In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Some Hyper-General Digressions | Main | New York City Movie Prices »

March 13, 2009

Derb, Steve, Game

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

John Derbyshire considers the Steve Sailer phenomenon. Steve Sailer asks a funny question about "Game." A great commentsthread ensues. As far as I'm concerned, Steve Sailer is one of the most interesting figures to emerge from the web era, and Game is one of the more fascinating sociological developments to come along in a while. Roissy's blog is where I usually go to learn more about Game.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at March 13, 2009




Comments

I asked Roissy on his blog long ago the very same question: Where in the hell are your accomplishments?

He didn't answer. So, I gather he doesn't have any.

I don't read or pay any attention to his juvenalia. He's a bore. His followers are completely full of shit. Accomplishments and their reward (money) are the mark of the alpha male. Men who accomplish things and make money get the beautiful, sexy women.

There is absolutely no glory in figuring out how to get laid in a bar. It's easy. Roissy is, in fact, kind of stupid. He's hasn't yet figured out that half of the people in this world have a pussy, that pussy is readily available and that he isn't a genius for figuring out how to get in some whore's pants. Michael, I can understand the interest in the phenomenon of Roissy and his followers, which is really a replay of Beavis and Butthead, but I can't understand why you take it seriously.

Sailer, I read daily. He's about the only voice of political sanity on the horizon.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 14, 2009 1:04 PM



Whatever your feelings on game, it's ridiculous to deny its importance as a social phenomenon. A replay of beavis and butthead? Far from it.

Getting laid in a bar is not easy. Surely less than 5%, and I would say even less than 1%, can do it with any regularity. I am naturally good with women, and have gotten even better over the past few years with game. It's still not easy. And I am better at it than 95% of the men in North America.

ST, you claim that money and accomplishments are the true hallmark of the successful man. "Alpha male" as you put it. That's what the young men of today have been told, but guess what? Money and career success helps with women, but it's not necessary. Those things are means, not ends. my end goal is to live an exciting and fulfilling life, with as much freedom to experience new things as possible.

Roissy, and the men like him, have opted out of the traditional status hierarchy and are pursuing their own goals outside of it. It's a shame that bright, motivated men are turning their energies towards game and hedonistic lifestyles - one more nail in the coffin of Western Civ as we know it - but it is the only rational response to the society we live in today.


Zdeno

Posted by: Zdeno on March 14, 2009 3:35 PM



Shouting Thomas -- bravo, my thoughts exactly. Love your characterization of the Roissy blog.

Of course, he'd probably brush us off as a couple of resentful betas.

Posted by: James on March 14, 2009 3:47 PM



ST -

The number of men and women may be equal, but the point that Roissy and his acolytes constantly raise is that a relatively small percentage of men (the Alphas, if you will) take two or more women per man and thus decrease the available pool of women for ordinary men. The classic case is the married executive who keeps a mistress on the side. This phenomenon is known as de facto or soft polygamy.

As to just how common this is, I really haven't a clue; about all I can say is that the phenomenon definitely exists, but probably isn't nearly as common as the Rossiy-ites claim.

Posted by: Peter on March 14, 2009 4:07 PM



Why oh why do I always hit "post" instead of "preview" when reviewing blog comments partway through? If Freud were still around he'd probably be able to explain, but he isn't, so I guess it'll forever remain a mystery.

In any event ...

Game reminds me of the no-longer-funny old joke of how banks are in the business of lending money to people who don't need loans. If a man's got the sort of witty and outgoing personality that's needed to pull off Game with any degree of success, he likely does well enough with women in the first place that he doesn't need Game. Or this might be better expressed in the opposite way. The sort of nerdy or introverted men who comprises a disproportion share of those who are flops with women are also the sort of men who'd never be able to apply Game, at least without having it blow up in their faces.

Game's shortcomings notwithstanding, Roissy does have some useful bits of advice. For one thing, he's often emphasized that a man should keep himself reasonably fit and trim if he wants to appeal to women. It's so easy to forget this seemingly obvious rule. TV commercials and sitcoms are full of chunky men with smoking hot women, but that's television, not reality. It's not uncommon in real life for men to pork up after they've gotten married, especially after age 35 or so, and in many instances their wives won't dump them, but that doesn't mean they would have been able to attract the women if they'd been beefy all along.

Another point that Roissy often raises, one I wish I'd known back in my (frequently unsuccessful) younger dating days, is that men shouldn't act too needy. Making it seem as if a woman is doing you a huge favor by granting you a few minutes of your time is not going to make her want to date you. Maintaining a degree of aloofness - which, I suppose, is a part of Game - can work in a man's favor. Nor does it help a man to get all puppy-love infatuated with any woman who'll give him the time of day. Whatever his faults may be, Roissy is pretty clear on these points.

Posted by: Peter on March 14, 2009 5:22 PM



There's something nihilist about Derbyshire. He applauds Sailer for fearlessly exposing the nightmare of diversity, but then says, with a hint of pleasure, that because "humanity cannot bear too much reality," meaning the news of just how catastrophic diversity is, that, well, we'll just have to live with, or rather drown in ever increasing diversity. That's bunk. Impossible to overturn the 1964 Immigration Act? Impossible to fence out the Mexican invasion? Impossible to deport huge numbers of illegals? No. A tremendous battle to get those things done but not impossible. And the notion that scores of millions of Americans aren't ready to passionately follow a political leader who will fight for those things is perverse. I don't know what pleasure Derbyshire takes in embracing defeat but he clearly does. And it's sick.

Posted by: ricpic on March 14, 2009 5:22 PM



Those things are means, not ends. my end goal is to live an exciting and fulfilling life, with as much freedom to experience new things as possible.

Pick up at bars is a new thing? When I was younger and living in San Francisco, I lived in bars. That was 30 years ago.

Women are at the bars for the same reason as men -- to get laid. It doesn't take game to succeed. All you've got to do is open your mouth and ask if they want to go fuck. And, when the women are drunk their standards of what they will fuck diminish considerably. Put some coke in them and they'll screw vegetables.

Jesus! Are young men really this stupid about women?

By all means, Zendo, get drunk and get screwed to your hearts content. After you have, you may look back and wonder why that pursuit is your idea of an "exciting and fulfilling life." I'm no one to talk. When I was 21 that was also my goal.

When I was 21, I also thought that the ultimate goal of freedom was to score a new piece every night. And, I was also deluded enough (or green enough) to think that that presented some degree of difficulty. You'll find out, Zendo, that there is no difficulty at all. The difficulty comes later, when you attempt to unravel the mess you've created by knocking off a new piece every night.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 14, 2009 6:00 PM



ST, I assume you don't regret your bar-hopping days? I know I certainly don't regret mine. In fact, I'm quite certain I would regret NOT having done that. We're both older now (I'm 40), and of course we both are way past that behavior. But for young people, that's their primary interest. I know it was mine in my early 20s. It was a hell of a lot of fun. Everyone should do it.

With that in mind, why would you criticize young people for doing just that? Of course it's ultimately empty, which is why most people grow out of it. But it's a rite of passage I think is important, especially for men. Better to screw around in your 20s before you get married and have kids and then go through some ridiculous mid-life crisis and mess up multiple lives.

Posted by: JV on March 14, 2009 7:00 PM



ST:

The meat market is nothing new. Not on the time scale we're talking about anyways - but I would guess it's at least slightly more prevalent today. I'm open to being wrong on this though.

As for it being easy for guys to get laid in bars, I can't put it any more gently than to say you're flat-out wrong. Maybe it was easy for YOU to get laid at bars. It's never been too difficult for me, either. Most guys can be fairly good looking with good grooming and a few months in the gym. After that, all you have to do is go talk to girls and not be a complete retard.

