who do not want to sleep around casually.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 13, 2009 at 10:14

Hey Y’all,
Thanks so much for the comments, and stay tuned for my post coming up next week! I see a number of sidebar convos have started up, and I’m enjoying reading it all from the sidelines, but really just wanted to point out one thing:

All the back and forth about Hope holding Women accountable and so on, etc et al, while laudable, ain’t really the issue. The issue is, that Women do what they do today, BECAUSE THEY CAN – meaning, The Pill, Abortion On Demand, Education & Money, and the State acting as Daddy/Hubby. In short, what Roissy has broadly identified as the Four Sirens (look it up on Google, it’s very interesting reading). Human beings respond to personal incentives first and foremost; Women can do what they do now, because they have the means to do so, period, fullstop. For things to change, the environmental conditions would have to change. Failing that, all we’ll be doing is pissing in the wind.

And, since no one, not Women and quiet as it’s kept, quite a goodly number of Men, don’t want the Genie to go back in the bottle, the solution, one of them anyway, is simply to cope with the up and downsides of all of this. On the upside, Game allows Men to expand their options. On the downside, there will be more Sodinis, Chos and Hasans out there taking out their involuntary celibacy out on others, most especially Women. Hey, Freedom Ain’t Free – somebody’s gotta pay. And the Ladies, most certainly, will.

I’m just sayin’.

OK, by all means, continue…

The Obsidian

Renee November 13, 2009 at 10:17

Lurker,
“And black people can’t be divided just into “Nation of Islam” and “Player/Thug”.”
—right now, they can.

LOOOOOL WOW. I was going to post a rebuttal but looking at Jabherwochie and Dragnet posts, there’s no need. They already posted everything that needed to be said. I’ll just say this, as a black woman myself, I am neither a “Player/Thug” or a member of the “Nation of Islam”. You really don’t know black people.

Hope,
I have been castigating other women’s casual sex behavior all along. If you read my link earlier to the sexual ethics post, you’d see that I do not only hold men accountable for their actions, but women as well.

This is why the whole “gatekeepers” reasoning doesn’t sit well with me sometimes. I’m the type who believes that the only person who really has a “lock” on your behavior is yourself. Don’t get me wrong, I can see why guys would believe that. On one hand, when I think about it, it makes sense. But on the other hand, there are times when it seems more like an excuse and a way to alleviate one’s responsibility.

About this interracial dating thing. What about a black/Latina/Asian/etc. woman who date outside her race or ethnicity?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 13, 2009 at 11:42

Hey, TFH, a reader contacted me and said he wanted to see some quant stuff up here. Seems as though you have plenty of that on your very interesting blog. Think you might have time for a guest post?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 13, 2009 at 11:48

Welmer,

Sure. Let me think about a good topic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 13, 2009 at 11:57

Take your time. Feel free to plug your blog here or on any potential post.

Oh, and get in touch through the contact form if you’d like and I’ll email you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 13, 2009 at 13:08

Renee,
Hey, what’s up? Had a look at your blog, and saw what you said about “Cougartown”. I think you got it all twisted, sis, with all due respect. I have plans to write about this topic soon, both on my blog and probably here as well, I’m not sure just yet. But it’s a topic that does need addressing from a fair, balanced, yet bracingly real point of view.

Stay tuned.

The Obsidian

julie November 13, 2009 at 13:38

Keep learning through living Obsidian. You’ll get there. :D

Your article is extremely shallow but if it pays the bills, then who I am to deny it. Or if this makes you feel good in life, then who am I to deny it.

What surprises me quite a bit is the men who are older and have had it all. The travel, the knowledge, the wealth, the women and the power.

They are probably the ones that make me stand up and be counted. For all that they had they somehow envy me for having none of those but just the simple depth of what it is to be a human.

Oh I hope one day you get to have that too. And on that day you will understand why men and women are the way they are. :D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee November 13, 2009 at 14:34

Obsidian,
Lol, no problem :D I look forward to reading what you write about that topic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 13, 2009 at 14:36

Hi Julie,

Thanks – I think?-but you’ll kindly pardon me if I humbly ask: exactly what do you think I wrote that is “shallow”? Please explain?

If you take issue with what I wrote, then by all means, lay it out. If, on the other hand, you merely *don’t like it*, then well, who’s problem is that?

So…you were saying?

Holla back

The Obsidian

julie November 13, 2009 at 15:44

To The Obsidian

Holla back

I do want to, but I hope you don’t mind that I want to give this some thought. “I’ll be back.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
by_the_sword November 13, 2009 at 16:35

julie: …For all that they had they somehow envy me for having none of those but just the simple depth of what it is to be a human.

Oh I hope one day you get to have that too. And on that day you will understand why men and women are the way they are.

He just explained quite succinctly why women are the way they are. Please read again:

All the back and forth about Hope holding Women accountable and so on, etc et al, while laudable, ain’t really the issue. The issue is, that Women do what they do today, BECAUSE THEY CAN – meaning, The Pill, Abortion On Demand, Education & Money, and the State acting as Daddy/Hubby. In short, what Roissy has broadly identified as the Four Sirens (look it up on Google, it’s very interesting reading). Human beings respond to personal incentives first and foremost; Women can do what they do now, because they have the means to do so, period, fullstop. For things to change, the environmental conditions would have to change.

What was that you were saying about not understanding, being human? Do you think that we men aren’t human? Do you regard men as less than human? What is it that makes you a human and me not a human julie?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 13, 2009 at 16:55

To by_the_sword,

He (Obsidian) just explained quite succinctly why women are the way they are.

I know he did this! I can’t believe he would even give me the time of day to say something about my own sex when he is such an expert. :D

What was that you were saying about not understanding, being human? Do you think that we men aren’t human? Do you regard men as less than human? What is it that makes you a human and me not a human julie?

And you! Aren’t you so great. You can even read words I don’t say. :D

I have to say that I thought magicians were good, but you, oh my, you are something out of this world.

HAHA.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Bob Smith November 13, 2009 at 17:37

If a person is *hosting* they should pay. (eg. “I want to invite you out to dinner.”)

Propose a rule (“asker pays”), then never ask. The gall required to utter this bit of self-serving tripe is outstanding.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
by_the_sword November 13, 2009 at 18:16

julie:

I did indeed misread what you wrote. I need to brush up on my reading comprehension. Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 13, 2009 at 18:50

If a person is *hosting* they should pay. (eg. “I want to invite you out to dinner.”)

True.

That is why the first date should not be dinner. It should be a meeting of zero or near-zero cost (hotel, coffee house, etc.)

I always host the 2nd or 3rd date at my place, which is a dinner, where I of course bankroll the food.

