The fundamentals of game
After studying the responses in the open thread, I have now constructed what I believe is a complete and logical definition of game that can serve as a reference. The definition and seven principles contained here are the core of game, or inner game as some call it. These are qualities that all attractive men, irregardless of personal morality and goals, sexual behavior, ethnic origin, or epoch of history possess to some degree, with the apex among them embodying them in full. They are qualities that all women find attractive, also irregardless of the aforementioned factors. So, based on my own opinions, observations, and research as well as your contributions, here is what I’ve got. While I’m almost one hundred percent sure that I’ve got everything down, if you have something more to add, feel free to chime in in the comments. I may end up revising this in the future.
Asterisked names refer to outside sources I used to write this post, a list of which is appended.
game (\ˈgām\), noun – a set of male behaviors, attitudes, actions, and strategies designed to win the sexual attraction of females. SYNONYMS: seduction. (credit: “Game”*, Obsidian)
Principles
- assertiveness – The ability to project your will on the world. The capability to direct situations to your benefit, insert yourself into the center of social interactions, and act on your own volition. (credit: Dave from Hawaii*, Josh Xiong, Roissy*, Strauss*)
- calmness – The ability to remain unaffected by the emotional storms of those around you. The will to be a pillar of stability in a world of chaos. (credit: Dave from Hawaii*, Lupo*, Roissy*)
- confidence – Complete faith in your ability to navigate the world. An unshakable belief in the righteousness of your actions. (credit: Bhetti, Dave from Hawaii*, Lupo*, Roissy*, Strauss*)
- independence – The willingness to carve your own path through the world, while remaining mindful of those connected to you. (credit: “Bowen Theory – Differentiation of Self”*, Eumaios, OneSTDV, Roissy*)
- indifference – The ability to avoid being overly invested in individual outcomes. The foresight to keep your eye on the bigger picture. (credit: Anakin Niceguy, Roissy*, Vörek*)
- presentability – The ability to groom yourself and look good. The possession of style. (credit: Obsidian, Strauss*)
- sociability – The skills to interact with other human beings. The capability to understand, relate to, and engage those around you. The ability to smile when appropriate and not take things too seriously. (credit: Strauss*, Vörek*)
Works Cited
“Bowen Theory – Differentiation of Self.” The Bowen Center.
Dave from Hawaii. “Relationship Dynamics.” Hawaiian Libertarian.
“Game.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Lupo. “How to keep your wife happy from a man who knows.” The Butcher’s Block.
Roissy. “The Sixteen Commandments of Poon.” Roissy in DC.
Strauss, Neil. The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. P. 21.
Vörek, Roosh. “Putting Women on a Pedestal.” Roosh V.
Vörek, Roosh. “The Two Things That Tight Game Comes Down To.” Roosh V.
I got trashed over at The Spearhead for saying PUA and Game are the same thing. See:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/16/what-is-the-spearhead/#comments
But here is your definition showing that, yes, they are the same thing. Game is just the ability to get laid, nothing more. Those guys commenting at The Spearhead don’t seem to know what they are talking about.
Good post.
What I miss is some kind of excitement added to the mix. The theoretical guy you describe here would be masculine and aloof but I think there should be a little bit of spice added to the mix:
* sensuality: the quality of being sensual, of exciting the senses. Having no fear of projecting your masculine sexuality in a controlled manner, and being able to create and control the sexual tension with women.
fschmidt: winning the sexual attraction of females is not the same as actually copulating with them. I have zero interest in picking up women in public venues. I have high interest in 1) continuing to win the sexual attraction of my wife, and 2) winning the attraction of other women to increase my perceived value to the aforementioned wife.
It is revealing that fschmidt conflates winning sexual attraction with getting laid.
So many of the guys that are obsessed with and pratice “game” quite often leave out the calmness aspect. As a girl I must admit, calmness is one of the sexiest characteristics a man can have. I believe that some of these guys define their emotional whims as “passion” when indeed it is only immaturity. Indifference and aloofness is just silly. Why? To protect one’s pride? Please. When you’re dead you could have had a life of full, rich living or you can die alone with no woman at your funeral but hey, you’ll have your pride. Having balls is being strong enough to lower pride, period. If a person is that capbale of being indifferent then they cease to be human and enter the realm of robot behavior and that is the opposite of attractive and sexy. It takes a bad ass, confident and secure man, or woman, to show care and concern while reserving the capcity to walk away if that is what becomes neccessary for a failed exchange. Sometimes the biggest alphas can appear or even practice beta-like behavoir to adapt to any given situation. They can “tap into” parts of themselves that is neccessary to achieve success. A lot of failure is going down out there in the dating scene and it blows my mind that a person would continue to use tactics that result in failure and misery.
Lobo Feroz: yes, yes on sensuality! so many guys lack this! I believe this may be a quality that is innate in men and women but it can be learned..(let’s hope at least).
None of these get to a core requirement – edginess, occasionally you have to be a funny asshole.
High value velocity is key, I think Mehow is at the cutting edge of game, with his cyclical model.
http://www.sinnsofattraction.com/10second/
i don’t think that everyone has to be edgy. reserved game works for some guys. it belies a certain confidence that works as well on women as does the cocky/funny type that someone like Tucker Max uses. that can get to be overkill in the long term sense if you actually want to see a girl for more than one night.
All are characteristics of a man that others can depend upon.
Fifty years ago these would have been used to describe a man’s man, all positive masculine traits. Indifference would have been called stoic.
Edginess can be good, but being unshakable in the face of anything inspires more long term respect and awe.