That sounds easy to you, but doing all that is apparently VERY difficult for a lot of men. If it's so easy, why do 20-30% (ballpark) get laid very rarely or never? And then there's the 60-70% who settle for below-average girls. getting laid with hot women consistently is something very few men can pull off. Basically my argument is, if getting laid is so easy, why are so many young men playing Warcraft in their basements rather than going out and fucking? Why didn't this (see link) kid just go get laid instead of shooting the women who laughed at him?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4097533,00.html

(btw rookie question: how do I make the link appear in the word?)

Another point: Being good with women is not something you either ARE or AREN'T. No matter how good you are, there is room for improvement. As I've said, I do quite well for myself. But if I get more fit, more money, better at game etc, than I can have more and hotter women who want to fuck me. I assume you're doing all right for yourself in this department. But unless you have Jessica Alba in your dayplanner for this week, you can do better.

So you can only dismiss game if you are 1) completely and fully satisfied with your relationships with women, or 2) You don't think it works.

I would say maybe 1000 guys out of 4 billion can truthfully, with no self-deception, claim 1). As for 2, you can take my word for it or not - but game fucking works. It works in bars on vapid whores, and it works in relationships with sweet, intelligent girls.

Maybe in 20 years or so I'll be looking to get married, although I feel a lot if going to happen in this world of ours in that time. But today, with marriage and divorce laws the way they are, and at least half of women my age perfectly fine with casual sex - it would be idiotic for a man like myself to submit to rat-race careerism and an emasculating marriage.

Appreciate the thoughtful reply.

Cheers,

Zdeno

Posted by: Zdeno on March 14, 2009 8:02 PM



No, JV, I don't regret my days of whoring. It's the only way to cure the disease. Sometimes it was a hell of a lot of fun. Sometimes it was a nightmare. If you're lucky, you live long enough to outgrow it.

I don't know that everybody should do it. Believe it or not, some people are not suffering from the emotional and affectionate deficits that make it that important to focus on getting laid. I wasn't one of them, so I needed to do it. I know people (in fact I'm related to some people) who have never in their lives needed to screw around because the psychological need was just not there. To boil it down to the basics, there really are people who receive just about everything they need in emotional and affectionate terms from their parents.

I don't know that I'm ridiculing the young men for bar hopping and pelt hunting. If that's what they want and need to do... go for it! I am ridiculing them for hatching a theory that explains the entire purpose of the universe as a way of justifying their whoring. It's kind of goofy to theorize so profoundly about whoring.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 14, 2009 8:14 PM



"I am ridiculing them for hatching a theory that explains the entire purpose of the universe as a way of justifying their whoring. It's kind of goofy to theorize so profoundly about whoring."

Gotta agree with you there.

Posted by: JV on March 14, 2009 8:26 PM



I don't know what pleasure Derbyshire takes in embracing defeat but he clearly does.

Ricpic: thanks for this insight. That's what has always bothered my about Derbyshire.

Roissy and Mencius, by the way, are very important phenomena in the culture war, and they are what's needed in this generation. Whether or not they see themselves as voices of a counterrevolutionaty anti-globalist, anti-PC, anti-leftist insurrection, Roissy makes the right wing look sexy and Mencius makes it look smart. And smart, sexy young people is where the power's at.

In the despair-soaked internet world of Amren and Vdare, these guys are making it look like we might win after all.

Posted by: PA on March 14, 2009 9:12 PM



I love the frenzy of self-justification into which the "Game" practitioners like zdeno fly whenever the importance of their pursuit is questioned --- "no, really, getting laid with women in bars really IS important, far more important than tangible career success which really doesn't get people anywhere with the chicks, anyway" --- it's kind of pathetic the way they have to defend their obsession. It's not very alpha to be so quick to justify yourself.

Posted by: James on March 14, 2009 9:26 PM



pelt hunting

A tragically obsolete expression :((((

Posted by: Peter on March 14, 2009 10:05 PM



As far as I'm concerned PA has put it really well. The Game thing seems to be about young guys kicking free of PC and multiculturalist brainwashings and upbringings, and connecting (or connecting for the first time) with their pride and their balls. Funny that it's finding expression in the way that it is, but such seems to be the case. It's quite a spectacle, IMHO.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 14, 2009 11:46 PM



Roissy=Game+Hedonism not Game=Hedonism

I think people mistake Roissy's personal philosophy with Game. Game is not hedonism. Game is the "science of attraction" from a a male point of view. It's all about understanding women, what they respond to, what they like and how to attract them. Knowing how to pick up women does not mean having to sleep with hundreds of them. The choice of what a man does with a woman is up to him. Game gives a man choice where he did not have any before. In the words of the PC crowd, Game empowers men. One could almost think of it as the natural response to Feminism, the natural order reasserting itself. No wonder the hairy armpit brigade hate it.

Games strength lays not in what it asserts but in its correspondence with reality. No matter how unpleasant this fact is to women, game actually works. If it were bullshit, its practitioners would be going home with Ms Hand. Shouting Thomas from what I've seen of you on the internet, it would appear that you're a "natural" and therefore an exception. Getting a babe's interest especially if you're a bit Aspergy or shy is damn hard work, failure is the rule, crushing loss of self-confidence the result. Furthermore if you attempt to remedy the situation, the PC advice given by our culture seems diabolically designed to thwart you in your endeavours.

Roissy is an intelligent,gifted writer and preacher for game par-excellence, however I agree with Shouting Thomas that his life philosophy is shit. But it's not the Game that's poisonous, it's the Hedonism. Maybe it's me, but I've noticed over the years that I've followed the blog that there seems to have been a subtle shift from insight towards outright misogyny. Instead of "fella's this is how women work" its become "women are bitches, whores and manipulative". In some instances he is justified by his assertions but general tone just seems a bit more nasty,grubby, opportunistic and mean. But that perhaps stems from spending too much time in the moral gutter of Hedonism. I too am drawn to the allure of that gutter, but avoid it, knowing that if I spend too much time there I will really begin to stink.

He may be able to attract women but he's turned into a prick. An alpha prick.

Posted by: Slumlord on March 15, 2009 1:20 AM



The answer to PC, Michael, is not Beavis and Butthead.

It's Hank Hill.

Returning to respect for the fathers is the answer.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 15, 2009 8:57 AM



PA:
Being the university system has made me suspicious of Mencius. He strikes me as one of those post-structualist soothsayers who when you actually dig down, is just all puff and no real substance. Razib has pretty much taken him down on that note for his essentially sophist rhetorical practices. Just because he's speaking for the team you like, doesn't mean anything much.

Posted by: Spike Gomes on March 15, 2009 9:25 AM



Slumlord - Nicely put.

ST -- Me, I'm not arguing "shoulds," though the "should" discussion is often a fun one too. I'm just taking note of an interesting phenomenon in my "registering something on my radar screen and assuming that it may signify something" way. "Hey, lookit this! Whaddya know?!" is about the entire content of my reactions to the Game thing. As for what really oughta be done, or what might really be a better response to PC castration ... Well, I think you're a lot more interesting on that than I am.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 15, 2009 10:26 AM



Game, or "whoring" at ST calls it, is appropriate, nay it's desirable, for a certain period of life. Like overindulging in drugs, booze and fast driving, whoring is something young men full of piss and vinegar, with raging T-levels, energy to burn, snakes and snails and puppy dog tails galore, would be fools to miss out on.

The traditional expression for this phase of a man's life is not Game, or whoring, but: sewing your wild oats.

I think it's possible to combine Zdeno and ST's points via JV: there comes a time when a man should put away the things of his youth and settle down to the hard work of being an adult man. Yes, sure, absolutely. There's nothing sadder than a clapped-out rake running his rheumy routines on women when he's much beyond his 30th birthday, IMO.