Avoid hosting anything that requires the man to pay before she agrees to dinner at YOUR place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jon November 13, 2009 at 20:07

I’d never bother reading this entire article or the comments. Game is disgusting because it is based solely on manipulation. This is no way for any sentient person to live. Game may very well work, at least for a while. It may work forever, I couldn’t care less. What is the best possible upside? A lot of sex? Manipulating stupid people is NOT admirable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Obsidian November 13, 2009 at 22:28

Julie,
Pithy responses aside I’d really like to hear what you have to say about where and why you take issue with what I said; I am hoping that it is substantive so that we can have a good conversation on the issues. Game is, believe it or not, as old as time itself, and is nothing new.

Bob, TFH,
Yea, I read the comment about “he/she who does the asking out, should pay” line. Of course, this is a “trap” too, since most Women know full well that the Man asks the Woman out 99% of the time. Hence, another “shit test”. I’m not a very good cook (and am taking careful note of Welmer’s excellent series of recipe articles!) so I take a different approach than TFH – me, I keep the “first date” even simple, light, and *cheap* on purpose – this takes the pressue off both sides of the equation and allows both of us to get to know each other. No more than an hour and $20 bucks spent, always in the daytime, and always at a cafe’. Also, aviod the rain or snowstorms if you can, Women tend to be more effected by weather patterns than we guys are.

I’ve always gotten very good results over the years using this method, with a minimum of flaking and moving to “Day 2″ at least 80% of the time. If not sooner. ;)

The Obsidian

The Fifth Horseman November 13, 2009 at 22:33

‘jon’ is a woman. It is not hard to tell.

‘Game’ is merely learning how to become a more attractive man. It is not manipulation or dishonesty. It makes all male-female interactions better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Kamal S. November 13, 2009 at 22:50

Not to agree or disagree with your assessment of “game” (which very well may , or may not, be more complex than nuanced than what you argue)

But Dude, does it not border on idiocy, to a shameful order of magnitude, to state blatantly that you’d never (and thus have not) bother reading the article or comments – while yet reserving the right to have, and express, opinions on things you haven’t even bothered to read?

Dude, how can anyone who even graduated from high school display this mind numbing degree of un-self conscious narcissism and love of the particular uniqueness of their own uninformed opinion.

For the record, some of what LITTLE I know about a good deal of what people call game disturbs me. Like that Neil Strauss book, it was like reading an account of a bloody train wreck.

However from what little I’ve read on some of these blogs, there is wrapped up what people are calling “game” a good deal of frankly common sense advice on masculinity and dating – much of what I am seeing are things that used to be common sense, stuff my Dad told me in somewhat different words. To dismiss it all as manipulation without even reading it shows either poor comprehension and thinking skills, or a willful disregard for the subject matter due to an already made up mind.

Righteous indignation can be more easily respected coming from someone who has actually bothered to, like, read the article for which he reserves moral scorn. The inability of people in our country to exercise basic comprehension and critical thinking skills TOTALLY transcends race, ethnic group, and – yes – gender. Some of what is taught as dating skills is highly manipulative, some is actually behavior that the opposite sex wants the reader to display, some is a confused mix, and some is remarkably clear and lucid understanding of what makes people tick in the mating game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 14, 2009 at 04:37

Kemal, TFH,
Notice how, in almost every single instance, those who disagree w/Game do so on the most flimsy of grounds, or, have say almost nothing about the many, many games Women play in the mating dance. And as I recall, I don’t ever hear too many Men having anything to say about-maybe they understand that as the cost of doing business, I know I do. But it’s something about being able to thwart a Woman’s “stuff” that really bothers some people, as I’ve said above, Women and Men alike.

Use Occam’s Razor instead of a butterknife, and the reasons why will soon become clear as to why that is.

The Obsidian

epiclolz November 14, 2009 at 07:21

@obsidian

Notice how, in almost every single instance, those who disagree w/Game do so on the most flimsy of grounds, or, have say almost nothing about the many, many games Women play in the mating dance.

Also they reject the idea itself only because they don’t like idea or the moral implications of it. It’s kind of like saying you reject the theory of gravity because you don’t like it. Also the idea that game is some sort of manipulation that is different than any other form of human interaction is a bit naive.
Also… I wonder why haters of game don’t also hate on women using cosmetics, push-up bras and high heels. There is a one to one correspondence with female appearance game and male social status game. If you are going to be a hater, you might as well be consistent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
jon November 14, 2009 at 09:33

“‘jon’ is a woman. It is not hard to tell.”

You can’t make this determination by reading a few lines. Can you tell what color my hair is? How tall I am?

I read part of the article and a few comments. It’s not like game just got invented, I don’t need to read any more details or the analysis of it’s critics. Also, the hater label is really tired. It’s hard for me to believe that people still get any satisfaction by calling people who disagree with them or even do hate them haters. Who cares? Many people don’t like the idea of game type manipulation being used on their daughters and sisters. It isn’t in the least surprising that it elicits a lot of emotional responses. So what?

I don’t doubt that game works to some extent. Nobody is more convinced of the idiocy of women than me. I also have a very low opinion of women who dress like sluts, this is manipulative as well. My opinion on this is in no way unique and I certainly never claimed it was. This behavior/practice/whatever has been named “game” for goodness sakes. I aspire to not play stupid games with people. I have no idea how complex or nuanced it is and don’t care, it’s the wrong path.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
julie November 14, 2009 at 10:59

to Obsidian

Julie,
Pithy responses aside I’d really like to hear what you have to say about where and why you take issue with what I said; I am hoping that it is substantive so that we can have a good conversation on the issues. Game is, believe it or not, as old as time itself, and is nothing new.

I appreciate you want to hear what I have to say. My mind is in a strange place at the moment because the needs of my clientele are different to the needs of your clientele. So I can only talk from my stand.

I am under the impression most men think alpha = bad boy. And that most men think these bad boys are getting laid while the good boys get passed over. I am disappointed more emphasis is not put into the definition of ‘alpha bad boy’ because there is much more going on in the scene of ‘bad boys and the girls that hang around with them’. I can see a lot of anger coming from feminists (not online feminists per se) and men who work in places like ‘prison’ because this article and many like them are glorifying a disturbed group of males and females.

Since most of the issues in the gender war is around funding (you can’t make social difference without the capital) much of the change for men to be treated as human beings in a kind way is around alpha’s being a victim themselves to tragedy in their own lives and the sons of these ‘alpha’s’ being afraid of themselves. In a nutshell, you have one group in the men’s movement wanting to move from ‘beta’ to ‘alpha’ for sex (it is just an illusion IMHO that the alpha’s have a better *beta* life) and you have another group in the men’s movement trying to prove that men on the whole have shifted from the ‘alpha’ and that the treatment is too severe and that men and women are at the stage where they can work together as a team. (group work rather than men go to prison, women go to refuges)

I think people need to realise that the 80′s was big into group work but that the consequences were too risky and that is why feminist ideology has stayed in charge. (from my research) It’ s ISM is too out of hand but we can’t yet move to the next level because the bringing together of many cultures means the nice beta cultures are being pulled down by the cultures that are strong in their ‘alpha’ ways.