Fschmidt:
“But here is your definition showing that, yes, they are the same thing. Game is just the ability to get laid, nothing more.”
Where did you get THAT from? Game is about winning a woman’s sexual attraction, which is a prerequisite to having any romantic relationship with a woman (one-night stand, fling, marriage).
Lobo Ferox, Sebastian Flyte:
I’m not sure if sensuality alone qualifies as a principle, but it definitely has a place in there somewhere. Thanks.
Great post, a question though
“The ability to smile when appropriate and not take things too seriously”
When should a man take things seriously then and for what reasons?
much appreciated
Bardamu,
I agree with all of those points, and never before have I seen the Game position articulated with such clarity and concreteness, but it confirms something I have strongly suspected for a very long time. Game – a word suggesting strategy, tactics, deviousness, and deceit – is in fact nothing more than self-esteem for men.
All the points you mention above bear a striking resemblance to Nathaniel Branden’s theory of self-esteem – how is Game any different?
How is Game any different from self-esteem as traditionally described by Nathaniel Branden?
Why not abandon the useless word “game” with its misleading and negative and polarizing connotations, and invent a label far more suited to the reality of what “game” is.
Also, once you have defined the core attitudes that constitute game, the rest is just spelling out in concrete detail how these mindsets would manifest themselves in action. To this end,
1) Isn’t any tactic or strategy that seeks to manipulate a woman’s response rather than to demonstrate the above character attributes (and thus generate attraction) NOT “game”? I am not opposed to “tactics” from a moral POV, but because it feels so UNMANLY and to verge on supplication to have to devise subtle and complex strategies to get women attracted to you rather than to learn how to manifest in concrete form the mental attitudes you describe in your post (in other words, develop self-esteem and learn how to apply that in your interactions with women).
The whole mindset of needing to devise strategies and stratagems to get women to like you seems like a subtle form of supplication to me – do you disagree? And a preoccupation with strategies seems to directly undermine the overall mindset you describe in your post as “game” (indifference, confidence, etc).
Isn’t it better to dispense with “games” and begin to learn what it means to embody the attitudes you describe?
For a long time I’ve thought “game” had promise but so much seems, at the moment, wrong with it – it needs a massive overhall.
Oh, and one more distinction I wanted to make – there are surely varieties of game that while possibly effective, aren’t an integral part of game. For instance “asshole game” – sure, it might have some degree of effectiveness because it has elements of the attitudes you describe above, but the particular package it comes in, assholeness, isn’t necessary. You don’t need to be an asshole to have the package you describe in your post.
I think that really needs to be cleared up, as lots of people peddle a particular variety of game and tout it as the only kind.
Sigh. *SMH*
You know, my time within the Game, and larger “Mansphere” has been, w/the shinging exceptions of a few Good Guys, largely depressing. Never before have I seen such a large group of grownassed Men basically DEMAND to be Losers. All the whining, and equivocating, and excuse making, and finger pointing, and blame laying…Jeez, cry me a river.
The bottomline is, that Game-or whatever word you wanna use-WORKS. And instead of overthinking yourself into a froth, how about this great idea:
Just decide that it’s not for you, and kindly step aside.
No one will try to force Game on you. No one will bother you in your chosen path to oblivion. Go with my and everyone else’s blessing.
You know, I gotta say this-it doesn’t take long to discover that the Mansphere, which I include the Game/PUA scene, is filled primarily with White guys-and let me be clear here-White guys who, for the most part, are highly educated, at least somewhat privileged, and gainfully employed. In other words, many of you have more going on in life, than me.
Yet, I’ve never been around such a deeply unhappy group of guys before in my life, and I mean that. No Bullshit. And please, don’t even waste your time trying to argue me down about this. Its the overall tone I’m getting from many of you guys. And its not just here, like I said, its throughout the Mansphere. It reeks of anger, bitterness, rage, and deep unhappiness.
All of which are counterproductive, in a big way. And the only person who ends up losing in the end, is YOU.
So many of you guys have the world on a string, Man. And yet you sound so bitter.
I didn’t have the same opportunities in life that many of you have had, nor was as lucky. And to be sure, I too was a bitter guy in years gone by.
But one of my mentors had to come at me with some Tough Love-either I could wind up a bitter, lonely old Man, or I could find some reasons to get happy about something.
I’ve tried the previous route, and trust me, it doesn’t work. Nowadays, I’m on the latter track, and trust me, it DOES work.
Look Man, all I know is that at the end of the day, it’s all about ME. Not about the White Man, or Bitches, or this or that, but ME. And if things are going to get better in my life, chances are that’ll be because I did something to make it so. There will always be someone who has more than me, was luckier than me, etc. That’s life! But it doesn’t mean that I couldn’t get some measure of happiness for myself, either. In the end, its up to ME to make that happen.
All’s I know is, that Women make up a big part of a Man’s happiness in this world-as I often say, happiness is between a Woman’s thighs, and I stand by that. And for those who disagree, great!-so, what the hell are you doing here? Go forth, Do You, and be happy, whatever that is as you define it-nothing’s stopping you. But please, stop with the playa-hatin’ and virtual cockblocking-its bad enough when Women do it. Really pathetic when Men do it.
The Obsidian
Solid list.
Persistence maybe be worthy of addition. You can have all the qualities you mentioned but not be persistent and have trouble sealing the deal.
Valmont:
“When should a man take things seriously then and for what reasons?”
I was referring to a general attitude of relaxation. A common trait of insecure men is that they are defensive and incapable of levity. Keeping with the philosophy of the Golden Mean, a man should know when to let things slide and when to take a stand.