And yet...to never have experienced the joys of whoring? To never have sown one's wild oats? That's to miss out on a major developmental milestone, so to speak. A man who settles down wiithout ever having been bad, well, he's just the type to have some ridiculous mid-life crisis, buy a big red sports car, wear disco medallions on his grey-haired chest, roger the babysitter, get divorced ugly, and end up in a bachelor's apartment, back home from his job sweeping up at the local pizzeria, wondering where all the cool parties are.

Tripping out on five massive hits of black acid, getting so drunk on Thunderbolt that you vomit out an appendix, lighting your farts and burning down the family house, in short, doing your damnedest to become a candidate for this year's Darwin Award...and above all, whoring, whoring, whoring like there's no frickin' tomorrow...well, my friends, that has its time and place in the life of a man.

And so does being a grownup.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 15, 2009 10:58 AM



There's nothing sadder than a clapped-out rake running his rheumy routines on women when he's much past his 30th birthday

Which, indeed, brings up an important point concerning Roissy. He says little about his background, but enough has come out to give me the impression that he is over 30, perhaps several years over that mark. It may be high time for him to settle down. If he's able to, that is.

Posted by: Peter on March 15, 2009 11:15 AM



One aspect of "game" I find disturbing is the that the practitioners seem to pretty much despise women. Roissy's posts (the few I've read) seem to have an undercurrent of enjoyment at having successfully forced his victims instincts' to have betrayed them along with the consequent misery.

It's as attractive as Enron traders boasting about having fleeced Grandma.

Now Roissy is probably a bit of a sociopath, but I suspect that many of his followers are simply embittered, but not actually sociopathic. I suspect most of them are being led down a path that leads to some serious self-loathing later in life.

Of course, the entire idea of judging what women are like nowadays from the experience of women in bars seems slightly ludicrous. Talk about choosing a site that selects against woman worth a long-term relationship! (Not that bars are inherently awful, but anyone looking for a relationship in a bar is cruising for disappointment...)

And yes, I have to agree with ST, horrifying though it might be to both me and him :-). Alpha is not being able to convincingly pretend to be a protector. It is *being* a protector. Alpha does not equal successful predator.

Posted by: Tom West on March 15, 2009 4:40 PM



Zdeno It's a shame that bright, motivated men are turning their energies towards game and hedonistic lifestyles - one more nail in the coffin of Western Civ as we know it - but it is the only rational response to the society we live in today.
SMH
You can’t be serious. Don’t you have some hobbies? Why should lack of pSsy rule your life.

ST Women are at the bars for the same reason as men -- to get laidNot all of us ST, I go to the bar for a Knobb Creek and ginger ale.
ST All you've got to do is open your mouth and ask if they want to go fuck.
Are you nuts??? If you dare open your mouth and say this to a woman she should scream for the police or throw her drink on you in the least.
JV Everyone should do it.
NO thanks
JV Better to screw around in your 20s before you get married and have kids and then go through some ridiculous mid-life crisis and mess up multiple lives.
Very True but I prefer to keep my number small.

Posted by: chic noir on March 15, 2009 5:16 PM



slumlandlord but I've noticed over the years that I've followed the blog that there seems to have been a subtle shift from insight towards outright misogyny
My dear, I could not have said it better myself. In the last few months that place has stated to stink. The misogny towards women as well as his hatred of lesser men is pathetic.

patrick H And yet...to never have experienced the joys of whoring? To never have sown one's wild oats? That's to miss out on a major developmental milestone, so to speak

If you think whoring around is good for men, then I hope you have nothing against marrying one of your female equals. Remember those women you bang are the daughter of another man and those women need/want love, marriage and children too.

Posted by: chic noir on March 15, 2009 5:36 PM



Question for the lot of you. I'm 30 and never had the chance to sow my wild oats, wasting my 20s chasing a career that will probably provide a stable living but force me to live in the red states (and having lived in large cities all my life, this is likely to be pure misery). Should I attempt to pursue game in the short time I have left before residency ends and I must take a job in the suburbs, or...?

Posted by: anonMD on March 15, 2009 9:18 PM



"If you think whoring around is good for men, then I hope you have nothing against marrying one of your female equals."

That's a good point, and speaking for myself and a good percentage of my friends, a woman's past doesn't really matter, as long as it was all done on her terms. That's a big factor; as long as she doesn't regret her past. I know a few women who slept around a lot and it's all in the way they carry it. A few of them are damaged by it and had some issues that resulted in that kind of behavior in the first place. The others are bothered by it.

As for men, I don't know of a single guy who is negatively affected by a past that includes a good number of sex partners. I DO know a few guys who are seriously fucked up from NOT having slept around, and now are married and unhappy and 2 of them have cheated on their wives.

It's a double standard, for sure, but that's the way it goes.

Posted by: JV on March 15, 2009 9:59 PM



Oh, also, my statement that everyone should sow some wild oats was directed at men. Sorry, chic, should have been more clear.

Posted by: JV on March 15, 2009 10:04 PM




I am not real familiar with Roissy; I do have some questions. It seems the choice presented here is between getting laid at bars or playing video games at home with a limp joystick.

When I was young (in good shape and knowing the basics of decent dressing), bars were not a good place for me to get lucky. However, at a wedding, in the bread aisle of the supermarket, at a Karate dojo, walking down a beach boardwalk and an assortment of other places women would be looking for -- perhaps not always a hookup but -- a matchup. In other words, some of those times I had to go on a date or two to get laid. Seems like a modest investment, an investment that was sort of the building blocks for entering a serious relationship later. I don't think much game was involved. You had to be smart enough to know the girl is not spending five minutes debating bread choices -- she is waiting for you to say something. Can't the alpha-male wannabes score that way today? Have women changed? Or is the game trainees' goal to score every day and every way? I probably would have wished for that power back then, too. But, I would not have handled it well.

I recall my tennis pro friend having two girls fighting over him at his apartment. It seemed to me you need sort of a special or perhaps rude disposition to handle such situtations. It didnt affect him at all, seemed to amuse him. Perhaps, the girls had it coming? But, you certainly need to be able to overlook the feelings -- or if that is too wimpy -- the reality of a person to screw 'em over. He had no problem with it, but I find it hard to imagine you could have trained less rakish lads to laugh that off if someone is truly hurt. Of course, maybe their game never works well enough to have "two or more planes in their holding pattern" at one time?" Does Roissy's game deal with this?

Also I wondered about STD's. There is some readily available bar meat that is quite rancid out there and it often comes in pretty packaging. I wonder if betas - even trained in game -- have the radar to detect such dangerous situations? A beta with herpes would need Super game to continue scoring-- or would an STD be a career ending injury for a non-Alpha game player? Or perhaps STD's are just so '80s?
sN

Posted by: sN on March 15, 2009 10:36 PM



Here's something I haven't seen addressed about the effectiveness of "game."

Maybe the supposed effectiveness of "game" is based on mistaking correlation for causation?

I.e., perhaps practitioners of "game" are forcing themselves to go into bars and forcing themselves into encounters with single, available women, and thus their "success" rate (compared to guys who do not regularly go into bars) is enhanced simply by increasing their exposure and interaction with available women.

On my theory, their success is attributable to their increased interaction with single/available women, not to "game."

How can we know that "game" is responsible for their success, and not merely the fact that they are putting themselves into more situations where they interact with single, available women? Wouldn't it require a real study, with an actual control group, to show the effectiveness of "game," rather than the highly unreliable, anecdotal testimony of its practitioners?

Posted by: James on March 16, 2009 2:10 AM



chic,

Point taken. I think it's important that young men try to whore, not necessarily succeed. It's the willingness to try that counts. After all, despite ST's claims about how easy it can be to score when out "whoring", it isn't really. But never to have tried? That's to waste the youth of a man. All that testosterone's flooding his system for a reason. It would be tragic to waste the Hormonal Dutch Courage (aka goddamned foolishness) high levels of T give a body.

