I have been meaning to address the debate going on between advocates of Game and Social Conservatives that are skeptical or hostile to it. I’ve been mulling it over and was inspired to finally post something because of comments left by Todd White over at Novaseeker’s blog earlier today.
White seems like a fine fellow but I disagree with him strongly when it comes to this issue.
Novaseeker and Ferdinand Bardamu, among others, have some good things to read in regard to this debate.
I have plenty of respect for SOCONS no matter where they stand on this issue and try to be careful about lumping them altogether. However, for purposes of this post I will use SOCONS to mean social conservatives critical of Game. I realize many SOCONS have mixed or positive feelings about Game and want to be on record as saying that.
Todd White comments…
Novaseeker: You wrote, “Game is rather empirical – people use it because it works.” Works? In what sense? In terms of having more dates withwomen? Sure, that makes sense. In terms of having more casual sex? Oh, certainly. In terms of increasing a man’s happiness?…Err…Look, that’s what I care about. The happiness of men. I honestly do not believe that Game can increase a man’s happiness because it rests on a philosophic assumption that men and women are animals and that the best way to have a relationship is to treat her like an animal too. The best relationships are those in which boththe man and woman are unified by shared values and interests and treat each other with utmost respect as transcendent individuals I can almost people laughing at me when I say that, but it’s true. I’m a witness to it.
Either Mr. White is a natural with the ladies, got married at an early age to a perfect companion, is surrounded by better than average church girls all day, or has zero interest in women. It is baffling how he is unable to make the connection between more dates, and happiness for a man. Think of all the poor schmucks out there that would give their right arm to go out on even a few dates a year. Does he think the kind of validation only a woman can give a man is trivial in its importance to happiness?
He is free to treat women as transcendent individuals all he wants. How that piece of wisdom helps Joe Average Beta have more success with modern females, I have no idea.
Whether one uses the power of Game to have sex or not is immaterial. Game is morally neutral. This seems to be the main sticking point in this debate. It seems thick headed to me. Don’t know how many times it has to be said but I’ll do it once more: Game is only a tool. Do with it what you wish.
Recognizing ingrained differences between men and women hardly assumes a woman to be an animal. Does Mr. White not recognize the mounds of evidence that point to female hypergamy and other substantial male/female differences? Whether God put the differences there or Darwin did is irrelevant. I guess only bad girls are hypergamous. The Madonna/Whore complex is strong in the Game denying SOCONs.
Another comment by Todd White…
Novaseeker: I share your diagnosis on why a lot of modern marriages collapse. I’m a realist. However, what is the prospect for marriage if the thing holding it together is physical attraction? I mean, honestly, think about it. What would keep men and women together at the age of 40, 60, 80 if physical attraction was the Number One consideration? I’m totally fine with encouraging people to stay in good physical shape as they get older, but it sounds like you and the Gamers are, as Lawrence Auster points out, taking a few nuggets of common sense and blowing them into a reductionist philosophy that won’t save marriages but undermine them.
Actually Game is important for keeping the man more attractive to divorce happy “empowered” women. Looks have little to do with it. Women don’t judge men on their looks like men do with women. Divorce rates aren’t increasing because men are leaving their overweight hausfraus in mass either.
A woman will stay in better shape for a man she respects and knows has other options. Unconditional love is a myth. Learn this lesson the easy way or the hard way. You choose. A marriage built on mutual respect and a good foundation early on won’t be based solely on looks as they grow older. I think loyalty and duty is strong in most men. A man will care for, and protect his wife if strong bonds were built early in the marriage. This is a reason why religious men are perfect for marriage Game. A faithful wife can inspire all sorts of protective, loyal and dutiful behavior in husbands. Game will help to make her stay faithful in the 1st place.
The most important time for keeping a woman happy in a marriage is between the ages of 28 and 33 or thereabouts. This is the most likely time for a woman to take stock of her options, and cash out before its to late. Boredom and discontent can be especially high during this time. I think the divorce statistics would bare this out. A man using Game is more likely to prevent this from happening. The farther you get away from that danger zone the likely-hood of divorce decreases.
I thought reducing divorce was a goal of SOCONS. Most divorces are initiated by the women. The modern woman’s unprecedented freedom and choices have everything to do with this fact.
Some choices will never change. The pill isn’t going away. Neither is increasing income parity between the sexes. Other prerogatives, built into the law are unlikely to change for a very long time, if ever. Divorce theft, child support, alimony, domestic violence laws and the like.
What should INDIVIDUAL men do in the mean time?
I guess pine for the good old days.
The way the SOCONs dismiss the strong desire to have sex, and the need for validation in the form of a female amazes me. As if it is easy to wait around until that perfect angel falls into your life. To me this debate is a classic example of trade offs. The SOCONS are behaving like Utopian leftists in this regard.
We can have better relationships or we can keep women on a pedestal but, increasingly, we can’t have both.
The bubble of the church and its better quality of marriage minded woman doesn’t excuse this naivety. Church going women can certainly have better values and more discipline, but their natures are the same as other women.
This isn’t 1950 anymore. Marriage isn’t happening at age 20. To expect a man to stay a virgin until he is in his late twenties or early 30s is not realistic. A better understanding of women by using the tenets of game might just make pre marital sex less prevalent not more. Especially if pious religious oriented men take up Game. If not, it might help at the margins to reduce other anti social behavior. Think George Sodini.
Let me explain. Pretty women in there 20’s are at the peak of their powers. Hell “Plain Janes” do pretty good as well. The world is their oyster. They have options, and the prerogative to act on them, unprecedented in human history. They aren’t going to settle down with just anybody. The power and perks of being young, pretty and single are too great. A marriage minded pious man in his early 20’s is going to have alot better chance of attracting, getting commitment, marrying, and staying married with such a woman if he has the tenets of Game helping him. Yes even among the church girls.