It is much the same way as single mother household brought something unhealthy into mainstream and this affected even the good families. It wasn’t long until the unhealthy part of society took over the healthy parts of society. (again, my research)

Conclusion: Alpha males are not the better male (bet-ta) and encouraging the ‘alpha’ in society is like taking a huge step backwards.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 14, 2009 at 11:17

I have much to say (hope that’s OK)

As for the Psychological head games to get laid. …

I understand nice guys realising ‘nice guys finish last’. I feel really sorry that our society has fallen this far where males have to change to ‘nasty’ just to get laid or find a mate. But IMO there is a lot going on in society that is encouraging ‘nice guys finish last’.

I wonder if it is about ‘one night stands’ and if it is, I wonder why you can’t just encourage men to go where the women go for ‘one night stands’ rather than use Psychological mind games on women who are raised culturally different and will be harmed from this.

Lots of women care about their careers (while working the career and studying for the career) and consider a relationship to be in the way so they go on the hunt at weekends for a man. I think they don’t actually choose an alpha male. I think they chose a man who they beleive has no hang ups and that will be free of negative consequences (like stalking) . It is the confidence of the men that is attractive IMHO. The ‘men knowing where they are going’ that is attractive. The ‘I don’t have time for a relationship either’ attitude that is attractive.

Of course the way a man presents himself tells women a lot just as the presentation of the woman tells men a lot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 14, 2009 at 11:26

Obsidian, last one.

The part where abortion comes into game is hard for me to comprehend. I wouldn’t mind you explaining that further.

As far as I can tell, men who are older and look back on the ‘game’ (which they were good at) often tell how they have no children and that they could have had except they were aborted.

What I like about their honesty is that they admit it was for the better because they were not father material and they acknowledge that father material is a huge important commitment.

Game and children don’t go hand in hand IMHO. I think that is important to consider and I think it would be too selfish for players to expect they can ‘fuck and chuck’ and expect the women to raise the children.

We are not that much of ‘it takes a village to raise a child”. IMHO

OK, finished. I look forward to your comments back. :D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 14, 2009 at 11:31

To by_the_sword,

julie:

I did indeed misread what you wrote. I need to brush up on my reading comprehension. Thanks.

No problem. It happens to me too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis November 14, 2009 at 11:51

I’d never bother reading this entire article or the comments. Game is disgusting because it is based solely on manipulation. This is no way for any sentient person to live. Game may very well work, at least for a while. It may work forever, I couldn’t care less. What is the best possible upside? A lot of sex? Manipulating stupid people is NOT admirable.

@Jon:

Game is no more manipulative than assertiveness training or taking a class on how to do well in a job inteview. As long as the job applicant is not padding his resume (lying about his backgound) or saying he’s interested in a long term career when he views the job as a stepping stone (pomising commitment when he’s only interested in pump and dump), I don’t see much wrong with it.

In other words, applied honorably, it’s no more of a manipulation than the more typical wooing behaviors during courtship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
julie November 14, 2009 at 15:31

To Kis,

***”Game is no more manipulative than assertiveness training or taking a class on how to do well in a job inteview. As long as the job applicant is not padding his resume (lying about his backgound) or saying he’s interested in a long term career when he views the job as a stepping stone (pomising commitment when he’s only interested in pump and dump), I don’t see much wrong with it.

In other words, applied honorably, it’s no more of a manipulation than the more typical wooing behaviors during courtship.”***

Oh, I like what you have written here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 14, 2009 at 16:06

Thanks, Kis. I’ve been reading along on the sidelines and have really appreciated your many comments.

Julie,
Wow. I really don’t even know where to begin, and am thinking that perhaps I need to focus my next column on the points you’ve made. Hmm…

The Obsidian

kis November 14, 2009 at 16:37

Thanks, guys. I mean, when you think about it, the traditional, romantic courtship of expensive dinners, flowers, love notes, and all the little things a man does to woo a woman, from opening her car door to taking her to a romantic movie he’d rather not watch–those are all “manipulation” too, right?

So is going out of his way to give her compliments and the typical “best behavior” displayed early on that changes once the commitment is made. I mean, how many guys fart and belch in front of her or lose their tempers or do any number of other “unattractive” things in the early days of a relationship? How many stop holding their stomachs (and gaseous eminations) in when they have the commitment and are comfortable in a LTR?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 14, 2009 at 16:44

I have no idea how complex or nuanced it is and don’t care, it’s the wrong path.

Translation : Jon is intellectually lazy, and admits that he wants to condemn something, without bothering to learn what it is.

Plus, you don’t present any alternative to Game, other than demand that everyone be as bitter as you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
jon November 14, 2009 at 17:25

From the article:
“This highly attuned “radar” if you will, on the part of Women, is in large part “fooled” by Game, because it gives the average guy the tools needed to ape the behavior of Alpha Males. This in turn gives him more chances to mate-in other words in our time, get laid-and this in turn causes mucho stress for the Ladies, because Game makes it so they cannot as easily determine who’s who.”
***********************************
The above is all anyone needs to know about game. It is fundamentally dishonest and therefore not honorable. It is about pretending to be someone you aren’t. Traditional nonsense like holding doors and going to boring movies is generally not dishonest. The guy does these things to demonstrate interest and the traditional goal was marriage where the guy could get regular sex. Sex is only a part of it but it is probably the single most important part for young men. The traditional ritual may be somewhat silly but it isn’t tricky. Game, as the name implies and the description above explicitly states, is about making subtle changes to behavior that won’t be consciously noticed but that will fool stupid women into doing what you want. It’s a scam. Sophisticated scams are no more honorable than simple ones. The differences between game and traditional courting/dating are not subtle and anyone who claims they are the same is lying.

I suspect that a lot of guys will learn game, talk about it with each other, learn the most effective way to go about it, and get very good at it. It is the moral equivalent to all the manipulative bullshit most women engage in and it’s probably inevitable. I’ll be interested to see how it turns out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Type 5 November 14, 2009 at 17:27

@Obsidian

” But it’s something about being able to thwart a Woman’s “stuff” that really bothers some people, as I’ve said above, Women and Men alike.”

It think that’s probably more true for men than women. From my impressions, women [b]enjoy[/b] Game. What they hate is any public assertion that they respond to it.

It’s like not wanting to know how sausage is made.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 14, 2009 at 17:37

Conclusion: Alpha males are not the better male (bet-ta) and encouraging the ‘alpha’ in society is like taking a huge step backwards.

The issue, though, is that women reward these alphas with sexual access — consistently enough so as to form a predictable pattern. This is why “Game” works — if women were not selecting men on that basis, it would not work.