Still, trying to whore and succeeding are two different things. When all is said and done, more wild oats are sown than wild oats reaped.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 16, 2009 11:37 AM



perhaps practitioners of "game" are forcing themselves to go into bars and forcing themselves into encounters with single, available women, and thus their "success" rate (compared to guys who do not regularly go into bars) is enhanced simply by increasing their exposure and interaction with available women

It may work the opposite way too. A nerd who spends all his free time playing World of Warcraft is going to have a very low success rate not necessarily because he's a nerd (though that is a factor to be counted), but because he's simply not meeting any women.

Posted by: Peter on March 16, 2009 11:42 AM



I.e., perhaps practitioners of "game" are forcing themselves to go into bars and forcing themselves into encounters with single, available women, and thus their "success" rate (compared to guys who do not regularly go into bars) is enhanced simply by increasing their exposure and interaction with available women.

over the course of about 2 years, after i was introduced to game and beginning to hone it as a skill like any other, my number of approaches only exceeded my pre-game approach number during the first few months while i was mastering the art of the cold approach. once i had achieved respectable facility with game, my approach rate actually *went down* from its mean during my pre-game years.

the interesting thing about game is that it is often so effective that you can choose to hit on fewer women than you normally do and still see an increase in your notch count and your target quality.

On my theory, their success is attributable to their increased interaction with single/available women, not to "game."

as any aggressively fearless, desperate beta with a long string of luckless attempts will tell you, if you have no game or understanding of female psychology you can rack up huge numbers of interactions that lead absolutely nowhere.

Wouldn't it require a real study, with an actual control group, to show the effectiveness of "game," rather than the highly unreliable, anecdotal testimony of its practitioners?

yes.
unfortunately for the doubting thomases (hi ST!) the nature of women's sexual attraction and subconscious calculations of male mate value does not easily lend itself to these sorts of studies.
but it'd be fascinating if someone would devise such studies.
speaking of which, i'm looking for recommendations on mini voice recorders that i can safely tuck away in a jacket pocket that will pick up conversations in a noisy environment.

Posted by: roissy on March 16, 2009 11:50 AM



Game is naturally always a discussion of the male/female dynamic, but there is also a male/male dynamic at play too.

The movements of those seeking mates/relationships/casual sex along the alpha/beta hierarchy cause social static. If a tool is implemented (Game) in order to aid one certain group in upward mobility, those not employing that tool are likely to resent that fact.

Roissy's board, despite a lot of the BS on it, gives great insight into all aspects of Game. Not only do guys exchange tactics for Game, but we see the shortfalls of it, the improper implementation and it's drawbacks, anti-Game male's responses to Game, anti-Game female's reasponses to Game, as well as women who can attest to Game's ability to turn them on.

PA, and Michael Blowhard are very correct in identifying the importance of Roissy's voice in correcting this uber-feminized society. I'm a 20-something who has had to work hard at shirking the shackles of my liberal sensibilities when it comes to women.

I still hold open doors and offer them the first piece of bread at dinner, but no longer will I be the catering, docile, overbearing emotional tampon for the women in my life. Despite what I *thought* growing up in the dating world, that doesn't turn women on. It was only a matter of time before men realized and copied what other "alpha" males were doing.

Roissy only advocates what men like Shouting Thomas have apparently been doing for years. It's funny then that those who have been successful with women are bigger haters of Game than the women who are the actual objects of Game.

Posted by: Chuck on March 16, 2009 2:56 PM



As a former bartender and present-day drunk I have to say I would never pick up women in bars. How could any girl possibly compete with that glittering wall of booze? Let's keep some priorities, people.

Anyway, we can all agree that the best thing about this Game stuff is that it represents a useful corrective to all the crap advice given out by genderless New-Agers, cheezy romantic comedies, and sweater-clad marriage counselors bathed in Chautauquan mediocrity.

Imagine all the earnest young couples under their influence, trying vainly to save their marriages by saying rubbish like "Sometimes when you do X, it makes me feel like Y, and then I want to Z", after which they attempt to reconcile by scheduling a nice hygienic "lovemaking session". It's like flirting with James Mill! One of my college roommates had a girlfriend and seemed to spend ninety-five percent of his time apologizing to her, which was grotesque by any standard. He told me in private "It's because I love my girl", whereupon I promptly vomited on him. Such behavior can only lead to Francis Macomber country.

(Gosh; I'd forgotten just how perfect that story is. Paragraphs so perfect you want to clip them out and frame them; sentences so perfect you want to tattoo them on your children. Papa knew.)

But I think sN asks the real question, namely - if I may paraphrase - once you've got 'em, what the hell do you do with 'em? Women are rather persistent at trying to move into your brain, gobble up your evenings, and take over your life. (Bless them.) And they do love drama, don't they, with their gentlemen friends invariably roped into the starring roles. I wonder: can sex and freedom coexist?

Posted by: Brian on March 16, 2009 4:56 PM



God, where to begin to answer this foolishness.

I've always been successful with women because... for Christ's sake... I love 'em. I've always been fascinated by them, wanted to spend my time with them, wanted to travel and play with them, wanted to get my hands on them. Women sense this and respond in kind.

You guys are tying yourselves into knots trying to figure out the obvious. If you love women, and they sense that, you'll be successful. They want exactly the same things you want. They want love and a great sex life.

This is why I find Roissy obtuse. Roissy, are you really getting any at all? Your tortuous plotting and conniving to get laid leads me to believe you're an outright liar. It ain't that difficult son. Even for a one night stand, all you've got to do is love up the girl to the best of your ability for the time you've got. If you're sending out that vibe, the girls will respond.

Even if you are getting laid, Roissy, why do you want to turn it into a war? It ain't necessary. The whores want to laugh and have a good time, drink and drug and stick their feet up in the air.

The way you are going about it is dumb, Roissy. For some reason, son, you want to fight out an S&M game with the women. This is your psychological problem. You enjoy brutalization, and that draws women who enjoy brutalization to you. This is a really stupid "game."

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 16, 2009 4:58 PM



Sometimes I really don't have my thoughts entirely together when I click that POST button.

Roissy, you are a sexual sadist. Your sexuality is built around wallowing in hatred and vengeance.

What's really important to you isn't getting laid and having a whale of a good time. I have been getting laid by some of the most wonderful and beautiful women in the history of the world for the past 35 years. God bless 'em. They were great.

You would do well to spend some time in contemplation, and then to struggle to rebuild your sexuality in a way that is loving and fun and kind.

You may be getting fucked. But that isn't all there is to the game. This wallowing in hatred, sadism and vengeance that obsesses you... well, you get what you deserve out of that.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 16, 2009 5:09 PM



Ha, ST, for once I'm in full agreement with you, except for this statement:

"For some reason, son, you want to fight out an S&M game with the women."

Substitute "D&D" for "S&M," D&D meaning Dungeons & Dragons. That's what the whole Game thing brings to mind. It's geeks (and no disrespect to geeks, I'm one myself) attempting to systematize relations between the sexes, in order to understand and master a static set of rules with which they can game women, hence the name. Nothing geeks like more than a good system.

Posted by: JV on March 16, 2009 5:21 PM



Confirming Brian's thought about what a lot of trouble the ladies can be ... Here's an article by a woman wondering why women are always so whiney, unhappy, searching ...

LINK

Funny, oh so true, passage:

"I am prepared to admit that women themselves never seem to know what they want either. We are on an endless search to find fulfilment. I don't think men are programmed this way. If their needs are met and life doesn't get too complicated, they are happy.

In our household it is always me, and not my husband, who thinks we should move house/live abroad/ have another child. It is always me who sees problems in our relationship and then finds solutions.