John:
“All the points you mention above bear a striking resemblance to Nathaniel Branden’s theory of self-esteem – how is Game any different?”
Nathaniel Branden? Ayn Rand’s one-time paramour? I’m not familiar with his work.
“Why not abandon the useless word “game” with its misleading and negative and polarizing connotations, and invent a label far more suited to the reality of what “game” is.”
If you click on the Merriam-Webster definition of “game” in my post, one of the definitions listed is “a procedure or strategy for gaining an end”. In that sense, what is wrong with the term “game”?
“Isn’t any tactic or strategy that seeks to manipulate a woman’s response rather than to demonstrate the above character attributes (and thus generate attraction) NOT “game”?…And a preoccupation with strategies seems to directly undermine the overall mindset you describe in your post as “game” (indifference, confidence, etc).”"
The problem with manifesting these mental attitudes is how do you go about doing it? There’s no concrete road map to show a guy how to get from having no confidence to being confident. The only way that works is the PUA mantra of “fake it ’till you make it” – devise tactics that bring you short-term success, from which you build actual confidence. The goal is to gradually abandon these tactics as the attitudes they manifest are folded into your personality.
Obsidian:
It’s comments like that that remind me why I respect you. Good work. Also, any thoughts on the post? I’m on the verge of making some edits and I want as much feedback as I can get.
Roosh:
“Persistence maybe be worthy of addition. You can have all the qualities you mentioned but not be persistent and have trouble sealing the deal.”
I’ll meditate on that one.
fschmidt,
Those guys commenting at The Spearhead don’t seem to know what they are talking about.
It is you who are ignorant. This despite the fact that the concept of ‘Game’ and the Venusian Arts have been explained to you again and again.
This goes to further prove my point that 80% of men and 99.9% of women will never, ever comprehend what Game is, even though it is simple : social skills specifically for men in their romantic interactions with women. Whether for flings or for a monogamous marriage.
fschmidt still has a very incomplete grasp.
Looks like a good list to me.
Calmness and Indifference are absolutely fundamental but extremely difficult to master.
Every man needs to get himself a copy of Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.
That book will teach you what it means to calm and indifferent and why being so is so important in life.
I agree with Obsidian, and there seems to be a large variety of men, from socialcons to MGTOWs to David Alexander, who totally DEMAND that Game is nothing but being a PUA, and that the Venusian Arts have no use for marriages and other LTRs.
When presented with examples such as Dave in Hawaii, they go through all sorts of contortions to pretend he doesn’t exist.
This ranges from fschmidt and Asher on The Spearhead who refuse to accept that they are failing to understand what Game is, to Pro-Male/AntiFem Tech who inists that Roosh is easily manipulated by women (can you believe that?)
Why?
Because forcing a narrative of Game being something they can condemn or minimize, it relieves them of the onus of taking action to improve THEIR OWN LIVES. This is what Obsidian talks about, and it is become more and more apparent with each person who spends more energy trying to mischaracterize Game than taking the elements of it that they could actually benefit from.
Success in Game requries the following two attributes :
1) Being an Outside the Box thinker, at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy.
2) Having a strong ethic of self-improvement. I am someone who feels I wasted a day of my life if I didn’t do something that moves me forward.
The hostility towards Game is due to men not wanting to make the difficult changes within themselves, and not wanting to admit that more is in their control than they claim.
Ferdi,
Thanks, Man. Nah, no further ideas off the top of my head, but who says what we got has to be set in stone? As we get new information or insights, we can add to what we have above. I think what we got is a good working list and we should run with it.
But yea, this overall “Loserdom” vibe in the Mansphere is what’s threatening to tear all our hardwork down, Ferdi. And that’s something that needs to be addressed pronto. I mean, we done came accross the Rosetta Stone to Poon, and we still got guys bitching and moaning? Come on.
Whew.
O
Fschmidt:
“Game is just the ability to get laid, nothing more.”
Ferdinand Bardamu, on October 19th, 2009 at 12:56 pm Said:
“Where did you get THAT from? Game is about winning a woman’s sexual attraction, which is a prerequisite to having any romantic relationship with a woman (one-night stand, fling, marriage).”
Getting laid just means getting sex. So restating my quote “Game is just the ability to get sex” which is exactly what you said given that all the relationships you list above include sex. And since you claim that the same skill is needed to win a woman’s sexual attraction, whether for a short term or long term relationship, then this must be exactly the same skill needed by PUAs.
Since I am happily married, I have no direct interest in Game. My interest is in fighting feminism and the destruction of culture. I see that the Game crowd is not going to be helpful in this regard. Obsidian sums it up best with “Look Man, all I know is that at the end of the day, it’s all about ME.” Yes, that’s what it boils down to, a bunch of selfish men chasing women. So I won’t waste any more of your time by posting here.
Ferds,
I would add, the ability to read (calibrate) a woman. To judge her body language, whether she is aroused or not, how to notice IOIs, etc.
Some of this is tactical, rather than fundamental, but still. But the anatomy of a seduction includes not waiting too long to escalate, or escalating too soon before enough comfort.
So many students of Game seem to know enough, but fail to get results because they are going in the wrong order, etc. Mystery talks about this a lot.
Ferdinand:
this is really good.
you finally laid out a delineation between the other facets of success with women.
There are exogenous factors like good looks and status which aren’t the same thing as Game.
You also avoid lumping something I posted about today: “kavorka”, charisma, or “natural” ability. Those are also separate from Game in its strictest sense.
While men are either to a greater or lesser degree predisposed to enacting these “strategies” they can be developed and honed.