My theory: women prefer strong, confident, assertive men. The current culture, with its denigration of the masculine, its plague of fatherlessness and its general lack of male role models has led to such strong/confident/assertive men being in short supply. That raises the demand for them even more — because most men living in the current culture are not attractive to most women, plain and simple. Game is a way for men to get out of that rut, out of the culture that has helped form a generation or more of wimpy, unmasculine men — men whom feminists who work in DV adore, but who women generally do not reward with sexual access or mate selection, if they can find an alternative who is also in some ways “nice” but is strong/confident/assertive”. The classic “beta” male is not attractive to women — regardless of what women say, this is consistently enough observed to hold true as a pattern. Game helps guys get out of the beta rut and become someone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 14, 2009 at 17:40

Kis,
Isn’t it very interesting that, to date, NONE OF THE DISSENTERS HAS SAID A WORD ABOUT THE MANY THINGS WOMEN DO in the Game of Love? I mean, let’s take the “paying for dates” issue. Many Women like to trot out the “whoever asks the other out should pay” line, when they good and darned well that 99 times out of 100, the Man always asks. So, heads I win, tails you lose. Very nice.

And that’s just for starters. How many Women go to bars and clubs for the express purpose of getting free drinks from some bunch of mopes, w/no intention in the least of doing nothing more than feiging interest for like, five minutes? I’m sure you know or knew, at least one Woman like that, and so do the rest of the lady commenters here-yet, no one ever says a thing about that. Why?

But, if ONE GUY just posts what, TWO ARTICLES ON GAME, out of what, at least 20 or more here at The Spearhead, why, then everyone looses their freaking minds!

If that don’t tell all about the Power of Game, then what will? Hmm?

Holla back

The Obsidian

Novaseeker November 14, 2009 at 17:43

It is the moral equivalent to all the manipulative bullshit most women engage in and it’s probably inevitable.

Yes — it is the equivalent of what the women are doing. It is no more manipulative than women who follow “the Rules” — in other words, changing their behaviors in ways that they hope will generate and sustain male desire for them. Game is the male equivalent of that, if used in that way and in that context.

I would say that the old rules of courtship simply no longer apply. There isn’t a life program that supports them any longer, and that’s the main reason they have withered away. We can debate whether that is a good thing or not, but in my view things aren’t going to revert to the way that they once were. It’s a new world now, with new rules — rules we are still working out by trial and error, and things like “the Rules” and “Game” are a response to precisely that: the collapse of the old regime of courtship ritual in the wake of second wave feminism and the sexual revolution, and its replacement with precisely nothing (because, after all, since men and women are the same, if we are all just acting freely we don’t need any rules around mating, right?).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 14, 2009 at 18:26

Nova,
Notice how the haters – and that’s what they are, haters- keep making all these ridiculous and silly arguments against Game, from the words used to making up intentions and goals of the practitioners (Julie ascribes things to me that I never said or intended), and it’s all really silly. They do this because, like TFH has said, and I agree, it’s too much of a mindf*ck to handle the truth that is sitting right in front of their faces. If Game were booty, no one would be talking about it. Oh, and by the way, there is NO comparison to be made between The Rules and Game, believe me. One is time honored and field tested, the other is NOT.

Also: notice how no one has, to date, answered my charges about the things Women do, wrt to paying for dates, and so on. Women have always had an advantage in the Seduction Sweepstakes; now, the playing field is more even than ever.

Before anyone gets it twisted, I do NOT hate Women in the least. I love and adore them, always have, and always will. Nor do I wish to use Game to hurt any Woman, that is wrong and unethical. But I won’t shy away from the truth about things. And the truth is, that Game, works.

Period.

Holla back.

The Obsidian

jon November 14, 2009 at 18:54

I’m a hater Obsidian. SO WHAT? Your fixation on calling people haters is silly. We also don’t care if you hate women. Speculating about feelings is silly.

I absolutely agree that game is comparable to all the female bullshit. The reason we aren’t talking about it is that it’s extremely obvious and really not deserving of too much discussion. People who come to sites like this, with the exception of julie who desperately needs to get a job, generally already have a pretty good idea of how manipulative and dishonest women usually are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cleararc November 14, 2009 at 19:10

Bear in mind, Game is mostly represented by PUA circles, there’s not *many* people willing to represent on how to use Game for Long-term relations. Hawaiian, and Approach Anxiety are a couple of examples, but they are easily ignored since they aren’t doing ‘something’ that’s considered ‘morally represhensible’ by this society’s standards (That’s if it is). The PUAs are the center of attention to simply put it.

Also take into account that maybe there are men that don’t like the term ‘Game’, since it implies that there’s nothing serious about it (I, myself, don’t like to use the word game for that reason.) It’s a possibility that some aspects of game may actually be how men and women used to talk with each other (flirting, etc.) This is something that our father’s should’ve taught us, but they are never around thanks to the system. I don’t have my thoughts about this exactly planned out here, but I could expand later…

Now, I’m going to point out that some (maybe a good deal) of Men in the MRA movement are fearing that if men who practice game, will think that a man’s worth is directly related to how good his game is, making a ‘Might makes Right’ sort of mentality. What does it say about a man if he treats other men like dirt because he has the ‘power’? We need more men to cooperate with each other, but this sort of attitude that some men have can easily divide all of them.

We should see how a man treats other men; it’s a pretty good indicator on how respectful he is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 14, 2009 at 19:19

Jon,
I thought I made it clear that I DON’T hate Women? SMH

Cleararc,
Forget about the Great Gettin’ Up Morning when Men will Unite. Ain’t. Gonna. Happen. Men are far too competitive, plus no one wants to admit that they are a loser, which is exactly what will happen if guys start trying to ape NOW or some such stuff. The laws aren’t likely to change, because of the hiercharcal nature of Males. So, the only real and viable option is for individual Men to carve niches out for themselves. Period.

A big part of a Man’s life will involve Women, there’s simply no way of getting around that. It profits nothing for a Man to follow your route, which is anger and hatred.

I’m just saying.

The Obsidian

Bhetti November 14, 2009 at 19:28

jon:
You’ve touched on some things that’re interesting to me and I’ll restate — copy&paste — what I’ve said before:

There is a visceral revulsion for the word ‘Game’ applied to the field of romance. It is clinical, superficial, violating the sanctity of love and, more importantly, essentially implying being manipulative and dishonest: playing with people’s feelings. That is the association people have with the word ‘Game’.

This association is also a ridiculous emotional reaction based on little digestion of the actual content of Game and how it is applied. Ladies and gentlemen, love is a Game I take with deadly seriousness. Talking about the Game of Love is akin to talking about the Game of War: we study the rules, the words, the actions. We try to understand how to best express and apply our intents from those that have come and erred before us. We attempt to steer clear of the mistakes others have made, emulate the successes others have had. We try to understand how to be the best lovers, the best warriors. How to recognise then ameliorate our weaknesses and develop our strengths. That you love someone and that your intention is to love them does not necessarily mean you know how to be loveable or, more importantly yet, best demonstrate your love itself; Game encapsulates the study of this.