Then I find more problems and solutions. Left to his own devices, my husband would probably feel content."

I think a lot of guys figure that once they've landed a long term babe, they'll have the companionship, breeding, and sex thing taken care of. Then, on with the usual pleasures.

Nope. Not how it works. In fact, it's just the beginning.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 16, 2009 9:46 PM



What a great link Michael!

Most people are better off being given rules on how to live their lives. Left to their own devices, they'll quite easily stuff their own lives up. Our societies believe in liberty so as to allow individuals to pursue their version of the good life. The problem is though, people are more likely to make a mess rather than a success of the endeavour. Most people need guidance in order to find happiness. Given a multitude of options without any wisdom people are likely to pick the wrong ones. I see it at work everyday. I see lots and lots of people suffering from depression, nearly all of them as a consequence of the dumb choices that they have made.

It also goes to show that living a life of trying to please women is going to make a man's life misery. Trying to keep feminists happy is a forlorn effort as there will always be "problems" and "issues". Ignore the toads. Within limits, women are far better being other focused than self focused, they tend to be happier.

If their needs are met and life doesn't get too complicated, they are happy.

The secret to a happy life is optimisation, not perfection. The sisters think that you can have a perfect life, in career, children and marriage. You can't.

AnonMD: It's for this reason that some doors should remain shut in your life. The idiot mindset that thinks happiness is behind every unopened door has ruined many a life. Yeah some people have been enriched by the experience, others ruined. My philosophy: If you're on a good thing, stick to it.

Posted by: slumlord on March 16, 2009 10:55 PM



People who think that the most important thing in life is to find out what they "really want" are so hopelessly selfish, self-centred, narcissistic, empty, materialistic, shallow and dull that they will never ever ever find the happiness they think they deserve.

And that's all right with me. What a useless bunch of polished, toned, groomed, yogified yuppie carcasses these pathetic contemptible excuses for "women" are! What a snivelling, mean-spirited, nano-souled, heartless, spiritually void group of nothings!

Just read the article, if you can bear it. Read of the self-pitying selfish self-seeking self-absorbed women, who despite their endless prattle of memememememe seem to lack the very thing about which they most obsess, to wit, a self, as in a personality, an inner life, a soul, a spirit, a sense of actual interest in anything, anyone, outside of the tiny wee micro-universe they live in, which is to say, their no-selves, the nothingness, the prison, the empty set, the depthless nullity of their mere little "me".

They're suffering, though. I grant them that. They're suffering the loneliness, exhaustion and sense of meaninglessness that the utterly selfish, the spiritually vacant, always suffer. They're in pain, the poor empty swipple yuppie dears. They want want want to know what they want want want. And they'll never never never find it.

Serves them right.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 16, 2009 10:57 PM



"I've always been successful with women because... for Christ's sake... I love 'em. I've always been fascinated by them, wanted to spend my time with them, wanted to travel and play with them, wanted to get my hands on them. Women sense this and respond in kind."

There's a fine line separating what women deem charming and creepy. You may love women, Thomas, and they may love you, but for many men that love is unrequited. Many men are made to feel unworthy of certain women's attention or love, yet they see women fawning over a certain type of guy.

For you to act like the solution for a man's lonely existence is to just "love 'em" is stupid. There's no other word for it. Some men, in their attempts to follow your same desires of touching, following, traveling with, and playing with them would have them deemed creepy at best and arrested at worst.

Game attempts to deal with this fact: women want the most alpha male they can get given the woman's "goods". That fact, and that fact alone leaves a huge number of men by themselves. As alphas and some betas sweep up all of the spoils, a large number of men are left to their D&D, their gangs, their porn, or their anti-social selves.

Posted by: Chuck on March 17, 2009 1:18 AM



Gosh, Chuck, you might get rejected by a girl! The injustice! Of course, the only response to this is to retreat to playing video games in your mommy's basement.

Getting your girl should be easy. No effort. No problems. No hurt feelings.

I get it. This is another manifestation of a complete spoiled brat society.

Didn't you have a dad who taught you that you keep struggling and trying despite the fact that the world is a hostile place? Were you really taught that everything you want should magically appear in your lap just because you want it?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on March 17, 2009 7:09 AM



For crying out loud Chuck, the instant you talk about "women want this" or "women do this", you've already lost.

There are over 3 billion women on this globe, and by some miracle, they're all individuals.

Sure there are insecure women out there who are easy victims of 'game', but even if you are successful, you'll get sex, not companionship. (Yes, insert Woody Allen quote here...)

A relationship that's going to last more than a month or two has to be based on common interests, common goals, and mutual respect. Without those, you'll be just as lonely in a relationship as out of one.

'Game' seems antithetical to any of that. The whole point is to go for someone based on looks rather than on anything they are, and it certainly indicates a lack of respect for the victim, and most importantly of all, it's as clear a marker as anything that the practicer is unworthy of respect.

And yes, I'll acknowledge the bitter truth. If you have no common interests with any women, and are unwilling to develop any; if you have no goal except to live exactly as you are now, but with sex; and you have no respect for women because they're all the same, then, yes, you are doomed to a lonely existence. Relationships are about two people, and while you are searching for a partner worthy of you, you have to ask, how am I worthy of my partner?

Posted by: Tom West on March 17, 2009 7:28 AM



Peter: Or this might be better expressed in the opposite way. The sort of nerdy or introverted men who comprises a disproportion share of those who are flops with women are also the sort of men who'd never be able to apply Game, at least without having it blow up in their faces.

This is likely correct. To the extent it changes things, and in contradiction to its promises as Beta Savior, Game will exacerbate the problems of the socially maladroit male. I don't think we're looking at a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats phenomenon, but rather the Matthew Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect

We might still be in a transitional stage where some early adopters have a foot up, but we're no doubt on our way to the saturation point.

Consider that men who don't actively compete for women in this manner.. and this will continue to be the same kinds of men who were never up to competing at this.. are even more disadvantaged now, as the general bar for success with women has now been raised.

PUAs recommend a massive amount of approaches to learn Game.. something like 20 per week, per man.. and this will have two effects:: It means more otherwise unmated women will be absorbed.. leaving less available women for the lucky opportunities which non-competing males depend on.. and it means women will endure more unwelcome approaches and further harden their defenses against approaches from unskilled men, raising the bar for his entry into the field. If it was hard for a below average guy just going by his natural instincts in opportunistic situations before, it will become even harder for him now.

As for men who do compete, it's worse for them too. It's an arms race, and if everybody gets better, than no one has more success. In fact every one is worse off, because they now have to work harder and train more to master a skill to get the same exact returns they would have gotten 10 years ago without the extra time, energy, resources spent on Game.

Posted by: Rain And on March 17, 2009 8:20 AM



No one wants to take up the line of thinking/observing that sN and I propose? Namely, avoiding the quarrel over the content of Game (which mainly strikes me as a hiphop version of traditional "be a man" courtship rules), and speculating instead about what it represents in a more general cultural sense? Anyone? Why should such a thing, in this kind of form, come about? What does it signify that it has? FWIW, quarreling with the content of it, while fun, strikes me as something akin to being around in 1965 and quarreling with the content of the hippie vision. A lot of their arguments and points were pretty silly, after all. But the main thing at the time was that there were suddenly a lot of hippies around, no? And trying to figure out what that's all about.

As for beating up on the youngdudez ... Always tempting, of course. They probably even need it. But at the same time ... It ain't their fault that they were born when they were. Hyper-feminized upbringings ... Hyperbossy and aggressive girls ... Plentiful electronic temptations ...