Realize that because of changing incentives, woman are free to indulge that animal part of attraction more than ever. Being a nice guy with a 50 thousand dollar a year cube job isn’t going to knock her socks off anymore. She doesn’t need you. She doesn’t want you unless you can give her something she desires. All the guys that hit on her are nice, and she makes 60 thousand a year. You better be able to bring something else to the table if you want her to choose you. If you want to keep her from leaving, you better be able to maintain that attraction as well.
The same pious man could have repeated failures with women using the same nice guy supplicating bullshit and stay single well into his thirties and give up completely. Maybe he could relent and see a prostitute. Maybe he could become bitter, and for all intents and purposes, drop out of society.
Is this an extreme example? Yeah it is. It’s pretty binary. A bit black and white. I use an extreme case though to demonstrate my point. In the days of yesteryear, do to social shaming, lack of options, and a lack of legal incentives for divorce, a man could get away with having a bored, unsatisfied wife. Not anymore.
I could better understand the objections to Game if religious folks had super low divorce rates. They don’t. I applaud them for marrying at higher rates and giving it a go though. Religious men struggle the same as the big city secular guy. Sometimes even worse. They are shamed and guilt tripped because the religious wife is assumed to be pure, innocent, and free from the influence of the greater culture. Often, at least from my perspective, the man is usually blamed much more frequently than the women. Can depend on the church though, I suppose.
Taking wifey off the pedestal and using some of the tenets of game might have prevented some of these marriages from breaking up. I guess divorce is preferable to treating her like an “animal” though.
A few other points…
Another silly talking point is, that somehow, if all of the betas learn Game, they will all be out at the clubs swooping fly girls, ala G Manifesto, and not marrying and reproducing. That dog won’t hunt. The amount of improvement any given man will see from adopting the tenets of Game will not turn him into a Lothario. Game is something that can be successful at the margins to help individual men attract women and see improvement for KEEPING her attracted.
It would be like frowning on people improving their diet in fear that candy bar makers and fast food joints will go out of business. Most men won’t use the tenets of Game. The ones that do will see varying results. A man that can go from 1 date a year to ten dates a year will be happier, more likely to marry, and be a productive member of society.
Most “lowly” betas would love to settle down with a decent woman and have kids. The use of Game makes that more likely not less. Do they really think that some guy marginally improving his lot in attracting females is going to be out banging scads of loose women?
The SOCONS are good at talking in abstractions taken to ridiculous extremes, but I haven’t heard much from them on how an INDIVIDUAL man in the 21st century can improve his lot with women. I guess the answer is go to church and find a “good girl”.
Im guessing the law of female hypergamy doesn’t stop at the church’s entrance. (Although in fairness I think it is more muted). With that said, I’d say the charismatic preacher is going to have alot more luck in attracting a woman than the nondescript beta in the pew.
I suppose I’m also to believe that nothing that preacher says or does has anything to do with attracting all those church girls into reverence for him. I guess hes just a “good man” with “good” values. Mimicking his behaviors, in any way, just wouldn’t work for pew sitting uberbeta. Perhaps the beta can wait until he is 40 to have sex after marrying a 35 year old women tired of waiting for something better to come along. Sounds like a marriage made in heaven!
I’ve read objections to the actual word “Game”. Fair enough. Call it a banana or drywall. I don’t care. Learn the tenets. If you still object, fine. Don’t dismiss the whole thing because its name is cheesy or implies a greasy pick up artist “working” a nightclub.
Banana is used for building attraction, not for getting laid. Humans have free will right? Would you say that a guns’ only purpose is to murder people? Drywall is simply a tool.
There aren’t enough “Madonnas” to go around. Some men need Banana to get the “whores” to commit and stay loyal. Unless you think a sea of 40 year old single virgin males is a good trend.
Drywall is used to mimic men that have success in attracting women. Doesn’t mean you have to become an uber alpha prick.
Those wonderful paragons of goodness use Banana too. It’s called make up, fashion, a pleasant demeanor and flirting. Much easier for women to naturally use their own version of Drywall because its timeless and not contingent on circumstance. Women dig fame, power, wealth and social intelligence/ dominance/status. What constitutes those things change over time and are relative to the woman’s own station in life. This is a blessing and a curse. Men can do more to change their lot, but it requires more self awareness.
Male Banana isn’t anymore deceitful then the female version of Drywall. Just part of the mating dance. Her Banana isn’t more noble than yours.
Take comfort. Most men will never read about Banana. Most who read about it will never use it. The men who do use it will vary in their ability to have success with it. Most betas will remain clueless about women and go on suffering the indignities that entails.
Game is not a panacea. In fact, I’m more in the Whiskey camp with regard to how successful Game can be in affecting the larger culture. I view it as a band-aid on a knife wound. It might help, but not a lot.
I think it can help an INDIVIDUAL man quite a bit though. That’s why I tout Game so much. I guess its my libertarian streak. The individual is important to me.
I completely understand the reservations that social conservatives have with all of this. I know that no one wants to compromise their own values to accommodate a compromised society. If I didn’t think using Game in a morally upright way was possible, I wouldn’t be trying to convince you of its merits.
I also understand that you might feel that Game is unnecessary in your social circles. Fair enough. Some churches are better than others. If you don’t need it don’t use it.
I respect social conservatives and agree with them on plenty of issues. That doesn’t change over this debate. I hope that no matter how we feel about Game, all men concerned with the problems our gender face will find common ground in other areas. I feel strongly about Game but that doesn’t affect my positive feelings for SOCONS in general.