It is learning the Art of Loving as well as the Art of War. Game on its own is a tool of self-development that essentially tells you this: it is okay to consciously act in order to enhance your sexual attractiveness. It does not do much for you in a vacuum where you do not constantly develop yourself overall: from your intellect to your spirituality to your contentment with and interest in a healthy, interesting, fulfilling and moral life. Critics often address it as such, disregarding the complexity of the human being applying it. Game is one of the tools that allows you to turn the uncut marble into a masterpiece; it does not work well without a solid, inner foundation.

Expanded on manipulativeness/honesty further here if you want to have more context:
http://girlgame.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/just-be-yourself/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti November 14, 2009 at 19:30

jon:
You’ve touched on some things that’re interesting to me and I’ll restate — copy&paste — what I’ve said before:

There is a visceral revulsion for the word ‘Game’ applied to the field of romance. It is clinical, superficial, violating the sanctity of love and, more importantly, essentially implying being manipulative and dishonest: playing with people’s feelings. That is the association people have with the word ‘Game’.

This association is also a ridiculous emotional reaction based on little digestion of the actual content of Game and how it is applied. Ladies and gentlemen, love is a Game I take with deadly seriousness. Talking about the Game of Love is akin to talking about the Game of War: we study the rules, the words, the actions. We try to understand how to best express and apply our intents from those that have come and erred before us. We attempt to steer clear of the mistakes others have made, emulate the successes others have had. We try to understand how to be the best lovers, the best warriors. How to recognise then ameliorate our weaknesses and develop our strengths. That you love someone and that your intention is to love them does not necessarily mean you know how to be loveable or, more importantly yet, best demonstrate your love itself; Game encapsulates the study of this.

It is learning the Art of Loving as well as the Art of War. Game on its own is a tool of self-development that essentially tells you this: it is okay to consciously act in order to enhance your sexual attractiveness. It does not do much for you in a vacuum where you do not constantly develop yourself overall: from your intellect to your spirituality to your contentment with and interest in a healthy, interesting, fulfilling and moral life. Critics often address it as such, disregarding the complexity of the human being applying it. Game is one of the tools that allows you to turn the uncut marble into a masterpiece; it does not work well without a solid, inner foundation.

Expanded on manipulativeness/honesty further here if you want to have more context:
http://girlgame.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/just-be-yourself/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Cleararc November 14, 2009 at 19:32

Men are competitive, yes, but that doesn’t mean that we have any sort of complete disregard of cooperation.

And when did I express anger or hatred? That’s an unusual assumption.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 14, 2009 at 19:46

Novaseeker November 14, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Julie says” Conclusion: Alpha males are not the better male (bet-ta) and encouraging the ‘alpha’ in society is like taking a huge step backwards.”

Nova says, *** The issue, though, is that women reward these alphas with sexual access — consistently enough so as to form a predictable pattern. This is why “Game” works — if women were not selecting men on that basis, it would not work.***

Sure, I can beleive you that the issues is Alphas get sex more than Betas. However, ..

What you are doing here IMO is dumping things that are positive traits in men into a basket that has negative traits and then say, “Women react well to this”. Of course women react to the positive.

But then you (collectively) say, “Women and men are hating us wanting to turn Betas into Alphas because it works”. That is not true IMO and every person who has made a negative comment on this article (including me) is telling you this but you have your ears shut and continue to say, “They are just mad cause it works”.

All I am saying is that the reason why you have haters of these articles that are encouraging Betas to be Alphas is because, .. “society has already formed an opinion on Alphas”.

………

Personally, I like the way Globalman does life. I do that too. If I feel like a good time with men making a fuss over me I walk into a bar, walk up to a table of men and shout them drinks for the night.

It is not me being an Alpha. It is just me connecting with others who are willing to give me something for me giving them something.

**** My theory: women prefer strong, confident, assertive men. ***

Awesome theory. I agree 110%.

***The current culture, with its denigration of the masculine, its plague of fatherlessness and its general lack of male role models has led to such strong/confident/assertive men being in short supply. That raises the demand for them even more — because most men living in the current culture are not attractive to most women, plain and simple. Game is a way for men to get out of that rut, out of the culture that has helped form a generation or more of wimpy, unmasculine men — men whom feminists who work in DV adore, ****

I am sure you have good reason for your comment. I don’t get it though. And I could only wish feminists in the DV industry adored the men who they put in prison. Half the fight would be won instantly if this was the case.

****The classic “beta” male is not attractive to women — regardless of what women say, this is consistently enough observed to hold true as a pattern. Game helps guys get out of the beta rut and become someone.****

I am sure game helps men a lot. I would have no problem to encourage my sons to learn game. Oh, what am I saying, I am all for the men in our lives to pass down knowledge.

I think my brother-in-law is the funniest. He tells the young men to walk up to 10 women in a bar and ask them for sex. He says at least one will say yes and you might get a few slaps but you get laid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
jon November 14, 2009 at 19:51

This is quite a page of comments. It has a very different character than most I’ve seen on sites like this.

Obsidian:
thanks for repeating that you don’t hate women. I’ll repeat that I don’t care.

Gosh, guys can’t cooperate? What about almost every country, constitution, corporation, and religion on the planet. What about virtually all of human history up until the last 100 years? Men have historically been able to get together and do all sorts of things, including fight for their rights.

Bhetti:
that was some seriously inane used car salesman sounding twaddle. Could you rewrite it without the fluff. It’ll be at least 80% shorter. I just don’t have the patience to try to pick the substance out of that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 14, 2009 at 19:56

Y’know. I don’t know why I care about this, really. NZ has a reputation of men getting laid easily. So much so young men say it on the radio station when they phone in.

There is no need to play any games when sex is available. IMO

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 14, 2009 at 19:58

Cleararc,
My bad, my parting shot was meant for Jon, not you. Again, apologies.

The Obsidian

Novaseeker November 14, 2009 at 20:16

Gosh, guys can’t cooperate? What about almost every country, constitution, corporation, and religion on the planet. What about virtually all of human history up until the last 100 years? Men have historically been able to get together and do all sorts of things, including fight for their rights.

Not as a group when it comes to women — not at all. Men are great at forming coalitions to compete with other men. Introduce women into the equation and men will … fight with each other over the women. This is basic human nature.

What you are doing here IMO is dumping things that are positive traits in men into a basket that has negative traits and then say, “Women react well to this”. Of course women react to the positive.

But then you (collectively) say, “Women and men are hating us wanting to turn Betas into Alphas because it works”. That is not true IMO and every person who has made a negative comment on this article (including me) is telling you this but you have your ears shut and continue to say, “They are just mad cause it works”.