Waking up out of this, getting a bit of a bead on it, and discovering that it's OK to be a guy seems to be part of what Game represents. That may be funny to us oldguyz -- but we grew up pre-'70s feminism, and especially pre-'90s establishment PC. If today's youngdudez need to act out, break a few windows, and write some manifestos, it strikes me as fine, understandable, and even a heartening spectacle. They're learning for the very first time what it is to really be a guy. Beats never connecting with what it is to be a guy, no?

I mean, what if what Game represents is the beginnings of a major revolt against PC? If so, then that's really something major, given what PC is and how long it's been around. It's a little like the birth of Solidarity over in Poland. Funny that it's taking the form of an underground school of How to Pick Up Girls, but life *can* be funny. And why should it surprise us that the main thing that's on the minds of youngdudez is sex? Visit the commentsthreads at Roissy's and watch how quickly a lot of the conversations turn into much really wideranging things -- race, politics, the future, life generally ... Pickup isn't just about pickup, apparently.

Incidentally, one thing that's fairly amazing about the Game phenom is how it can and has become an entire worldview. F. Roger Devlin is clearly an inspiration to some Gamesters (and seems knowledgeable about Game himself), and a guy who uses the handle Whiskey over at Roissy's has elaborated a way of interpreting virtually everything in the cosmos via the lens of Game. I don't buy this story entirely, but I'm certainly impressed by it. It's a genuine alternative to the PC brainwashings that society has subjected the youngdudez to. Is it entirely satisfying in terms of its content? I don't think so. But even so, as an account it's a lot more in-the-ballpark than what they've been told up till now.

Yes? No?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 17, 2009 9:21 AM



Game's significance as a social phenomenon is inextricably bound up with the question of its effects if it's put into play in a big broad way, if it busts out of its subculture and goes mainstream.

Over at Roissy's, a very clever commenter who goes by the nick Johnny5 pointed out that most people are incompetent at most things. Should most young men take up Game, they will be incompetent at it. J5 was making his point in response to Roissy's posts about the erotic possibilities in hitting women, and said that compared to the horrific damage that would be done by widespread (and therefore) incompetent hitting, incompetent Game was harmless.

But...Rain And above made an excellent point. Imagine a future in which women, already bombarded with approaches, are positively flooded by them. And of course, given J5's accurate observation about the ubiquity of incompetence, imagine women flooded by bumbling fumbling useless alienating off-putting loser Game.

If Game goes wide, that's the future we face. Any and all approaches rendered instantly ubiquitous, instantly useless, and instantly out of date as soon as they tried. Except of course, by those who really know what they're doing.

Just as making education more broadly available INCREASES the effect that IQ has on differential educational outcomes (the smarter make better use of that widely available education), so widespread Game will actually help the real masters, by allowing them to make proper use of its techniques...and to separate themselves out from the bumbling hordes of also-rans.

Ubiquitous Game will not level the playing field, it will tilt it almost vertical. And 90 percent of guys will end up where they always have: clumped at the bottom looking up at the soles of the shoes of their ten percent masters.

These things go way back.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 17, 2009 10:54 AM



"Gosh, Chuck, you might get rejected by a girl! The injustice! Of course, the only response to this is to retreat to playing video games in your mommy's basement."

Thomas, in your desire to bloviate, you totally miss my point.

You always seem to have it in for the younger generation. For every complaint we have, you turn us into self-entitled cry-babies. That's not the case. I'm not crying. I fully understand, as the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want."

The problem, Thomas, is not that a guy may get rejected by a girl only once, twice, or a few times; it's the fact that he will get rejected by many girls, all throughout his life, by pursuing women in the way he had always been taught. Game, along with my perspective, is not a justification for men who play video games all day long, but it's an attempt to get those guys out of their mom's basement, head held high, and recapture some of that guttural feeling that men like you have, Thomas.

Furthermore, Game's teachings seem to be a matter of boning up on the fundamentals of male-female attraction. Everything taught there is just a transposition of tactics that have worked all throughout history, thrown into modern-day courtship arenas (i.e. bars, coffeeshops, bookstores, schools).

Tom:

"There are over 3 billion women on this globe, and by some miracle, they're all individuals."

These 3 billion women all desire to be with about 500 million men. What happens to the residual men?

A very few take up Game in order to be an object of desire for some of the hottest of those 3 billion women.

Posted by: Chuck on March 17, 2009 2:25 PM



@JV

don't know of a single guy who is negatively affected by a past that includes a good number of sex partners.

let's start with Roissy. he is an embittered old crank. He has no capacity to trust, a requisite for long-term bonding and will spend his life bumping form whore to whore to whore.

Posted by: jz on March 17, 2009 3:35 PM




@PatrickH,

I think it's important that young men try to whore, not necessarily succeed. It's the willingness to try that counts. After all, despite ST's claims about how easy it can be to score when out "whoring",

It may have been easier for ST 30 years ago. There was little concern for Std, herpes not widely recognized, no HIV, and the pill was available.

Posted by: jz on March 17, 2009 3:40 PM



Sn When I was young (in good shape and knowing the basics of decent dressing), bars were not a good place for me to get lucky. However, at a wedding, in the bread aisle of the supermarket, at a Karate dojo, walking down a beach boardwalk and an assortment of other places women would be looking for -- perhaps not always a hookup but -- a matchup

ST I've always been successful with women because... for Christ's sake... I love 'em. I've always been fascinated by them, wanted to spend my time with them, wanted to travel and play with them, wanted to get my hands on them. Women sense this and respond in kind

Unlike you, some of Rose’s male followers are only looking for a quick screw and have no use for women after the deed is done.
That said, ST you come across as a very masculine man. A large number of the young men in my age group lack that. I’m willing to bet that your strong masculine vibe is as important to attracting women as your love of women. Some men just ooze masculinity.

An example of a masculine looking(not handsome thought) older man below. He gets bonus points for being over 40 and having a flat stomach.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/03/17/business/17wall_CA1_ready.html

They want love and a great sex life
Aka plenty of tongue baths :)

Posted by: chic noir on March 17, 2009 7:15 PM



Sn When I was young (in good shape and knowing the basics of decent dressing), bars were not a good place for me to get lucky. However, at a wedding, in the bread aisle of the supermarket, at a Karate dojo, walking down a beach boardwalk and an assortment of other places women would be looking for -- perhaps not always a hookup but -- a matchup
OPPs for got to add

I’ve asked if the men who frequent Rose’s blog have any hobbies try to meet women in glalleries etc… Those who gave a response said that meeting in bars is where young people meet today. SMH maybe this speaks to the fact that some many young people have no hobbies or intreasts.

I’ve met plenty of nice men in places outside of bars and clubs. Clubs and bars are to an extent, meat markets where women(-I) and men line up in their best attire hoping to find someone who buys their BS for the night. Therefore, I don’t really pay much attention to men who try to chat me up in bars or clubs.


Posted by: chic noir on March 17, 2009 7:23 PM



These 3 billion women all desire to be with about 500 million men.

Are you *trying* to satirize yourself?

Look, I'm assuming that your assumption applies to men as well. Now think about *all* the men you know. Are you telling me that not a *single* one of them is interested in anything but having sex with the highest rated woman possible. No interest in women as human beings? No interest in sharing their interests with another? No interest in sharing their joys?

Of course not. That's stupid. So why assume that women are any more uniform than men? Yes, there are a lot of shallow men and women out there, but if 25% of men and women are not worth the time, that doesn't leave a world-wide shortage...

A very few take up Game in order to be an object of desire for some of the hottest of those 3 billion women.

If all you are interested in is the externals ("hottest?"), then why the hell should they be interested in anything but your externals?

The whole things sounds like an incredible gathering of massively insecure men and women trying desperately to bolster their ego by having sex with the highest rated object that will have them. The only way to win *that* game is to get out while one still has some shreds of dignity left and join the majority of humanity who have grown up (or never grew down).