FSchmidt,
Of course, you took my quote all out of context, but that’s cool. Lemme as you a question:
You say that you are fighting against Feminism and the like. Can you give us here an idea of what initiatives you’ve been a part of what the results have been? Just curious. Thanks.
The Obsidian
fschmidt says: “Since I am happily married, I have no direct interest in Game.”
By Ferdinand’s definition, this means he has no interest in winning the sexual attraction of his wife. I also am married, which means I have no interest in, er, capitalizing on this opportunity.
thanks for the clarification Ferdinand. As for persistence.
Being overly persistent can come off as : overanxious, eager and impatient which in a way is needy.
By Ferdinand’s definition, this means he has no interest in winning the sexual attraction of his wife. I also am married, which means I have no interest in, er, capitalizing on this opportunity.
That is just it. He does not realize that the need for Game never stops, even within marriage.
I wonder if fschmidt can admit that Dave in Hawaii/Hawaii Libertarian actually exists. To admit his existence would be to admit that Game is more than what fschmidt thinks it is.
So I won’t waste any more of your time by posting here.
Translation : fschmidt cannot admit that he is wrong about Game, and that Gamers aren’t the degenerates that he needs to believe they are to avoid introspection of his own.
TFH,
What’s always been interesting to me is, why do guys like FSchmidt, Dave Alex and the SocialCons keep hanging out in a venue that by their own admission, they are diametrically opposed to begin with? What is up with that? I mean, if it were me and I felt the same way they did, I simply wouldn’t be here. Problem. Solved.
It just doesn’t make any sense. Any ideas?
The Obsidian
The Obsidian: “What’s always been interesting to me is, why do [these guys] keep hanging out in a venue that by their own admission, they are diametrically opposed to begin with? What is up with that?”
Sickened fascination.
I was a SoCon until the Auster dustup in August. Early 2009, when I stumbled onto Roosh’s blog, I spent almost an entire day blowing off work reading Roosh and Roissy. Sickened fascination. The fascination came from realizing that here was probably truth. The sickening came from cognitive dissonance, as I tried to integrate this new techne with my existing cosmology. But it was not my cosmology, my understanding of the universe, that was at fault. It was the sub-conscious body of assumption about manliness and womanliness.
What’s always been interesting to me is, why do guys like FSchmidt, Dave Alex and the SocialCons keep hanging out in a venue that by their own admission, they are diametrically opposed to begin with?
People will subconsciously gravitate towards those they wish they could be like, even if the conscious mind vehemently denies it.
Eumaios,
I was a SoCon until the Auster dustup in August. Early 2009, when I stumbled onto Roosh’s blog,
Thank God. And welcome!
I had nothing against socialcons until 60 days ago. But when I saw them slamming Game without understanding what it is, I asked them some incisive questions. Their answers (or lack thereof) showed me their true colors, and now I am a powerful demolisher of socialcons/manginas.
“60 days ago”
Inflection point.
Inflection point.
Indeed. The clincher for me was when Todd White said that a man who requests a pre-nup is immoral (while not even acknowledging what the divorce laws are), and that such a man is a ‘loser who is addicted to Game’.
That sentence has so many things wrong with it, that I became an enemy of socialcons then and there.
Feminism will suffer similar setbacks when they least expect it, and from unexpected sources, in the near future.
“Todd White said that a man who requests a pre-nup is immoral (while not even acknowledging what the divorce laws are)”
Here’s what gets me, what convicts me: I have long hated and blamed no-fault divorce. I knew from the personal observation that wives divorce husbands. I knew about the evil shit that mothers pull on the fathers of their children. I knew about the destructiveness of contraception, and I knew that almost no men molest children.
This is why my patience for SoCons will be long lasting. I knew all this, and yet I never really saw the world.
“That sentence has so many things wrong with it, that I became an enemy of socialcons then and there.”
Which kind of socon?
Mr. Bardamu,
You linked recently to my essay on Strength here:
http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2009/10/strength/
Thanks.
I’m new to this discussion of game, but one of the guys commenting at The Spearhead recently described game as being “successful masculinity.”
By the list you’ve posted above–I’d agree. All of those things are aspects of strength as I defined it in that essay. It looks like you’re talking about learning to project strength in a variety of ways so that women will find you to be stronger, more dominant, more masculine, closer to alpha.
Presentability and sociability are probably more universal human skills, though men and women obviously have different styles for being sociable and presentable–so those would be good areas for elaboration.
But the polar opposites of most of the above qualities would demonstrate weakness and vulnerability in some way.
Just figured I’d toss that in.
I was a SoCon until the Auster dustup in August.
So you believed that “government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent” until August? Then somebody said to Lawrence Auster “hey, you need to check out this blogger whose posts are littered with graphic references to erections, semen, vaginal secretions, and anal intercourse, His life revolves around going out to bars and picking up sluts for one-night stands. This philosophy, which we’re going to give you the impression is called Game, is the wave of the future and the key to saving civilization,” and when he and his readers were understandably revolted by that, you ceased believing the above?
now I am a powerful demolisher of socialcons/manginas.
So you’re a powerful demolisher of people who believe that government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent?
Oh yeah, I forgot to sign my comment:
-Hermes, social conservative and LTR game advocate
Oh. My. God. Found your post interesting, checked out some of your sources and then…..watched a video of Roosh giving an Intimate Tour. At first I thought it was an Onion-style spoof, but at some point I realized that he wasn’t laughing at himself. The filth, the lameness, the absolute Omeganess of it all left me reeling with feelings of shame and embarrassment for him. I just couldn’t watch to the end. So, so gross. No wonder he doesn’t bring any women there. I wonder what he does when he picks up homeless chicks.