All I am saying is that the reason why you have haters of these articles that are encouraging Betas to be Alphas is because, .. “society has already formed an opinion on Alphas”.

Society may have done, but women apparently have not. If women were to stop rewarding alphas with sex, there would be no Game.

NZ has a reputation of men getting laid easily. So much so young men say it on the radio station when they phone in.

There is no need to play any games when sex is available. IMO

Not quite. In a society which has high rates of promiscuity, you will also tend to have low rates of male parental investment — because there is less incentive to do so. When you have low male parental investment, you have many more males growing up without effective role models, which leads to the feminization/betatization of males. That leads to an even greater premium being placed on the guys who are (1) natural alphas or (2) skilled when it comes to Game — at least in the promiscuous sex market. Even in a market where promiscuity is commonplace, women are still relatively discerning about whom they sleep with — and in the context where a substantial number of men are less masculine due to lower rates of male parental investment (which tends to happen in promiscuous settings), this means that the guys who are alphas or who have Game will be the ones who are disproportionately granted sexual access — again, even in a promiscuous setting.

There are, of course, many factors involved. Sex ratios, relative earning capacities, socio-economic factors and so on — all of these impact these behaviors greatly. But generally speaking the demographics that are characterized by more “free sex” tend to have lower rates of family formation, less male parental investment and more troubled male offspring as a result. All the more opportunity for guys in these demographics who have Game to clean up among the rest of the dysfunctional males in their cohort.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 14, 2009 at 20:24

Not as a group when it comes to women — not at all. Men are great at forming coalitions to compete with other men. Introduce women into the equation and men will … fight with each other over the women. This is basic human nature.

-Nova

Hence the wisdom of sex segregation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jon November 14, 2009 at 20:36

“Not as a group when it comes to women — not at all. Men are great at forming coalitions to compete with other men. Introduce women into the equation and men will … fight with each other over the women. This is basic human nature. ”

evidence? I think we’re in uncharted territory to some extent. I think your assertion is almost certainly wrong. Men have stood up to a lot scarier things than vicious, noisy women in the past. Guys who go to war are worried about a lot worse things than chicks not liking them. Besides, if women can go against nature and do everything in their power to tear down the males in their own tribe why can’t we band together and put them in their place?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 14, 2009 at 20:47

evidence? I think we’re in uncharted territory to some extent. I think your assertion is almost certainly wrong. Men have stood up to a lot scarier things than vicious, noisy women in the past. Guys who go to war are worried about a lot worse things than chicks not liking them. Besides, if women can go against nature and do everything in their power to tear down the males in their own tribe why can’t we band together and put them in their place?

Talk to zed or any of the other long time MRAs. They’ll provide evidence aplenty. In this *specific* context (male-female rights etc.), men split and tear each other to shreds rather than collaborating. You’re acting as if men haven’t been trying to get some collaboration going at all. Many have. And they have learned lessons in doing so. Women band together in the face of male threats — this is a common behavior among female primates. Men have no equivalent when it comes to women — men band together to defend themselves (and their women and children) from threats raised by other groups of banded-together men. We’re a long way from the jungle, but the principle is the same despite the difference in context.

Trying to get men to band together around “men’s rights” is an exercise akin to waiting for Godot. It’s not going to happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti November 14, 2009 at 20:58

jon:

I just don’t have the reading comprehension or knowledge of Game to try to pick the substance out of that.

Fixed that for you.

The Fifth Horseman:

Translation : Jon is intellectually lazy, and admits that he wants to condemn something, without bothering to learn what it is.

Plus, you don’t present any alternative to Game

Agreed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jon November 14, 2009 at 20:59

I suspect that you’re right that men will never exactly band together over men’s rights. I wouldn’t work the men’s rights angle too hard myself. I think men will, however, probably end up banding together over something a little more abstract that will end up having the same effect. Religion has a history of keeping women in a position where they can’t destroy civilization. It might not be religion this time. Maybe human rights in general. Maybe it will be men’s rights, I don’t know. The men in powerful positions are still mostly those who are too old to have experienced how bad it has gotten. When the unspeakable evil that is the baby boomers retires it will be easier to see what could realistically happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead November 14, 2009 at 21:12

Men are great at forming coalitions to compete with other men. Introduce women into the equation and men will … fight with each other over the women. This is basic human nature.

I think this may be more a feature of American culture than basic human nature. I may be reading too much into it, but I’ve seen footage of Pakistani police dealing to mobs in riot and laying into women with whips and billy-sticks, and no men are trying to argue with them or throw themselves between the cop and the girl. More recently we’ve seen the same in Turkey and Iran. Although the fate of a women wins the headlines in the West, I have no idea if it even makes the inside pages in a Muslim newspaper.

We in the West may be shocked and horrified at seeing a woman get a beating, but I wonder how viewers outside the US react when they see several American police laying into a prostrate man with kicks and night-sticks, while still more stand about with pistols trained on the same. It is a peculiarly American phenomenon, in that we see this spectacle over and over – only I have never seen a woman at the receiving end. To an outside observer, US authorities are uniquely vicious towards men, and equally extreme in their soft handling of women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 14, 2009 at 21:14

kis wrote :

Game is no more manipulative than assertiveness training or taking a class on how to do well in a job inteview.

kis, consider this to be an “I’m proud of you” moment, bestowed on that rare woman who actually grasps what Game is, and the challenges a man faces that makes Game necessary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
julie November 14, 2009 at 21:50

This might be of interest to some.

http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/popsyn/PopulationSynthesis2.pdf

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry November 15, 2009 at 02:23

@PiercedHead

“I may be reading too much into it, but I’ve seen footage of Pakistani police dealing to mobs in riot and laying into women with whips and billy-sticks, and no men are trying to argue with them or throw themselves between the cop and the girl. More recently we’ve seen the same in Turkey and Iran.”

That’s surely because the men fear that they might be beaten to death or imprisoned for years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
m.a. November 15, 2009 at 02:24

Men are great at forming coalitions to compete with other men. Introduce women into the equation and men will … fight with each other over the women. This is basic human nature.
piercedhead:

I think this may be more a feature of American culture than basic human nature.

This is actually a rather good point to make. American culture is probably one of the most individualistic on earth, also in comparison to Europe with its more socialistic tendencies. Labor unions are one example of this.

The basic dynamic and difference between men and women may be true, but I don’t think it’s absolutely impossible to see men form a rough consensus to fight for more rights against feminism in the name of equality. Perhaps things just haven’t gone far enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 15, 2009 at 04:23

But that does nothing to explain the differences between American men and American women in this — for all of American “individualism”, women banded together quite well in the feminist movement. Men have not done anything akin to that at all in response. I’m skeptical that the reason for this is that “things have not gone far enough”. The reason is far more likely that men simply and quite naturally divide against each other when women are present. Again, ask the older MRAs — they will explain far better than I can what the precise dynamic looks like, and how is comes up again and again and again in various contexts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker November 15, 2009 at 04:30

To an outside observer, US authorities are uniquely vicious towards men, and equally extreme in their soft handling of women.