Posted by: Tom West on March 17, 2009 10:13 PM



Shouting Thomas said --

I asked Roissy on his blog long ago the very same question: Where in the hell are your accomplishments?

He didn't answer. So, I gather he doesn't have any.

I don't read or pay any attention to his juvenalia.

I would agree that this bothers me. Though his blog actually is quite an accomplishment. It has a huge following, and it's beyond well written.

But if he nonetheless get's laid but hot hot girls all the time, one after another, sometimes in short relationships while he's still playing, sometimes in longer ones while he's still playing, and sometimes while he's only playing -- maybe we should ask what's going on with women these days.

How can he do so well sex wise, and perfectly ok and maybe very well income wise, while so many men with better contribute to society credentials are doing so miserably with women these days?

Could the fault be fairly laid at contemprary, feminist raised, women's door? Could the fault be laid at hyper American feminism's door, with all it's media and entertainment media's echos? (Entertainment being by far the best wa of pushing a social agenda, by subtext, while an emotionally compelling story is unfolding.)

Posted by: dougjnn on March 18, 2009 9:46 PM



"Could the fault be fairly laid at contemprary, feminist raised, women's door? Could the fault be laid at hyper American feminism's door, with all it's media and entertainment media's echos?"

Could the fact that Roissy has done nothing of note with his life be his fault?

Posted by: hello on March 18, 2009 10:21 PM



slumlord

Roissy is an intelligent,gifted writer and preacher for game par-excellence, however I agree with Shouting Thomas that his life philosophy is shit. But it's not the Game that's poisonous, it's the Hedonism. Maybe it's me, but I've noticed over the years that I've followed the blog that there seems to have been a subtle shift from insight towards outright misogyny. Instead of "fella's this is how women work" its become "women are bitches, whores and manipulative". In some instances he is justified by his assertions but general tone just seems a bit more nasty,grubby, opportunistic and mean. But that perhaps stems from spending too much time in the moral gutter of Hedonism. I too am drawn to the allure of that gutter, but avoid it, knowing that if I spend too much time there I will really begin to stink.

He may be able to attract women but he's turned into a prick. An alpha prick.

Well, we need a lot more like him to roll feminism back.

Which is what I most definitely want to do.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 18, 2009 10:32 PM



I know I shouldn't, but I can't just help myself...

Well, we need a lot more like him to roll feminism back.

Exactly which parts of feminism need to be rolled back, and how does conning insecure women to sleep with him help Roissy roll these elements back?

Could the fault be fairly laid at contemprary (sic), feminist raised, women's door?

No. Next question.

Could the fault be laid at hyper American feminism's door, with all it's media and entertainment media's echos(sic)?

Ah, no again. And now your getting ridiculous.

If anything, feminism is about self-respect, which is *exactly* the quality upon which 'Game' is useless.

Posted by: Tom West on March 18, 2009 11:15 PM



"Well, we need a lot more like him to roll feminism back."

The more women feel exploited and mistreated by men the more they will embrace feminism, not the other way around. If they sleep with PUAs they bare responsibility for it, but bad experiences with men will dissuade them from giving men implicit or explicit control over their lives. Feminism and sexual freedom aren't the same thing; many feminists are lesbians who avoid sex with men.

If you are arguing that disillusionment with PUAs will make women less inclined to sleep with them you're probably right, but somehow I don't think that will make Roissy et al happy for all their self-righteous bellowing condemnation of sluts.

chic noir: Yes, this is indeed hello you Miss Fabulous. *Girl power hug*

Posted by: hello on March 19, 2009 4:10 AM



Tom West:
I know I shouldn't, but I can't just help myself...

You shouldn't have.

Firstly, Let's be specific about Feminism since it has morphed from what it originally was-- a wholly reasonable recognition of inherent rights--into something totally different. By Feminist I mean someone who holds that objective status of women can be determined using Post-Structual anyalysis. Pretty much Feminist thought since the 60's. Clio's Feminism is not the Feminism of Wymyn's studies.

Exactly which parts of feminism need to be rolled back, and how does conning insecure women to sleep with him help Roissy roll these elements back

Misandry, no fault divorce, abortion as a right of passage, hostility to Christianity and marriage, the ability to claim rape on whim, Marxist societal analysis, shit literature, bad dress sense,hairy armpits..want some more?

I can't speak for Roissy but I imagine that not all the women who sleep with him are insecure. Maybe they want to fuck, is that too hard to comprehend? Remember, we're sexually liberated now. How does Roissy actually con women? If women are free to choose whom they wish to sleep with, what exactly does Roissy promise that he does not deliver? Inquiring minds wish to know.

You are right however that Roissy's copulations do nothing to stop Feminism, in fact Roissy's copulations further the Feminist vision of society. He has said so himself, he probably could not have been so successful without the sisterhood urging women to break off the shackles of sexual restraint in the pursuit of equality. Abortion, the cherished argument of feminism, is his friend. Ah! my peanut brained commentator, the sexual revolution was impossible without the sisterhood urging the lemmings along. The closer a woman's sexual behaviour corresponds with what is going on in a gay bar the closer she is to equality and throwing off the shackles of traditional morality. In hoc signo vinces.

Could the fault be fairly laid at contemprary (sic), feminist raised, women's door?

(sarcasm on)Oh no, because you see, when a woman's unhappy it's always someone else fault. Not getting laid, men are too picky. Getting laid too much, men can't commit. Unsatisfying sex, it's the mans fault. See Michael's link.Could it just be a teeny bit possible, that our society encourages women to make dumb sexual decisions? Maybe the Feminist vision just doesn't correspond with reality.(sarcasm off)
Now get back to the ironing.

Dougjnn.
Well, we need a lot more like him to roll feminism back.

Insofar as he is a vector for transmission of venereal disease he serves his purpose. I can imagine at some point in the future, some old lover of Roissy's warning other young girls not to repeat the same mistakes she did. Gasping between sobs and her heart aching in unison with the herpetic lesions on her labia, she wall warn her young compatriots that the life of sexual abandon will only lead to heartbreak, spinsterhood and and a barren chlamydia scarred womb.

No I imagine the only way to kill wymyn's Feminism is to dishonour the slut and honour the chaste. Strive to be an alpha male and reward the good woman with your love and fidelity, when the good girls get the good men, the bad girls will be shamed into submission. Feminism will wither away.

Posted by: slumlord on March 19, 2009 7:44 AM



Christ, what a bunch of bitter whining. Michael, is this really the social phenomenon you're so interested in?

Posted by: JV on March 19, 2009 1:12 PM



Thank you slumlord for defining your terms. I'm not going to carry on the debate because I don't define feminism by it's farthest edges any more than I define conservatism by fascists or leftists by communists.

The idea that society is dominated and endangered by far left/right/up/down forces is so absurd as to be solely the refuge of the... sad or extremely unfortunate. (I won't deny there are isolated incidences where some few have been badly damaged by the fringe, but for the most of us, being obsessed by the wing-nuts is a pretty big sign that you're treading wing-nut territory oneself.

Posted by: Tom West on March 19, 2009 8:04 PM



Many here speak of game as some kind of cop out that only appeals to guys who haven't done anything with themselves, and instead simply want to waste their lives whoring.

Being a young man today carries no guarantees. It used to be that accomplishment was something that took years, and many of those years included raising a family during relatively meager times. Women were expected to support their husbands through the ups and downs of their careers until the guy finally achieved some level of financial comfort for his family, usually not before the age of 40 or so.

Now we have older men on this blog teaming up with women to demand that young men bring "accomplishments" to the table even as real wages and home ownership have increasingly tilted toward the older segment of the population. Young men, with a few exceptions, have surprisingly little to offer along those lines. As a result, fewer of them are seen as marriage material, and there's nothing left to keep some 20-something woman from ditching her young husband because he isn't living up to her expectations in one way or the other (divorce peaks when women are 27 and men 30, and at this age bracket it is almost always the woman's choice).

So you have an entire generation of men who view women and marriage with deep suspicion, yet still crave the physical intimacy that men need. And women are only too happy to extend the dating game as long as possible, because that is the kind of drama that validates their lives.

Put the two together, and you have the perfect recipe for "game." In my opinion it is a temporary solution to a deep, systemic problem. It probably isn't sustainable for the long term, but given the circumstances, what is the alternative choice for young men? An uncertain marriage that could lead to the wreckage of one's life and one's children growing up in a broken home? Joining a religious order and taking a vow of celibacy? Dutifully working away and hoping to marry some washed up woman when she's hit her fertility decline and is forced by fading looks to get off the man train? These are the choices most young men face today. Game is the only alternative, and it's no wonder it is so popular, because it's a lot more palatable than the other choices.

For the record, I don't practice game, but if I choose to find another woman I definitely will use it to get what I want.

Posted by: Bill on March 20, 2009 3:51 PM



Again with the monolithic 'women'. Do you assume, Bill, that all or even most, men want exactly the same things and act exactly the same way?

Why assume it of women?

To me Game is a reaction to the lack of success of men who chose to play a field to which they are manifestly unsuited. It's a field of status, hedonism, and contempt for the losers.

The only way to win is not to play, which admittedly leaves off the 10% of women whose most significant attribute (apparently) is that they measure their status by their desirability to men and thus spend a lot of their time on their looks to feed *their* ego.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for men who need to boost their ego that way, and only a little sympathy for men who are too stupid to realize that they're ignoring the other 90% of the potential population.

Posted by: Tom West on March 20, 2009 10:49 PM



It's amusing to see how misunderstood and maligned "game" is by so many people.

I suppose that's inherent in the word "game", which suggests manipulation and insincerity.

But the term Game is actually a massively misleading label.

Boiled down to it's essence, Game is essentially teaching men to behave with self-respect, pride, and appropriate assertiveness towards women.

Is that REALLY so nefarious? I would think not.

So much of Game is simply spelling out the real world applications of rules like "don't supplicate to a women".

Lots of guys simply don't realize how much of their behavior is actually a form of supplication - once you spell out, say, ten different ways in which you are unconsciously "supplicating" to a woman, than it sounds like you have actually changed ten different behaviors, but in reality you've only eliminated one behavior from your interactions with women.

But none of this is cynical. None of this is manipulative.

There are probably 2-3 "core concepts" to Game, like 1) Don't supplicate to a woman 2) Treat yourself as of at least equal value as the woman even if she is beautiful, i.e, don't fawn and gush, and 3) Be appropriately assertive and stand up for yourself and your own value in your encounters with women.

All the long manuals by Mystery and Neil Strauss and the others are just explicit spelling out of ways in which the "core concepts" apply in real world interactions and pointing out the meaning of your actions which you might not have been aware of.

"Game" is actually just self-esteem in the world of romance, and guys who get good at game experience a rise in the success of all their social interactions because they are essentially learning to treat themselves with respect, which helps with work, with friends, everywhere.

Guys like Southing Thomas seem like the sorts who already posess a great deal of self-respect and instinctively don't supplicate to women, which accounts for their success. If you have already internalized the precept of interacting with women that way, then of course you can simply focus on the love part. But many guys first need a crash course in dealing with women from a position of self-respect, hence Game.

That being said, EVERY guy who applies the precepts of Game (i.e learn in specific ways how to approach social encounters from a position of self-respect) will experience SOME increase with his success with women and ALL his social encounters, so those who dismiss Game as only useful to the socially adept are wrong.

However, SOME guys will be much more successful at integrating Game into their interactions - either because they are building on an already fairly robust sense of self-esteem or because they possess the emotional resources to change their personality that some guys don't.

This last point is crucial. It took me a while to grasp that it actually takes a certain amount of confidence, daring, and courage to realize and admit you have a problem and to motivate yourself to do something about it.

I have a friend who is better looking than me with a great sense of style. We go out all the time and he has absolutely zero fear approaching women, who all give him the eye. But he crashes and burns on almost every approach. It's almost painful to watch.

He doesn't fear the approach but he exudes such desperation and neediness in the encounter - i.e, he telegraphs such lack of self-respect and status - that the women reject him sometimes in the most shockingly brutal and frank ways. It's painful.

I've tried coaching him and explaining to him what he's doing wrong but he simply won't listen, to the point where I have to just accept that he lacks the emotional resources - the courage and confidence - to even attempt to deal with the problem, which is the prerequisite to changing any area of our life and personality.

It's tragic. He seems doomed to be a terminal loser with women even though he has so much going for him and with just a few simple adjustments of attitude and behavior he could be a rock star.

But I have come to realize that Game, while useful to anyone willing to integrate it into his behavior, is nevertheless something that many men simply CANNOT integrate into their lives because of lack of courage, adaptability, etc, and that other men will improve with women but never become stellar simply because of natural, genetic limits to their ability to have self-respect, etc.

So at the end of the day Game won't revolutionize the field at all - it will only increase by, say 20-30 percent, the men whoa re good with women. A big jump, sure, but not staggering.


Posted by: Gordon Jordan on March 24, 2009 11:49 AM



If I remember correctly (which I may not, it's been a while), Roissy was talking about what he saw as essentially duping women's instinctual desire for a protector by mimicking the appropriate behavior, while intending to be anything but.

Along with tactics like the 'neg', which is directly aimed at insecure women, it is clear that 'game' is thought of primarily a matter of deception and manipulation by most of its proponents.

If you choose to call 'game' merely an application of self-esteem, please feel free to do so. However, that is definitely *not* what is meant by the vast majority of its adherents (at least as found in the blogs, which happily is my only exposure to it).

Posted by: Tom West on March 24, 2009 7:39 PM



Tom - That's wrong, nor does Roissy say that. it's not about suggesting you are a "protector", it's about suggesting you are a "quality" male - i.e you have the personality traits likely lead to high status in a society.

Women have evolved to be attracted to these personality traits even if you have decided NOT to parlay these personality traits into high status. Hence the attraction to bartenders, affairs with pool boys, etc., while wealthy nerds who genuinely possess high status because modern societies reward different qualities than did the environment in which our ancestors evolved, often do dismally with women.

To the extent that you authentically integrate these behaviors into your life, confidence, appropriate assertiveness, etc, then you DO manifest these personality traits, and there is nothing manipulative about it.

It's authentic.

Nor is a 'neg' aimed at insecure women - in fact it is NOT recommended to be used against insecure women. It is counterproductive with them.

It is a playful, teasing comment used with extremely beautiful women to convey that you are not overwhelmed by her beauty like so many guys out there.

If you are a man with a naturally high feeling of self-worth, this kind of playful teasing with an extremely beautiful woman who is full of herself will often come NATURALLY.

It all comes down to integrating into your behavior - authentically - behaviors that women have evolved to find powerfully attractive. All these behaviors are tied to feelings of self-worth and self-esteem.

The idea that you integrate behaviors into your life-style that may not - at first - come naturally, is not inherently manipulative or deceitful. In fact, a mans personality before he learned Game may have been less representative of his true self.

He may have been held back by fear from self-expression because the culture teaches us that women like "nice" guys, etc, etc. Game liberates you into being assertive, authentic, not faking niceness, and not trying to win approval.

Roissy and some other bloggers sometimes go a bit overboard and express opinions and attitudes that some may find odious - but the PRACTICES they suggest all boil down to behaving in a way that conveys self-worth and approrpiate assertiveness towards a woman.

Posted by: Gorrdon Jordan on March 25, 2009 4:19 AM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?