This is the seduction community? Wow. He boasts about banging his 48 year-old neighbor while fixing her blinds. Revels in having her “juices and yeast” all over himself. I’m vomiting in my mouth right now. I wonder if he filmed that to post it at youporn in the gross grandma category.
Seriously, guys, you’ve let the inmates take over the asylum. If you want to be a real man, with self-respect based on genuine appeal and the ability to relate to normal women, I suggest you check out these sites:
http://www.ArtofManliness.com
http://whatwoulddondraperdo.tumblr.com/page/1
See #111 for everything you need to know about being attractive to women.
All of the things in this post make total sense. It’s the way you apply them, especially Presentability, that are sorely lacking. Yikes.
http://www.HookingUpSmart.com
Hermes, you’re responding to two different people.
“I was a SoCon until…” was me. TFH is the demolisher.
“So you believed that ‘government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent’ until August?”
I still believe that, just as I still believe that my father ought to have strictly imposed traditional values and behaviors on my sisters. He didn’t, and they are suffering in various self-sought ways. The makers and enforcers of law in our civilization now actively subvert traditional values and behaviors. Our women are suffering in various self-sought ways. The concomitant suffering of men is imposed on us by the makers and enforcers of law, and by our women.
“Then somebody said to Lawrence Auster ‘hey, you need to check out this blogger whose posts are littered with graphic references to erections, semen, vaginal secretions, and anal intercourse, His life revolves around going out to bars and picking up sluts for one-night stands. This philosophy, which we’re going to give you the impression is called Game, is the wave of the future and the key to saving civilization,’ and when he and his readers were understandably revolted by that, you ceased believing the above?”
You argue like a woman. If you actually want an answer, ask a real question.
P.S.
Going by your writings, Hermes, we are on the same side. My understanding of the kingdom diverges a bit from the mainstream, in the direction suggested by N. T. Wright.
Eumaios–
I was a SoCon until the Auster dustup in August. Early 2009, when I stumbled onto Roosh’s blog, I spent almost an entire day blowing off work reading Roosh and Roissy. Sickened fascination. The fascination came from realizing that here was probably truth. The sickening came from cognitive dissonance, as I tried to integrate this new techne with my existing cosmology. But it was not my cosmology, my understanding of the universe, that was at fault. It was the sub-conscious body of assumption about manliness and womanliness.
Keenly understood and very well said. You clearly have the ability to think outside the box; or put differently, to embrace a mental paradigm shift. That of course is exactly the process you describe.
Novaseeker sums up the SoCon tendency to view women as inherently morally superior to men very well, and it’s origins in English Victorian thought. I think it’s origins are a lot older than that but it was certain rejuvenated and amplified then, and made into something like an official ideology.
May game discoverers (particularly bitter parched betas) but not yet capable practitioners seem to go through a phase of regarding women in their “state of nature” which our current cultural and economic arrangements are allowing to come out with less inhibition than ever before, as far more morally debased than men. I don’t think that’s really accurate either. Instead both sexes have natural urges and dynamics of attraction. They can also both be socialized to a considerable extent (but not entirely). Under feminist culture both sexes are being socialized differently than ever before.
Hermes wrote :
-Hermes, social conservative and LTR game advocate
OK, good. So you need to get the ‘socon’ house in order, and combat those who insist that there is no such thing as LTR Game (no matter how manyy examples are presented to them), as they are effectively the self-appointed ‘voice of socons’.
Remember that most people in the Game community, even hardcore PUAs, agree that traditional values are better for the sustainability of a society. They have just adapted to reality rather than become grotesque parodies of themselves the way certain white-knighting socialcons have.
“Remember that most people in the Game community, even hardcore PUAs, agree that traditional values are better for the sustainability of a society.”
Sweeple are the real enemy, Hermes. It is they who wish to destroy traditional values.
Let’s make a spelling change to that neologism.
sweople, noun – humans such as those described by the Stuff White People Like blog.
The value of a singular form is questionable. “swerson”?
[...] else that American men have a huge self-esteem problem. So I’m reading a post this morning at Ferdinand Bardamu’s blog, and he’s got some good points to make about the qualities men need to cultivate. [...]
recommended books that should be in every guys shelf
Pimp:story of my life
All 3 books(power,seduction,war) by Robert Greene
Modeone Alan roger currie
Influence by Cialdini
Art of Love by Ovid
Eumaios, I know I was responding to 2 different people. I was trying to make the same point in my reponses to both you and TFH: the Roissysphere’s animus toward social conservatives is wrongheaded, because there’s nothing nececssary about social conservatism that requires it to be opposed to game-insights. That was my purpose in quoting the Wikipedia definition.
Ever since the Auster dustup, Roissysphere (or is that Ferdisphere?) bloggers and commenters have been furiously denouncing social conservatism as though it were defined by its opposition to game and MRA, when it’s not. Maybe most social conservatives have a gut-level reaction against those things, but that’s out of ignorance and the solution is to calmly explain the issues to them. Coming to understand these issues does not entail abandoning social conservatism–how could it? How could learning that women have sex drives too and they want to mate with the highest social-status male they can find lead to, say, abandoning one’s opposition to same-sex marriage?
I’m glad you still believe what’s expressed in the definition I quoted, but again, my point was that that means you are still a social conservative.