This is because the Anglo countries have the largest overhang of chivalry — much more so than even non-Anglo western countries. Remember the Victorian Anglos described their approach to sex relations as “woman worship”. This was the era that preceded first wave feminism, and the advantages that it held for women have never been dropped by Anglosphere feminists. It’s different enough in continental European countries — never mind the Islamic world.

Having said that, I don’t see that as being particularly relevant to what I wrote. Islamic countries have still fought with each other — largely groups of men fighting with each other over resources, of which women are one. It’s true that the Islamic world is not “chivalrous” in the way that the Anglosphere is, but the basic dynamic of men forming groups to fight over resources, including the resource of women/womb space, has been a part of the history of the Islamic world as much as it has been of any where else. In the Anglosphere it’s worse because on top of the underlying dynamic of male competition for womb space, you have the overhang of Victorian chivalry — which is like pouring gasoline onto an open flame, in this context.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Harry November 15, 2009 at 06:11

@Novaseeker

” The reason is far more likely that men simply and quite naturally divide against each other when women are present. Again, ask the older MRAs — they will explain far better than I can what the precise dynamic looks like,”

I outlined my own views about this question in, ….

http://www.angryharry.com/esNoMensGroups.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 15, 2009 at 07:03

Notice how, after a dozen so more posts after I initially raised the point, how no one STILL has focused on the fact that Women have and continue to, play lots of “games” themselves in the sexual marketplace. Julie, for example, has said nothing on that score; and even Bhetti, very perceptive she is, hasn’t either. The point is, that Women have ALWAYS had an upperhand in this area, for centuries. In our time, perhaps for the first time, Game levels the playing field – and as my article speaks to above, that brings out the Id Monster on both sides, Female and Male alike.

Many people like to putdown Game, by saying that all the guys wanna do is get laid – well – yea – but what about the fact that lots of Women just wanna get laid, too? The point being, that a Woman’s right to do with her body is sacrosanct, but we can shame a Men for wanting to bust a nut.

Then, there’s the paying for dates issue, even at a time when Women are higher educated and more gainfully employed than are Men. This is documented and easily accessible info for anyone who wants to get it, yet Women still run silly Jedi Mindtrick “games” like “whoever asks the other out should pay”, because we all know that 99 times out of 100 the Man always asks first. Women know the deal. Heads I win, tails you loose. Game allows a Man to get around this “shit test” and many, many others, for their own of if he chooses, mutual benefit insofar as the Woman is concerned. I choose the latter tack, but what’s important to keep in mind, is that Game gives a Man OPTIONS – and remember, as I said above in my piece, first, all Men aren’t supposed to reproduce, and second, sex is supposed to be a limited resource – this is how Women are wired. It’s not a value judgment or a putdown, it is just the simple truth of our evolutionary past. It is widely known that about twice as many Women who have ever lived has gone on to have genetic heirs; only half as many have been Men. Sure, wars and the like have explained part of the reason why that is; but come on, use your head. For every spinster you see or hear about, you can best believe there are at least two old saps who can count on one hand the number of times they’ve had sex, let alone number of Women they’ve had sex with over the course of their lives – hence the old phrase “Dirty Old Men”.

I tell you, Women like Julie and even Bhetti know Women do all kinds of stuff to make giving sex to Men as hard as possible and go to all kinds of lengths to do so, but they simply will not talk about this. The reasons why, once one understands how human beings, Male and Female, are wired, the answer is as plain on your face. Again: Game levels the playing field, and the very fact we are discussing all these extraneous points instead of focusing on the real nuts and bolts of the matter, says that it does indeed WORK.

I await that great discussion on the many, many games Women have do and will continue to play, and why we don’t hear from Women the demand that, since they now are a clear majority of those in shcool and at work, they should only do what is right and pay for dates.

Pardon me while I grab up my iron lung…

Holla back

The Obsidian

Bhetti November 15, 2009 at 09:23

I’m part of a blog called Girl Game which I linked to above, Obsidian, and is available through my name.

That I don’t talk about women “playing games” is absurd.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 15, 2009 at 09:29

Hi Bhetti,
Fair enough – do you address the issue of paying for dates, drinks at bars, etc? If so, could you please paste up the link? I’ll be most happy to read it. Thanks!

The Obsidian

Bhetti November 15, 2009 at 10:35

O: The problem is I personally don’t date so I personally cannot comment on these intricate rituals. Not dating is my strategy in terms of being unavailable unless for marriage.

The point you’re trying to make with off-handedly citing me as a not very good example is that ‘Most women don’t acknowledge they play games.’ Women who criticise Game do so on the ‘playing games’ basis do so while adopting strategies to maximise their attractiveness. We are in agreement. There’s nothing worthwhile to prove in mentioning people who don’t quite fit that template. Who are, yes, seemingly very much in the minority.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 15, 2009 at 11:08

Obsidian November 15, 2009 at 7:03 am

*** Notice how, after a dozen so more posts after I initially raised the point, how no one STILL has focused on the fact that Women have and continue to, play lots of “games” themselves in the sexual marketplace. Julie, for example, has said nothing on that score;***

I will sit this one out.

I got in trouble for manipulating sexually from the age of 15. 25 years ago men were against it and they had no problem pulling women up on it. Only 5 years ago I was asked to do a presentation on why manipulation is a bad thing.

……. Also,

We have 2 different types of females groups for young girls in my area. The mainstream women’s centre runs a group where young women basically talk about who laid who since they last caught up and then there is my group which is more about growing up as responsible mothers. Girls and women can choose what suits them best.

I am not pro women using their sexual power to manipulate men. And I am also not pro men paying for dates for women because I think there is an expectation on women and that is unhealthy.

I tell my sons to do things with women that they can both put their money together for or just do things that doesn’t cost money. But in saying that one of my sons came home last night angry because he had been hussled from a young woman to depart from his money.

I am a real bitch to young girls when they try their manipulation on me. If they want to use my phone I say, “Nope, don’t have one”. If they ask for a lift home because they are partying somewhere on the street I say, “Where are YOUR parents? If you got yourself here, you can get yourself home”.

Young women today have no boundaries and I being the good Samaritan I am, lol, am helping them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
julie November 15, 2009 at 11:12

Bhetti, You’re a gem. It is lovely to come across you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 15, 2009 at 11:31

O: The problem is I personally don’t date so I personally cannot comment on these intricate rituals.

-Bhetti

Now that you mention it, I don’t think I’ve “dated” in the conventional sense more than a few times in my life. Total waste of time if you ask me. Either a woman is interested, or she isn’t. A date isn’t going to change that.