My point in asking that “non-real question” was that the pro-game side in the Auster dustup was doomed to failure, because their approach was to hold Roissy out as a prophet. Roissy is the author of such statements as “there is no meaning of life except to fuck. it is utter pointlessness. you are a machine designed to serve the interests of recombinant dna” and a blog post entitled “Why I love abortion.” Such a person is not a conservative and holding him up as a source of wisdom to social conservatives is never going to work.
I’ve always been something of an outside-the-box social conservative, and when I first learned of the seduction community back around 2005 or 2006, I was horrified by it and thought no more of it for several years. When I was first pointed to Roissy’s blog about a year ago, I was horrified by that too. It wasn’t until I saw commenters like Dave From Hawaii and read F. Roger Devlin that I realized there were valid insights there that could be applied outside of the casual-sex/bar scene.
In the Auster dustup I think it was perfectly understandable that the anti-game side thought they were being told “the key insight that will save Western Civilization is that men can pick up sluts in bars and have cheap sex with them” and they were totally right to reject that.
Hermes, what a man emphasizes is important. The set of issues important to me is substantially larger than the set important to social conservatives. The right to bear arms, the Fed monster, no-fault divorce, and father custody: these are crucial issues. These represent causes of decline. Abortion, fornication, stem cells, Schiavo: these are merely symptoms.
Eumaios, if you truly wish to hack at the roots of these pathologies, an emphasis must be placed on finding and formulating counterarguments to cultural Marxism–the present bulwark of leftism–which engendered feminism.
Hermes,
the Roissysphere’s animus toward social conservatives is wrongheaded, because there’s nothing nececssary about social conservatism that requires it to be opposed to game-insights.
As I explained earlier, I had nothing against Socons until 60 days ago, when some of them were PRECISELY opposed to Game and even MRA insights. The same for Eunious. The August 2009 skirmish caused more people to turn against socialcons, and see that they are a crucial enabler of feminism, whether they know it or not.
bloggers and commenters have been furiously denouncing social conservatism as though it were defined by its opposition to game and MRA, when it’s not
Hermes, then you have to work hard to make sure that socons are not represented by Justin, Todd White, and Conor Fdorf? I have quoted actual sentences from them that I am sure you do not agree with. And unfortunately, they have made sure that the burden of proving that not all socialcons are like them falls on you.
Recall Welmer’s article on socialcons.
*Eumaios
TFH:
People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Libertarians and classical liberals from J.S. Mill to Will Wilkinson have been directly and intimately involved in promoting the current sexual marketplace. What exactly are you doing to make sure that they aren’t representative of your favoured political persuastion?
Eumaios, I agree that what a man emphasizes is important. I just have never thought of social conservatism as being defined by devotion to only social conservative causes to the exclusion of all other beliefs. Ergo, if you take SoCon positions on the salient issues of the day, you’re a SoCon, even if those issues aren’t paramount to you. Maybe I’m wrong about the general perception of what a SoCon is, though–maybe it’s time for a poll?
Hermes, then you have to work hard to make sure that socons are not represented by Justin, Todd White, and Conor Fdorf?
Again, I think you are making the mistake of defining social conservatism as opposition to game. Have any of those three individuals identified themselves as social conservatives? I had never heard of this Conor Friedersdorf guy before Ferdinand wrote that post about how he was a “social conservative who doesn’t get it,” and still don’t really know who he is, but it took about 10 seconds of Googling to turn up this article by him in which he endorses same-sex marriage. Pretty much by definition, anyone who is pro-same-sex marriage is not a social conservative.
As for Todd and Justin, I don’t know anything about them other than that they’re anti-game. Do you, or is that the sole basis on which you consider them social conservatives?
Recall Welmer’s article on socialcons.
Oh yeah, the one in the comments section of which I made the same points I’m making here, and in response you called me “Herpes” and a “jealous loser BetaCon,” said that I exhibited “deep shame from seeing social conservatism being exposed for what it is,” that I am “too afraid to hold women accountable for their actions, and [throw] men under the bus,” that I “have been exposed as being dangerously harmful to the well-being of the average man,” and that I arrived at my views by merely copying yours as a beta copies an alpha. How could I forget?
“As I explained earlier, I had nothing against Socons until 60 days ago, when some of them were PRECISELY opposed to Game and even MRA insights”
Really? Did you not hold all socons–and them alone– accountable for the alterations of the divorce laws? In that case, you ought to have held a grudge against them for some decades now. Or could it be that all this time you were only opposed to Pharisaical pseudo-socons?
Pons Seclorum: “an emphasis must be placed on finding and formulating counterarguments to cultural Marxism–the present bulwark of leftism–which engendered feminism.”
Yes. Do you read ESR’s blog, by chance?
TFH: “Eunious”
I feel a sock-puppet rising.
No, I am unfamiliar with ESR’s blog. What is the address?
Eumaios, I agree that what a man emphasizes is important. I just have never thought of social conservatism as being defined by devotion to only social conservative causes to the exclusion of all other beliefs.
No. What I am is a loyal swineherd. What I conjecture to be true overlaps substantially with the dogmata of those who may be termed social conservatives.
That would be my take. I, Humpty Dumpty-like, have been using the term SoCon to swing around a different concept than that I swing around with “social conservative”.
Yes.
The Fifth Horseman was wrong to say these things. Hermes, you are still arguing like a woman.
Pons: Armed and Dangerous
ESR == Eric S. Raymond, author of “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”. He probably has equal distaste for both social conservatives and pickup artists.
Thanks, Eumaios, the link worked. Can you recall any of his posts that address cultural Marxism?
*Any of the ones that really struck you, I should say. Searching the term proved abundant.
Pons, duh. I should have known. There are too many good posts for me to go browsing now. Instead, I offer you those culled from an email I once sent a Christian, libertarian, yet still Rand-ian friend.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=521
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1146
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1029
The one where ESR coins “prospiracy” may be relevant:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=67
Hermes,
I called you those things BEFORE you clarified that you are in favor of LTR Game (also revealing that you grasp what Game is).
But that episode shows you the cost that you bear due to the actions of the self-proclaimed representatives of social conservatism. So I repeat again, the burden of clarifying that you are not part of that (apparent) majority, unfortunately, falls on you.
And if you feel they do not represent the majority of socialcons, but are merely the most vocal, then you have your work cut out for you.
Eumaios, why do you say that I’m arguing like a woman? My best guess is that you think I bring these things up because my feelings have been hurt. But I haven’t said anything about my feelings. Rather, I’m trying to show the inconsistencies, fallacious reasoning, and outright absurdities in what TFH has said. (E.g., implying that becuase someone is a SoCon–i.e., they’re against abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage–they’re personally responsible for no-fault divorce.)
TFH,
I called you those things BEFORE you clarified that you are in favor of LTR Game (also revealing that you grasp what Game is).
And before I said that, did you have any reason to think that I was NOT in favor of LTR game nor grasp what game is? Or did you just think that because I was a social conservative, I must be anti-Game?
But that episode shows you the cost that you bear due to the actions of the self-proclaimed representatives of social conservatism. So I repeat again, the burden of clarifying that you are not part of that (apparent) majority, unfortunately, falls on you.
What cost is that, and what apparent majority are we talking about? Earlier you mentioned three people: Conor Friedersdorf, Todd White, and Justin. Assuming you accept my argument that Friedersdorf is not a SoCon, we’re left with two. I’m struggling to understand why you think two pseudonymous blog commenters who, to my knowledge, have never identifed themselves as social conservatives, are a representative majority of social conservatives.
You might think this is mere nitpickery, but what I’m trying to do is show that the definition of social conservatism has nothing to do with game, that SoConism does not necessarily need to be opposed to game, it’s not defined by putting women on a pedestal, and that rather than being read the riot act and treated as enemies merely for bearing the label of “SoCon,” SoCons should have game calmly explained to them so that they can see that the insights obtained thereby are useful in bringing about the very ends they desire.
So, Conor Friedsdorf is actually one of those fiscally conservative, socially liberal guys that TFH is always lauding as being in tune with game. Sweet. Add another one to the anti-game Will Wilkinson crowd.
Also, Todd White is a weird Randian with a (non-Christian) religious side. I don’t know his postitions on abortion or gay marriage, but he thinks Christianity should de-emphasize its opposition to premarital sex. He’s not a social conservative either.
Thursday,
Conor F and Todd White both call themselves ‘social conservatives’.
It seems that too many different people want to use that term, for some reason.
Hermes,
What cost is that, and what apparent majority are we talking about?
Simple. If those three call themselves socialcons, say a bunch of illogical and intellectually dishonest things, and then you call yourself a socon, you can naturally expect others to assume you are tied with them. Their behavior places a burden on you, unfairly, as long as you use the word ‘socialcon’.
If you support LTR Game, then you have more in common with the Game community than those three.
If merely agreeing that traditional gender roles and marriages are the only sustainable model for a society, than most of the Game community agrees with that. Roissy certainly does, as do I, Obsidian, and others.
——————————————-
In general, the category of people who would rather rail against men, condemn Game (while consistently refusing to learn what it even is), without even being remotely interested in holding women accountable for their actions, much less confront feminism, are the group I opposed as of August 2009. Eumaios arrived at a similar experience at the time.
It is those people, Hermes, that you should be confronting, whether you agree with them calling themselves socialcons or not.
Coming back to Welmer’s original article, he nails the point spot on.
Conor F and Todd White both call themselves ’social conservatives’.
You need to provide links. Google and searches of their websites come up with nothing.
Conor F and Todd White both call themselves ’social conservatives’.
To echo Thursday, do you have any citations for this?
I’d also like to know how you’d answer Pons Seclorum’s question about how you reconcile your statement that you had nothing against SoCons until August 2009 with your belief that they are directly responsible for no-fault divorce laws, which were passed in the USA in the 1970′s.
You need to provide links. Google and searches of their websites come up with nothing.
Both are satellites of Larry Auster, Todd White put himself out there as a socon in terms of challenging the Game community to a ‘debate’ (despite his painful demonstrations of not knowing what Game is). I seem to recall even you slamming for not reading the basic material for what Game is.
Regarding Conor, note how I say that sometimes, socialcons and manginas are indistinguishable. White-Knighting is the default behavior of both.
against SoCons until August 2009 with your belief that they are directly responsible for no-fault divorce laws, which were passed in the USA in the 1970’s.
Simple – I was unaware with how tacitly complicit they were with this until then. Welmer’s article, despite being brief, covers all of this.
Remember, it is not just me, and not just Eumaios. Obsidian wrote at length about the flaws of socialcons. So has Zed in a Spearhead comment. So has Doug1, so has Roosh, and I already mentioned Welmer.
Ask yourself what really happened in August of 2009. As Pons would say, do a punctilious study of the period.
Remember, Hermes, you have just two choices :
1) Challenge the perception they are creating about socialcons. This means confronting THEM about it, as most of the Game community considers socialcons to be a very big part of the problem.
2) Abandon the term ‘socialcon’, and call yourself something else. Much in the same way as ‘liberals’ are not liberal at all, but rigidly intolerant of dissent. As I said, the Game community is not opposed to traditional gender norms (and almost all voted for McCain), we just recognize their irreversible death via laws, and have adapted the to new reality.
TFH:
Nice dodge.
It was not a dodge at all.
At least 5 people with sympathies on the Game side of things wrote about what they concluded from the Aug 2009 ‘dustup’ between Game and socialcons.
So who were the socialcons in that battle?
Or are you disputing that the other side were socialcons at all?
If so, what are you going to do about the opinions held by the several people I mentioned, about socialcons, aside from me? Eumaios, Obsidian’s comment of the month, Welmer, zed, etc. etc.
“Simple – I was unaware with how tacitly complicit they were with this until then. ”
I have to nitpick as well here. Once you found out–however long ago that was–should you have not immediately developed some antipathy towards them–or at least the pseudo-socons? Usually when people discover that they were cheated, they tend to be promptly enraged.
“Abandon the term ’socialcon’, and call yourself something else. Much in the same way as ‘liberals’ are not liberal at all, but rigidly intolerant of dissent. As I said, the Game community is not opposed to traditional gender norms (and almost all voted for McCain), we just recognize their irreversible death via laws, and have adapted the to new reality.”
Very well. I would be fine with the designation of Old/Post right as distinct from those who pose as socons.
TFH,
Both are satellites of Larry Auster, Todd White put himself out there as a socon in terms of challenging the Game community to a ‘debate’ (despite his painful demonstrations of not knowing what Game is).
That’s not a dodge? You were asked to provide citations for Conor F. and Todd White calling themselves social cons, and this is your response? Do you realize you’ve just said that the way you know Todd White is a social con is that he’s anti-Game, which shows what I’ve been saying all along, that your definition of “social con” is nothing more than “person who is anti-Game” and is therefore a useless definition? BTW, since when is Conor Friedersdorf a satellite of Larry Auster? A search of VFR for “Friedersdorf” produces zero hits, and a search of The American Scene, where Conor now apparently blogs, for “Auster” produces zero hits. So I’m forced to conclude that you’re talking out of your ass.
Indeed, I’m seeing a pattern here:
TFH: Social cons are evil and destructive because they support no-fault divorce and oppose game.
Hermes: Being anti-game is not a defining tenet of social conservatism.
TFH: Yes, it is; I have three examples: Conor Friedersdorf, Todd White, and Justin.
Hermes: They’re not social conservatives.
TFH: Yes, they are.
Hermes: How do you know?
TFH: Because, they’re anti-game.
Hermes:
This means confronting THEM about it
OK, fine. I’ll take it up with them. Something tells that will be a lot more productive than this.
Oops, my in the last line of dialog there didn’t show because WordPress wanted to interpret it as a real HTML tag.
Third time’s a charm. I was trying to type (facepalm) but with the greater-than and less-than signs of HTML tags. Sorry for the extraneous comments, Ferdinand.
[...] opposition to gender realism and, by extension, game (which is nothing more then gender realism applied to everyday actions). Therefore, I suggest that the word pedestalization be used to describe the gestalt of these [...]
[...] Bardamu. I am reposting most of this on my blog for ease of reference, however the original post is here game (ˈgām), noun – a set of male behaviors, attitudes, actions, and strategies designed to [...]
Hermes,
Snark and point-scoring are women’s tactics. This is what I saw and responded to.
Re-reading the relevant comments, however, I see that I was not justified the second time I claimed you were arguing so.
[...] women. I’ve held that dominance is the natural outcome of good game, the result of taking its principles to heart. People frequently confuse being dominant with being controlling – the two are not [...]
Since I’ve had game played on me, yet again last night…I would like to reiterate what was stated in above comments. Know how to read your woman. Instead of approaching with a set game plan, sit back and allow her to show herself a bit and then decide what type, and to what degree of game you should use. Bitterness in NOT an attractive quality and lumping girls into a large pool, however often that it is indeed true that they will fit a stereotype, there are exceptions out there and one should be careful not to run with assumptions and tank the interaction altogether.
[...] what we find attractive in you, keep in mind that it’s also unfair that you get to determine what you find attractive in us. We can’t help our dicks any more then you can help your pussies. This is the Age of Flesh, [...]
[...] defined game as follows: game (ˈgām), noun – a set of male behaviors, attitudes, actions, and strategies designed to [...]
[...] I’d post this on Sunday, but Silas Reinagel’s post on the rules of inner game, using my definition as a template, is too good to wait: 1. Be Relaxed and Calm Whether meeting a new girl, or going on [...]
[...] Negative Gefühle sind kontraproduktiv: “It reeks of anger, bitterness, rage, and deep [...]
[...] to address three major areas that communicate alpha status: body language, psychosocial dominance (game), and [...]
[...] but beneath that gina-tingling gubernatorial mask lies the timid and weak soul of a non-alpha male. Dude needs game – [...]
[...] commonly discussed definition of inner Game is on In Mala Fide, and contains these basic traits: assertiveness, calmness, confidence, independence, indifference, [...]
[...] that’s EXACTLY what I was trying to express when I named “indifference” as one of the fundamentals of game months ago. Curse my Anglo-French literary [...]
[...] commonly discussed definition of inner Game is on In Mala Fide, and contains these basic traits: assertiveness, calmness, confidence, independence, indifference, [...]
[...] genetic differences between races. I’m a Gamesman who gets into girls’ pants by being all aloof and jerkish. I think feminism was a disaster for the West, and I believe that different peoples would be better [...]
[...] “The fundamentals of game” – It’s not about routines, negs, or dressing like an idiot. [...]