Coffee’s good enough for me, and to be honest, I don’t run game (at least not intentionally — I do tease a bit and enjoy conversation, but that’s just me) and probably never will. The last thing I need is to be stuck with a woman who incessantly shit-tests me and requires constant maintenance game. In fact, given what I’ve been through, I’d cut her off at the first sign of anything like that:

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched

-Issa Ben Yussuf

;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti November 15, 2009 at 12:19

julie: Thank you and very out of nowhere.

Welmer: That you compare necessarily avoiding women to cutting off your own hand is so apt and tragic.

Yes. Some guys are ‘naturals’. First showing talking about your genes, now the teasing. You’re just showing off about what women are missing out on, aren’t you? Glad you reproduced before you cut the hand off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 15, 2009 at 12:22

To Bhetti

*** julie: Thank you and very out of nowhere.***

Not exactly out of nowhere. :D I read your site.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 15, 2009 at 12:43

Hello Ladies,
It’s good to know that we are basically in agreement on the fundamental points here. Good! So, there’s really no need for any Woman to beat a guy up for learning and then wielding Game, now is there? Levels the playing field. ;)

And, Bhetti – you don’t date? If I may ask, how do you propose to go about landing Mr. Right? Arranged Marriage? I’m jst very curious.

The Obsidian

kis November 15, 2009 at 14:03

Men have stood up to a lot scarier things than vicious, noisy women in the past. Guys who go to war are worried about a lot worse things than chicks not liking them.

Jon, this analogy falls apart as soon as you consider that in war, the soldiers aren’t worried about their chances of convincing the enemy soldiers to fuck them. In sex, men compete with each other for available females. That is totally going to hamper their ability to cooperate with each other against their common female “enemy”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jon November 15, 2009 at 14:39

kis, exactly. war is way worse than not getting sex. Guys will give up on sex far easier than they will go risk their lives fighting. Doing without sex, using prostitutes, and forcing women are all less frightening than war. If our culture returned so some sort of sane dating/courting method that was meant to end in marriage and children rather than being an end in itself it would mean that more guys would be getting regular sex without having to jump through all kinds of hoops. They could then focus their energy on worthwhile pursuits.

The current state of affairs where a high percentage of guys and gals devote a lot of time and energy to endless, pointless sex and all the silly games that go along with it is something that can only happen in a wealthy nation that is on it’s way to being poor. The current mating game is extremely self-indulgent and wasteful. I’m sure if a close look was taken at nations that maybe aren’t wealthy now but are in the process of becoming so, you’d find that this sort thing is frowned upon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 15, 2009 at 15:14

Hi Jon,
Since this is a topic of some concern for you, let me agree with you: there are cultures in the world today, where you can dispense with all the silly games and get the whole sex/marrige/relationship thing over with so more important things can be done. They’re just about all in the East, however.

In India, much of Africa and in Middle East and much of Asia, arranged marriages are very common, and I would suggest that route for any guy who thinks like yourself. There’s no point in arguing with guys like you because the simple fact is there are guys who either don’t have the skills or don’t have the desire to play the Game of Love. That’s perfectly OK-I for one, think there should be options for guys like you. That’s why I support both legalized prostitution and IMBRA, for Men who think as you do.

Having said all that though, I like living in a Free Democracy, where the Right to Freedom of Association reigns supreme. I like being able to win the Women of my desires, because she’s into me, for me. I like the chase, and the sweet smell-and feel, heh heh-of success. And in this kind of environment, not many Women will form a line wanting to sign on for arranged marriages.

So, there you go. Don’t know much else to tell ya, Jon. We’re not going back, neither Women, nor Men, like me, want that. We want to be free to deal with whom we want, and that means, like everything else in a Free Democracy, that one has to take personal responsibility for their own happiness or the lack thereof. But for Men like you, I suggest expatting outta here to the East my brother, to the East. And things will be so much simpler for you. Because though I support prostitution and mail order brides, the harsh truth is ain’t either gonna happen here anytime soon. So, again, I don’t know what else to tell ya.

What I will say is, since it’s clear that you don’t agree with what’s being said, how about this great idea-how about you take your precious time and spend it on more productive pursuits than basically arguing with folk whom you couldn’t be more diametrically opposed to? In a Free Democracy like the USA, the Game, is the Game. And it. Won’t. Stop.

I know you don’t wanna hear it, but what the heck:

Don’t hate the Playas; hate the Game… ;)

The Obsidian

Bhetti November 15, 2009 at 15:24

O: Basically any method of socialising that’s not dating. Work, friends, family connections, culture-specific events and something akin to arranged marriages. People vary by what they mean when they say ‘arranged marriages’ and may explain the model used on me some other time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Obsidian November 15, 2009 at 15:29

Hi Bhetti,
Hmm, that’s what I thought. Well, as it turns out, you and Jon aren’t that far apart on the issue, huh? That old saying about politics being strange bedfellows ain’t no joke…

Good night…& good luck.

The Obsidian

jon November 15, 2009 at 16:19

obsidian

on paragraphs 3 and 4:
The idea that you care about women being into it for you is a real contradiction since game is all about aping the behavior of guys who are just naturally good with women. Nobody is arguing against free democracy or free association. The USA had that long before game. I’m not saying game should be banned. I could already get a mail order bride or something very close to it. I see no reason why the laws against prostitution can’t be repealed. Prostitution is legal in some western countries and in parts of this one.

on 5:
Should I be arguing with people I agree with?

This is my first time having a go at this topic and I’ve had a pretty good time. I think I got a little look into the heads of a few members of the “game” community. There doesn’t seem to be much in them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie November 15, 2009 at 16:22

I am not exactly in agreement Obsidian. But it is nice to know what young men are up to.

I like the idea of young men having older men teaching them from experience about mixing with young females and vice versa. Especially since some of the young men and women we come across don’t have the healthy male and/or female role models.

Thank-you for sharing so well.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary November 15, 2009 at 17:24

ame is all about aping the behavior of guys who are just naturally good with women

No, game is about understanding how women think and how they emotionally react, so that you can interact with them better. Aping other successful behaviors is only a first (not especially good) step towards learning the psychology of game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman November 15, 2009 at 18:24

game is about understanding how women think and how they emotionally react, so that you can interact with them better.

That’s right.

Game is essential for ANY relationship with women, whether a monogamous marriage or a string of short-termers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ghostnation January 3, 2010 at 11:48

I am not really looking for a woman right now (or possibly ever) but still find Game useful. Basicaly- I find that you need to get a woman at least slightly interested in you in order to have her talk to you.

Conversation with women is very hard work if you are a niceguy- but they can be quite a lot of fun if they see you as a sexual being.

Game simply makes my encounters with women slightly more pleasant than they would otherwise be. I think it brightens their day a little too. Where is the harm?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: