It needs repeating: the only way to defeat feminism is to defeat liberalism. And not only the liberal institutions, think tanks and corporations, but also in our hearts. Liberalism today is the enemy WITHIN. Stop thinking and acting like fecking liberals! Yes, I mean [you] libertine gamers and whining MRA´s!
- Bruce Banner’s comment on No More Fucking Game Blogs
I am hesitant to have this essay go live. I truly don’t know how it will be received. But if Ferdinand is serious about stirring up a big enough shit storm that ALL of feminism is shat upon with monkey feces, then we better get our monkeys in line and stop fighting each other so we can all shoot shit in the same direction!
This essay comes at a most critical time. A conflict is erupting in full force that until now had been lying dormant under the surface of the men’s movement, whispered only in dark corners and back alleys, with each protagonist sticking to their turf and being content with disparaging the other side in the company of comrades in arms without open battle. The recent and very open, public debate between Frost and Paul Elam has come at a critical time in the manosphere… to unite and join forces or to forever be our own worst enemies.
I speak of the growing divide between the MRA/MRM/MGTOW and Game/PUA blogging communities (here on out MRA and Game to keep it simple). But before I begin, I think an important caveat needs to be said and for all to keep in mind as they read this piece.
Hubris, sometimes spelled hybris (ancient Greek ὕβρις), is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, self-confidence, superciliousness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution. In ancient Greece, hubris referred to actions which, intentionally or not, shamed and humiliated the victim, and frequently the perpetrator as well. It was most evident in the public and private actions of the powerful and rich. The word was also used to describe actions of those who challenged the gods or their laws, especially in Greek tragedy, resulting in the protagonist‘s downfall.
Shall we begin?
First… I want to express both respect and admiration for all the individuals contributing to the men’s movement that is now gaining growing awareness in main stream consciousness. I recently spent a whole Saturday surfing numerous blogs that have sprung up unbeknownst to me. This is where I started, a simple enough link out on a comment on one of In Mala Fide’s fine articles: Johnny Milfquest’s Horn of Plenty. I just kept right clicking/new tabbing every author on subsequent blog rolls. Astounding… absolutely astounding how pervasive this community of rebel malcontents has become. I was not alone apparently as Delusion Damage recently did the same and has accumulated a MASSIVE blog roll of real time updating man-o-sphere posts.
Both the quality and quantity of writing, thought and debate is making a difference, despite what many a nihilistic 20-year old male might be thinking right now about his future and that of society in general. The individual contributions of men on both sides of the movement… those advocating for fair treatment, justice and an evolved masculinity for man (Paul Elam and the Zeta Male and Jack Donovan) and those advocating for total freedom from traditional (read religious/moral) restraints of any kind on male behaviour and what society (i.e. women) dare to impose or expect of them (as voiced most brazenly by the ever soft spoken Roissy and his sidekick Frost; I don’t know if Frost is Roissy’s sidekick, it just sounded good, don’t anyone get their panties in a bunch). There is also the contribution of the neutral(ish) voice of those men “going their own way.” I speak of Bill at The Spearhead and the great knowledge and awareness that his blog and contributing authors have made to the men’s movement thus far in doing what may be the most unrewarding and under-appreciated work of all… just exposing what is going on and leaving leadership and action to others. The Spearhead was one of the very first (I believe, you can correct me) men’s blogs that literally spearheaded the exposure of all the ills that feminism has wrought on western society. Without Bill’s work and that of his contributing authors and community… I don’t know if we would have the network of men’s blogs we have today.
To unite all these men, I am going to do my best to present both sides of the Frost vs. Paul debate that was, I must say, immature in their approach (i.e. typical chest thumping and claims of “the final word”). I am not immune to such behaviour myself so I am not knocking Paul or Frost, just showing it may not have been the best way to go about it this debate. Yet by the end, both Frost and Paul achieved an understanding and recognition of sorts now that both sides had finally had it out. This is what men do that woman will never understand — get all worked up to work shit out, not just bitch and complain only to get angry and pout when someone offers a solution to said bitching and complaining. This division in the ranks of men is also the very reason why women are able to maintain the upper hand in the sex war as this competitive nature that divides individual men is just not in them (except when it comes to a man ironically enough; woe to the man that gets in between two women fighting over him!) This is why feminism worked so fast and so effectively. Men, ten years on, are still blogging and working out the core principles and beliefs of our “movement.” But in conflict, there is opportunity. This recent lovers’ spat between both sides of the male divide has the appearance of division, but it could very well be the seed of unity. I hope this article will be a catalyst for that very process of regenerative cohesion that will unite all men into one unstoppable force. (If you will allow me my delusions of grandeur, heh.)
I think we should stop and reflect on all these contributors and give a mighty marine HOOAH! to what has been accomplished to date in fighting feminism and turning back the tide of delusion and disinformation about boys, men and masculinity.
With that rally out of the way, I wish to accomplish the following with this essay:
- To show the merits of Game in a way that MRAs, if they use reason, must admit has contributed to the progress of the men’s movement.
- To then do the same for the MRA side of the debate and ask that Game advocates humble themselves just a little in thinking Game is the only solution to the feminist problem that men face today.
- To show that BOTH sides, by yoking their strengths and discarding their differences, will be STRONGER in union than in persisting in division.
To accomplish #3, I am going to have to debunk and disprove some of the sticking points of conflict that both camps are clinging to in order to protect turf and status. Neither side is going to like or agree with what I have to say because it will mean letting go of some very deeply held beliefs that are core matters of dogma and faith to each respective temple of worship.
Before getting started, I want to illuminate the context of this current conflict, a context that is acknowledged to some degree on both sides. What we have here, as Axl Rose would observe, is failure to communicate.
Look at your young men fighting…
Look at your women crying…
Look at your young men dying…
The way they’ve always done before…
Look at the hate we’re breeding…
Look at the fear we’re feeding…
Look at the lives we’re leading…
The way we’ve always done before…
Remember… it is good men in the trenches that are going to win this fight. But we are not going to win if we keep turning on our brothers in arms to tear each other down.
The failure of communication is a generational gap in morals and values that these respective men simply cannot bridge because the “age” within which they formed their foundational life philosophies (true of false) are entirely alien. They live in different countries. Like a foreign language, these men are communicating but nothing is being understood because the basis for their thinking and reasoning is entirely different.
This author stands in the middle of this generational gap. I would like to think I am Tom Hanks’ character in Saving Private Ryan… a man, caught in a storm not of his own making, thrust into the position of having to try to lead men when he himself does not have a clue what to do. Leadership is not about knowing what to do. Leadership is about facing your fears and trying your best, knowing inaction is the evil that bedevils the soul of every man.
I am a Gen X’er. The non-generation, the generation with no identity. We were born of the 50′s culture of “father knows best,” but did not grow up wholy in it. Johnny Carson, Elvis, Marilyn Monroe and Yul Brynner were still very much a part of the cultural temperament and tenor of the times I grew up in. John Wayne was still very much in control of the wimmenz… or more accurately themselves as men. Look how HAPPY and FUNNY those times were when I was but an infant. Look at the RESPECT men garnered back then, between themselves and from others.
While there is obviously cross-over in age in terms of READERSHIP with respect to the demographics I have outlined, I am basing my claim of a generational gap in the two camps on blog AUTHORSHIP — i.e. the founders and creators of the blogs that advocate their respective positions. Bill and Paul… are not Ferd and Frost. Ironically… Jack Donovan seems to be in the Gen X camp I think as am I. A little on the outside of both the other two main spheres of activity in the male blogosphere and a lone voice of contrariness that neither advocates nor renounces the claims made by both sides.
As a Gen X’er, I find myself in the unique position of not belonging to either camp. No manosphere blog truly speaks to my view of the world. (I am also just a tad outside the norm anyway, so there may literally be no place for me.) The MRA camp whines and complains too much for my liking about the wrongs done to men by feminism and has this bizarre aversion to leadership or telling men what they should think/do in any form, which young men are actually looking for from the veterans of the feminist war of the past 50+ years. The Game camp on the other hand, seeing that no leadership is going to come from their fathers or the veteran men that are bruised and battered from divorce, are going their own way and charting a path of hedonistic glory only Alexander the Great could match. Sure, he may have conquered the Mediterranean and East Asia, but we… we have conquered the greatest frontier of all… female sexual behaviour and dynamics!!! It is no surprise their young heads are swelled with power and visions of free and easy pussy the rest of their single Player lives in a way older men could only dream of when they were young.
When a man gets that much power over anything, it goes to his head and clouds his thinking. His vision becomes blurred to the LONG TERM consequences of his actions. The MRA veterans can see where these young men full of piss and vinegar are headed, but because they refuse to take a leadership role and insist on fighting the injustices and wrongs of the past to a generation of young men that wants to forge their own future and put the match to Rome and watch it burn… the power of both camps is undisciplined and ineffective. One is tending toward anarchy, the other to irrelevance (in the sense that when society does collapse, there are no more wrong to right since there is no more society!)
That is not to say they are not having an effect. They clearly are. I am saying MORE discipline among all men will have an even GREATER EFFECT toward the goal of defeating feminism. And unity is precisely the discipline the men’s movement needs right now.
If we can unite these two power movements in the manosphere… there is nothing we can’t accomplish. When this movement of opted-out males collects itself into a philosophic fighting force and hits the beaches that is the feminazi mainland of Western society, we will storm down the gang plank, shoulder to shoulder, and take this fight all the way to the finish — the day when feminism will have to be looked up in the history books to be remembered and feminists seen as the most backward and retarded bunch of men and women God ever allowed to walk the face of the earth.
Are you still with me? Are you tired of the infighting? Are you prepared to allow some deeply held beliefs to be challenged and for reason to unite you with the brother you thought was your enemy?
Game and the PUA Life
As a philosophy toward life, I will make clear my bias up front — I think Game and the PUA lifestyle is a misguided philosophy for man to ultimately live his life by. That said… I recognize the UTILITY of Game as a TOOL, a means not an end, to solving the problem of removing the feminist cancer that is bringing Western civilization down on its very knees. Game is the swiss army knife that will solve any problem that comes a man’s way and his biggest problem has been and always will be — handling women.
While Game, with its total and complete understanding of a female’s psychology and mating behaviour, has its successful adherents that clearly demonstrate the TRUTH of its claims, Game itself has NO AUTHORITY over what is a man, what is masculinity or how a man should rightly conduct himself on this earth.
Game… is not a philosophy of man.
This is the error Game advocates make. Much like a hammer is not a philosophy on how to build a house, what that house should look like, or why you are building a house in the first place. Game is a tool, nothing more. Game is not optimal. It will take a man in this fight against feminism only so far. Game will be the weapon of choice in the fight on the beaches for some men, but not all. Alone, Game will not take the feminist beach and move men inland to the heart of enemy territory — politics, education and that one time revered institution called “the family.” These are matters of philosophy, not utility.
Just because something is TRUE, does not make it GOOD or JUST or RIGHT in the moral sense. This is where Game advocates go right off the rails. They fail to grasp or comprehend the MORAL aspects of Game because, as a member of Gen Y, they grew up without any morals at all. Religion is dead to them in a way that is not for me. Gen X grew up in a more religious culture than Gen Y did, which is pretty much either non-existent or wholly hypocritical. While not religious, I have not rejected religion or the intellectual concept of God and the moral reasoning that comes from it. For older MRAs that DID come from a strong religious culture (anyone born before 1970), if not personal belief or background… the idea of having moral opinions on Game is not foreign to them. To Gen Y, this lack of moral questioning has been disastrous and shows signs of never even being whispered as they get older because the moral questioning of society that was the realm and purview of religion is extinct in their world. What has replaced religion’s moral admonishments and warnings? Why, the feminist (atheist) mantra that all gender and culture is manmade, of course. Feminists then went about creating the new morality and value set for society and it has thoroughly fucked up an entire generation of young men and women into believing Jersey Shore is funny and even a lifestyle to strive for and emulate. Even if some young men and women don’t agree with Jersey Shore, they STILL THINK IT IS FUNNY, or something to ridicule in the narcissistic status seeking game they all play now. Rare… RARE… will it be for a young person to question the MORALITY, the RIGHTNESS, of a show like Jersey Shore, let alone gasp in shock and horror as I did when I first learned about it and researched just what “The Situation” was all about.
The moral question is precisely the point where Game runs into the MRA movement like The Rhino into Spiderman.
The above Spiderman is Teletoon RETRO for you, as are the Flintstones. The Flintstones was heavily 50s oriented with many traditional moral lessons about men and women and the importance of family. I watched Fred and Barney try to work out their partnership and relationship to Wilma and Betty EVERY DAY after elementary school at 4:30 pm. There was no Nintendo or Sega Genesis to babysit me. These cartoons are fond childhood memories for me and all of them had MORAL LESSONS.
But Generation Zero sees things differently. The YouTube comment on the above Spiderman clip (“I… ghost jerking motion… am the Rhino.”) would never have entered my head. But it would for Generation Zero. It’s a fundamental culture shift in ATTITUDE toward sexual mores and values. I would not think of linking that particular Rhino animation to masturbation, but younger men do and without a second thought (it’s so obvious!). I want Game advocates to THINK ON THAT point. I would never THINK or SEE masturbation in that animated cartoon, or any cartoon for that matter. The reason why is because I was not bombarded with sexual imagery and fantasies from birth to adolescence. As a teenager, I had to get my hands on a PHYSICAL copy of Playboy if I wanted to see some titties. You guys can turn on your damn smartphones and can have STREAMING HARDCORE VIDEO PORN anywhere and anytime you want! This overt sexual environment has affected your attitude about yourself, about men and women, about family and about life in a way Gen X and many older Baby Boomers simply cannot relate to. I want you under-30s to think on this deeply as Mushashi would advise.
Just like the Rhino hitting that train… the train is the moral question of Game. This is what MRAs are trying to warn you about. They are forcing you to ask MORAL QUESTIONS about wanton and reckless sexual behaviour and irresponsibility and the consequences of your puffed up rooster behaviour that will come home to roost one day… which is INEVITABLE. MRA advocates like Paul Elam have enough maturity and outlook on life to know sex and getting laid DOES NOT make you a man and has nothing to do with masculinity. There… I said it.
Unfortunately, MRA advocates get their clock cleaned in the first round by Rhino Game and with good reason. No one messes with the Rhino and gets away with it. The “top secret” technology that Game has stolen from Mother Nature about females deludes them into thinking they have the wisdom and strength to defeat that MRA do-gooder Spiderman who is the enforcer of moral questions. A do-gooder they see as religion/morality cloaked in masculine terms that STILL wants to white-knight them into some sexual moral code straight-jacket, even if that moral code has no resemblance to chivalry or the religious 50′s traditional past in any way. Game sees the MRA as a call for them to curb their hedonism and walk a path that smacks of paternalism and male “responsibility.” Game advocates say the Spidey way is the way of the Beta male… fighting battles of societal morality and responsibility that for them no longer exist. Peter Parker was after all just an AFC, was he not?
This is why Paul Elam’s article titled “Chateau Bullshit” elicited such visceral reaction from the Game community. It was Spiderman attempting to web wrap the Rhino on his sexual rampage. But what the Rhino wants, the Rhino gets and right now, no amount of moral webbing is going to hold these young men back from getting what they want.
But that is a Marvel cartoon… not the reality of the men’s movement against feminism.
In the manosphere, The Rhino (Game) and Spiderman (MRA) are not enemies.
Unfortunately, Paul used high-and-mighty bombastic language that insulted instead of communicated. Again, I have been guilty of such behaviour myself so I am not knocking Paul’s approach, just pointing out it may have not been the best way to make his point. A little Spidey humour may have gone a long way. That is always what I liked about Spiderman… forever the exposer of hypocrisy in the most comical and self-deprecating manner.
The MRA… for all its bluster of Game advocates being nothing but “slaves to pussy” are missing the whole point of Game. It is the KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING about the nature of woman that is what is important to the men of Generation Zero and to this men’s movement as a whole. Game is the secret plutonium that Doc acquires to run the DeLorian time machine that throws Marty back to an era and age of normal male/female social interaction i.e one of RESPECT for gender differences and roles.
If you go back to the 50s, what Game advocates are learning in order to attract women was, for most men, common knowledge by stereotype and cultural norms, if not outright biological study and observation that todays young men have gone about acquiring their knowledge. Be the man. Sure… all the 50′s man had was that one philosophical axiom, not the science and art that Game is today for Generation Zero, but that was the whole point of Paul’s article. For MRAs… for Paul’s generation of men and older… getting laid IS NOT A BIG DEAL. Sex is not the sole focus of life because that was not the CULTURE they were brought up in. They don’t really have to think about it because, to some degree, they HAVE an innate sense of masculinity that harkens back to the days when men were men and women were women. Sure, Paul does not have the ability to know when to Phase Shift or isolate his target, but he doesn’t need to. He just does it. Game is a reality because there are NO MORE MASCULINE ROLE MODELS for young boys to look up to to pattern their behaviour on in order to “just know what to do.” Ditto for young girls. Again, I hope Gamers will study this in earnest.
All Paul and the MRA are saying to the Game community is… relax. Not getting laid won’t be the end of the world. That, and focusing on sex will be to the detriment of the whole of your life.
That said, no one wants to go back to the days when sex was a mystery until marriage, although there is sound arguments for at least TRYING to keep it in your pants a little while and get to know a girl for a fuller and more rewarding sex life. What I am advocating is that much of the male apocalypse we are now struggling through is due to the very lifting of those 1950′s patriarchal restrictions, not just on women, but on men as well! Family… long lived, monogamous marriages… are important to the structure of CIVILIZED society. A key to this was LIMITED sexual partners and taking the time to GET TO KNOW one another before getting naked. There was also a division of sex roles and responsibilities. The 1950′s man and woman took it for granted that there was MORE to life than just sex. Today’s twentysomething? “What? More to life than porn and my XBOX? Are you freaking nuts old man?”
Back to the Future is an awesome film, and interestingly, it is placed in 1985… THE VERY YEAR I would declare to be the dividing line between the MRA and Game community. I came before 1985 and was raised in a 1950′s household that ignored the feminist storm of the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s. While some families were sunk in that divorce storm, not all were. Anyone born well before or after 1985 is living in a different universe and that is why they can’t see each other’s point of view.
Game will defeat feminism, just not by itself. There, I said it. Not because it gets a man laid, but because it has cracked the mystery that is the female and her sexual/mating habits. It will allow men to define a masculinity based on SCIENCE and OBSERVATION from experiment. The knowledge of Game goes FAR BEYOND merely getting laid. It is espionage of the highest degree, like a coach stealing the other teams playbook, on how women think and behave as a FEMALE, the other half of the genus Homo sapiens. What men of the 50′s knew as “woman” was stereotyped convention and religious upbringing, but it was accurate and we can see those same masculine/patriarchal values in Game that work to get women to submit and follow a man just as religious convention and gender stereotype did back then.
What young men know today from Game is from science and broad observation, study and experiment collected all over the internet for any man to study, incorporate and verify as true for himself. The two views of women (traditional/religious and Game) are very similar, but the application is going to be radically different. Game is also giving the very tools most fathers, Marty’s in Back to the Future especially, did not have to pass on to their sons in order to succeed with women. Such tools as the following:
- Accepting the nature of female hypergamy and working with it, not against it
- Knowing that a woman’s ACTIONS in choice of men are more important than what a woman says about she wants in a man
- The importance of FEELING to a woman and, if you give her the right feelings, sex is a no-brainer
- That displays of alpha male characteristics can be learned and are indistinguishable to most females from the real thing
- Shit tests, frame, negs, kino, IOIs, phase-shifting, AMOGing
- Ignoring the primary target, take-away and reward
- Not falling for her attempts to get you to “pay” to be with her like a traditional chump
- Maintaining frame, always guiding the interaction with a woman from the very start
This is what MRAs who throw out Game without studying it are missing. The vital knowledge that will PROVE feminism is a false paradigm and that patriarchal masculinity IS the very foundations of CIVILIZED society, not some cooked up scheme to “oppress” women. Game accurately shows the true nature of the male/female dynamic. A science that until the 21st century, was only accepted as religious dogma or gender stereotype. This is vitally important to defeating feminism.
MRAs ignore this knowledge to their own detriment. Understanding how the female mind works could not have happened before the Internet. Let’s face it… no father could teach this to their son because most fathers had no clue when it came to women aside from again, stereotype and religious/cultural norms. The only place a young lad might hear of “game” back then would be from locker room boasts of conquest (or trying to be invisible when such talk came up). Other then that, most men kept their mating strategies to themselves as it was such a potentially embarrassing, emasculating and shaming subject to bring up with a dude friend. “You mean you don’t know how to get laid?” Before the Internet, the depth and the breadth of discussion about how females choose and mate with various males would never have happened in the “perfect” world of the 1950′s or even 1985. Those men succeeded only because the culture of the time encouraged men to be men and women women. Sadly, those days are gone and will never return. So for the MRA to advocate nothing more than taking a shower, smelling good and to ignore women… boggles and insults the mind of a man in his 20′s, especially if he has Game.
So young men turned away from their fathers and to the Internet. It was the first place where male discussion about such a topic could remain anonymous. Men could openly discuss their frustrations and failings with women over and over and over again until they got the female figured out. This is where some of the first Game and PUA forums got there start. The founding one (or at least where I began my knowledge journey) was SoSuave.
This is what the older MRA generation does not get… and I think are also jealous of. They simply never had the kind of tools, techniques and most importantly… SUPPORT of other men to get laid as the younger generation of men now have and I think it pokes at their pride and insecurity a little about their successes with women in the past. Sure, older MRAs get laid… but if what these young buck Game gurus are saying is true… these boys are getting laid by more women and higher quality pussy than every before in history… and they can REPEAT that success like a machine! THAT is just a little too damaging to the ego of any man still struggling to get laid or wondering if the quality and number of women he does get “naturally” (i.e. shower, smell good and ignore women) are ALL that he is ever going to have access to.
So let me make what I just said clear. I believe some MRAs are jealous of Game. Just acknowledge this… don’t get angry or pompous about it… and MOVE ON.
Wow… I just checked the old SoSuave forums. Maximus is still there! Old posts, 2000, but if you are a member there, just search for my user name. I found one post I commented on and linked it below. The post was by Anti-Dump. This was the days BEFORE Game became a phenomenon. I don’t think PUA or Game as terms were coined or in wide use yet. The forum tone was much more open and inquiring, sharing and supportive, especially before 2000 when it was really underground. In a few short years, the Papas and Tyler Durdens took over and it became one big dick swinging turf war over who had the best Game in town. I got in just as Game and PUAs were to burst on the scene in LA as detailed in the book by Neil Strauss – The Game. In a few short years, SoSuave degenerated into what Game advocates are accused of being… scripted robots, slaves to pussy. Again, not ALL Game advocates and PUAs are slaves to pussy… but that is what you are after, is it not? MRAs… have different goals. Being told this is not an insult, it is just a fact and Gamers need to chill just a little and also… MOVE ON.
I put this out there for those in the Game community to show that I am fully familiar with the concepts, techniques, tools and what the philosophy of Game is all about. I may not be aware of how it has changed since, oh, 2003 or ’04 when I left the community… but I was there from the beginning, like you, just wanting to at least get a date. And yes, I realize even using the term “date” dates me, but that is the very reason I am not a Game advocate nor an MRA. I still believe dating to be a GOOD thing for men and women to do and that women are not all the evil both camps claim them to be.
Sadly… for all the praise given to the likes of Roosh and Roissy, much of their writing is on just that — getting pussy. Look at any of the posts and comments on a Game blog. The goal is… to get laid. Laid a lot, by “high quality 9s and 10s” as Frost puts it I believe. I spent a whole Saturday like I said going over these Game blogs. There was a lot discussed about improving one’s life, but the overall theme…. sex, sex and more sex!
There is nothing wrong with this. Hell, sign me up!
But is that it? Is Game enough of a life changing and enlightening philosophy to actually rid men of the evils of feminism? To be a guiding philosophy for a man’s life? To progress society forward and for the better? Let’s not fool ourselves… Game is claiming to be a LIFE PHILOSOPHY which means there are metaphysical claims being made about “man” and “woman” that are going to guide EVERY DECISION a man makes in life.
I will quote at length here the post by Anti-Dump I commented on back in 2000.
He asks for a girl’s phone number when he FIRST meets or sees her. Not one month later.
He always asks for the HOME phone number. He walks away if he doesn’t get it.
A Don Juan always waits four or more days before calling a girl. She must wait.
A Don Juan never arranges a date face-to-face with a girl. He always calls first. She must wait and wonder about him.
He sees a girl ONLY once a week for the first three weeks. He has to ‘clear’ his dates with other women. Or pretend he is busy with other women. He says he is busy if she wants more.
A Don Juan never gives flowers, cards, or gifts for the first two months. Her birthday is the only exception .
He never talks over an hour with a women on the phone. EVER. Twenty minutes is tops. He avoids contact with her. With e-mails and messages, etc. between dates. He calls once to arrange the next date.
During the first three months he tells her NOTHING about himself. She has to ask. When asked, he gives only tiny itty bitty pieces.
He waits for her to say ‘I love you’ first. Then he knows she really means it.
A Don Juan never says ‘I love you’ before two months. Ever.
A Don Juan NEVER proposes before six months. He prefers to wait one year. All minor flaws must be seen.
A Don Juan never lives with a women. He is a free man. He will marry the BEST when he meets her.
A Don Juan only FOCUSES on the romantic side of a women. He knows long talks lead to friendship not LOVE. He knows being a mystery fascinates her and makes her WONDER and WANT him.
And lastly, a true Don Juan makes sure the relationship is 50-50. HALF of the time she is doing what HE wants to do. He feels this in his stomach. Not head.
AD
This is my transition point in this essay… the pivot that Game vs MRA infighting hinges on and I want to blast this divide to smithereens as any good Navy Seal demo man would do to advance his boys deeper into enemy territory.
Notice that Anti-Dump is not offering advice on how to be a master PUA and the methods of breaking LMR (last-minute-resistance) to simply get laid — as Style and Mystery teach and much of the Game community is obsessed with. Check that LMR link… websites like that were non-existent when I got into “the game” and LMR may not even have been a term yet.
Notice that Anti-Dump is not adopting the “take a shower, smell good, ignore women” approach of Paul Elam and the MRA movement as all a man needs to do to get laid. He has rules. He has game. Anti-Dump also seems to think there IS a good woman he can find that will work with his life and make a good relationship/marriage partner. He does advocate marriage and he does genuinely like women, unlike the MRA or Game communities that spit in disgust every time they hear woman or marriage spoken.
Remember… I was not going to let EITHER camp in this debate get away without a few smacks of humility.
Anti-Dump advocates the truly masculine path… the middle way.
His focus was not sex… but respect! His goal was not to get laid, but FIND A WOMAN THAT ACTUALLY LIKES HIM. Of course, he wanted to get laid as much as any man and that requires discipline (i.e. Game). But without self-respect (MRA), all the pussy you get is for naught. You are in the end just a dildo for her pleasure no matter how well you Gamed a woman into giving up the poontang.
The future of the men’s movement has to be about sexual self-respect and asserting a strong, re-definition of masculinity that is not ideological, but based on what we know about men as a gender from science and creating a new philosophy through rational discourse on the nature of man.
A lot of that new definition of man is going to come from the Game community about what women respond to and like/admire/adore/love/crave/obsess/hate about in a man.
Game is about throwing the old moral code of chivalry and religious sexual restraint out the window in favour of as much pussy as one can turn feminine last-minute-resistance into hedonistic erotic bliss.
MRA is also, ironically enough, about throwing out the old moral code of chivalry and religious sexual restraint, but it seems to want to forever languish in cries and battles of unfairness and injustice due to feminism while refusing to outright declare any absolute masculine/dominion nature to man over woman. If man is “responsible” for woman, that is traditional white-knight dogma they reject, even if it is true!
Sadly, MRAs are attempting to take the high ground by denying the very tool that will allow them to make man’s dominion, not dominance, over woman permanent in the future. Remove Game, you remove the very tool that will keep a woman in her proper place… submissive and happy!
But those who practice only Game will hit a wall in their personal development because your life is still trapped in the script of Game. You are never a truly free and empowered masculine male when you are forever scanning for shit tests and asserting frame in the correct way and manner to maintain control of a relationship. Ergo, you have not made Game NATURAL… you are not a natural masculine male.
Those who advocate the MRA path of “shower, smell good, and ignore women” will never appreciate the subtle dynamics that drive women toward one man or another. They will never have the full picture, only the appearance of knowledge of the female, not the actual knowing.
Here is how I think Paul should have opened his “Chateau Bullshit” article. He should have adopted the wisdom of Bruce Lee and appealed for simplicity, while at the same time acknowledging the merits of Game for which Bruce Lee was adamantly opposed (i.e. the fundamental basics and techniques of wing chun that led to JKD).
The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity.
Before I studied woman and getting laid, a female was just boobs and pussy, getting laid a matter of doing what my friends did, my father advised, or whatever I thought might work. It generally worked out ok.
After I learned the art of seduction that is the PUA lifestyle and Game, a woman was no longer just a female with boobs and pussy. Getting sex was now a science, an art, a riddle solved and to be solved as many times as I could solve it!
Now that I understand the nature of woman and getting laid, a woman is just a female with pussy and boobs, and sex is really not that big a deal and something I need to devote anymore time to understanding or pursuing.
This is the needed hubris of Game and the PUA life. You priests and proselytizers of Game… Bruce Lee did MOVE ON and become more than his wing chun techniques, strategies and understanding. He TRANSCENDED his art and became something wholly unique, with a purpose and drive all his own and the creative force to accomplish anything he set his mind to once he freed it. Bruce’s sole purpose in life was to be the most complete human being he could be. To do that, he had to break free of ALL conditioning, to become the unconditioned. Game… is holding you back. Game… is a conditioned way of life. Why are you afraid to break free?
MRA and Men Going Their Own Way
Right up front, the hubris the MRA community commits… is the same as Bruce Lee in the opposite to that of the Game camp. Gamers are caged by the techniques and tradition that have built up around Game. MRAs reject Game. But without wing chun, Bruce would not have had the solid foundation of martial arts knowledge to go on and master and create his own style. This is what the MRAs don’t get about the advantages of knowing and practicing Game… mastery of the female mating mind and total knowledge of woman’s sexual nature!
Bruce Lee could claim to be free of the limitations of conditioned responses and traditional patterns of the martial arts of his heritage because he had mastered them so completely, they were now limiting his freedom to fight. MRA advocates refuse to acknowledge Game in any serious way and this is their hubris. They refuse to believe there are any rules to follow to be successful with women and that the Game of dating/sex is not something one should obsess over. In some way, they are saying they are “above and beyond” Game and that irks the Game community to no end. This was the same argument Bruce Lee advocated about the merits of JKD. But, Bruce WAS a master at wing chun. Many MRAs refuse to study or even try to apply the principles of Game to their life and interactions with women. Is it any wonder then that they balked in outrage at being told all one needs to know to get laid is to take a shower, smell good and ignore women?
It is like training with Bruce and when he corrects your technique… you say you already know how to kick. Sure, maybe you do, but if you don’t open your mind, empty your tea cup as it were, you might never truly attain mastery of a kick, just mere competence as was implied in Paul’s article.
The young men of today in this men’s movement are not interested in mere competence, they want to master women and life and to that degree, I think MRAs need to give the Game community some respect and credit for what they have learned and accomplished.
But to you Gaming PUAs and your suave moves and pea-cocking ways… listen up.
There is a chance… a small chance… that the man whose kick Bruce Lee is attempting to correct in technique might also have something to teach Bruce about WHY he is learning to kick in the first place (i.e. what it means to be a man). In perfecting his fighting style, Bruce did have a childish need to “prove” to everyone he met that his style was the best and most effective in a fight. It was an obsession of his, to prove the old ways are all wrong and limiting and that he had “the answer” to freeing the martial artist from tradition and the box of kata/form that is conditioned response. But I wonder how often Bruce asked himself why he was fighting in the first place? What was the purpose of perfecting his stance and feints? Just to win a fight? Is Game and the attainment of sex with any female you desire the end of all your practice and dedication?
We are our fathers. Time proves this to be so. We are also unlike them in so many ways as to be hardly compared. Then we look in the mirror of self-reflection and there it is… Dad… staring right back at us. It is the quintessential paradox of nature and nurture. As much as we try to escape our past, we keep running right back to it.
Gamers most likely had fathers who were wholly incompetent with women and under their stiletto heel. In the case of Generation Zero… most likely also entirely absent. If their Dads had Game, they would not need to study Game… it would be in their blood. Game is about taking the average male and giving him the knowledge and techniques of the “alpha” male to win the heart of the ladies.
MRAs most likely had fathers who had self-respect and some Game, but who harboured a seed of inadequacy in comparison of his life to other men in the brutal competition for mates and money that allowed him to attain the level of self-respect he did achieve. Any analysis of griping and complaining about what has been “done to me” is usually rooted in jealousy and low-self esteem. Sure, there are legitimate claims of injustice due to feminism to be made, but a masculine man does not stay there… he moves on and OVERCOMES all injustice and the bad hand dealt to him in life.
I had a father that was neither successful or not with women (I am here, so clearly, the man got some), nor thought of himself as deficient or superior in any way to other men. He was simply… a man. Neither good nor bad. Strong nor weak. Of note or of no consequence. He lived his life according to truth, love, compassion, hard word and most importantly… respect. I know I have fallen short of his meritorious example in many ways… but I also know I have excelled him in his faults and self-doubts which he did his best to keep hidden from me with a brave face.
This next generation of men… have the duty to do what our fathers never had the opportunity to do before.
We are going to have to rebuild what being a man and masculinity is… from the ground up… now that feminism has almost completely destroyed it. The myths of chivalry and paternal responsibility of the past have been shattered. An ethos of hedonism and nihilistic rage and rebellion are taking root, but hedonism and rebellion will not make for a PEACEFUL, HAPPY AND JUST SOCIETY.
There is a reason that older men in the MRA are constantly harping on Gamers to cool their jets and keep their pants on.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT GOT THEM INTO TROUBLE!!!!
Sex… the desire for it and the pursuit of it… is what gets every man into trouble eventually. At the minimum, it will bring him problems and a restriction to his freedoms.
Remember, the Baby Boomers are of the 60s generation of free “love,” sexual hedonism and “rebellion” against the powers that be. Anyone over 30 could not be trusted right? Well, look at the end result… an entirely fucked up generation of adults, children and grandchildren barely surviving as they continue to believe they are entitled to every last penny and widget the world has to offer them.
How did Boomers get this way?
They threw off the chains of sexual moral constraints, as feminists declared they should do. They abandoned traditional gender roles for being a man and woman, as feminists declared they should do. Screw the man! I am not going to turn into my parents. I refuse to conform to the religious and traditional moral code of oppression and tyranny of “the man!!!”
Sound familiar, Gamers?
These Baby Boomers, when the feminist nightmare was unleashed, did what men always do… conform to whatever women want in order to get laid. That meant bending over backwards to ensure Jill was not “oppressed” anymore by Jack.
But Gamers are not like the boomers. We reject feminism. We reject conformity to women. We reject anyone telling us how to live our lives, especially our sex lives, feminist or traditionalist. We are defining a new masculinity that is free of any historical baggage.
Uh huh… and look at yourselves. Here are the words of Axl Rose once again for clarity…
Look at the hate we’re breeding…
Look at the fear we’re feeding…
Look at the lives we’re leading…
All of you… every last die hard advocate of Game… all have the same mission in life: to get as much sex as you can from as many women as you can bed. To do this, you are MOLDING yourselves to FIT what the female wants TODAY, just like your father did, just like his grandfather did. No matter how many other areas of your life you do improve, the sole focus and underlying philosophy toward life via Game is… to get laid. It is breeding a culture of fear and hatred of the female that MRAs are also contributing to. Look… at the lives you are leading.
THIS is what the Boomer MRAs are trying to warn you about. Stop letting your penis lead your life. It does not matter how much you have accomplished in freeing yourself from the feminist matrix. If the FIRST THOUGHT on your mind when you see a hot babe is how to enter into a set with a contextual opener perfect for the environment and then find a way to approach her from an angle and deliver it in passing over the shoulder to show you are not hitting on her and are about to leave… you are a scripted robot obsessed with sex.
This is all Paul was trying to tell you in his “Chateau Bullshit” article.
And naturally… because he spoke the truth… your HUGE EGO could not take it.
Paul and other MRAs are also doing there best to WARN you Playas how DANGEROUS it is to go around fucking women like no tomorrow TODAY.
Never mind the REAL risk of contracting an STD, it is the CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT itself that you are playing in that you are wantonly ignoring to your own peril. The culture of false rape accusations and zero tolerance of sexual harassment. In fact… it just got a whole lot more dangerous for men on campus that Paul is desperately trying to warn you guys about.
Brown University declares due process dead
“You need to check your behavior carefully before you enter into a relationship with a woman. There will be no due process if you are accused of rape. The woman’s version of what happened will always be accepted over the man’s account.”
If you think this will be ONLY on campus, you are in for a rude awakening. THIS THE FUTURE of all male-female relations in the Western feminist matrix. Just ask this fourth grader who was suspended after calling his teacher ‘cute’.
You Gamers are potential sex addicts and it is going to get you into trouble some day. Yes, some of you are. Roosh would be a prime example, or would be in the book Bang. So was Neil Strauss in The Game. When the red pill of Game is swallowed and a man gets a little success with women… he goes right off the rails and wants to fuck every woman within eyesight that he can successfully ‘game.’
The MRAs are trying to warn you Gamers…
Play with matches long enough… and you are GOING TO GET BURNED!
It is a MORAL exhortation and warning.
Oh, not me. I have tight Game. I know how to handle my women.
Sure you do. Read the above Brown University quote again. Our Western society of ‘freedom’ is giving due process a full kick in the ass out the door. Especially when it comes to men and their choice or not to even approach a girl and say hello. (Or for a fourth grade boy to say his teacher is ‘cute.’)
“One of the stumbling blocks I repeatedly have over discussions of street harassment is that much of the time, on paper, it’s doesn’t look like harassment. Hell, much of the time what makes me uncomfortable isn’t harassment.
Much of the time, what makes me uncomfortable is hello.”
Hello can get you accused of sexual harassment today. In the future, it might even be called a pre-crime to rape! (Logically, if you said hello to a woman, and you are a man, a man who desires sex, and all men are capable of rape, your hello was a potential act of rape, or so the argument would go.)
How the fuck is “Game” going to counter that? Hell, soon just looking at a woman from across the room, even if only a scan of the room with no direct focus on her… if SHE feels you are ‘looking’ at her… she will have the boys in blue putting you in handcuffs and making sure your head hits the roof of the squad car to teach you a lesson in manners and proper etiquette toward the female gender.
Look, I am not saying don’t go out and interact with women or try to get as much pussy as you feel you deserve. There is no reason to FEAR woman as some MRAs advocate. Some MRAs go too far and think cutting off all contact with women is the only answer in our feminazi culture, much like you guys think Game is the only answer to counter it. Neither extreme approach will work.
What I am saying and the MRA is trying to warn you Gamers about… is that you are running around with matches in a pool of gasoline. Sure, as long as you don’t drop any matches, you will be ok… but the FUMES are there… and in the rigid and closed politically correct and enforced culture of Western feminist society… the fumes are only BUILDING and getting more and more impossible to avoid being sparked by any match in the room, dropped or not.
To also nix any STD talk about the dangers of sex that many MRAs advance as the primary reason Game advocates need to keep their pants on (as this seems to be an area of huge contention)… while real… they are, I believe, overblown. In my own research and talking to my doctor, the impression is if you touch a girl with something, you will get it. The truth is, EVERY person will be different in their susceptibility to STDs and STIs. Any STD/STI has to be ACQUIRED. There is a study ongoing about sex workers in Africa who are CONTINUOUSLY exposed to men with AIDS… but do not contract the disease as a possible source of immunization from their blood in the future. This science is still in its infancy, but the idea that “one contact” is all it will take, while true, is not 100% applicable to every person and every sexual encounter. Your susceptibility to catching anything is probably going to be a combination of factors that include: your overall health, the strength of your immune system (for HPV for instance), how many partners you have and their sexual history, and how risky you are even with protection. I recently had a condom slip almost entirely off and that has never happened to me before. There was a brief time I was unprotected. How long? Probably only a few strokes, I don’t really know. The point is… IT DID HAPPEN! I also climaxed very shortly after pulling out to relax which means, if I had not and IF the condom had slipped completely off… I would have blown my load INSIDE and had my swimmers steam-bolting for the end zone and a possible touchdown.
I know for a fact you guys practicing Game will have such an experience and probably have already. If not now, one day, no matter HOW CAREFUL you are. You will get caught up in the moment, lose yourself, and “Oooppssss.” And no matter how “safe” you are… with enough partners, you are going to come into contact with STDs. Think about the kind of women you are fucking… the ones you “sarge” at the clubs… do you really think your Game is that good you are within single-digit partner status with any of these girls?
And that is all it will take… one oops with the wrong girl. You are a daddy and the full force of the law will be upon you, or, you will be getting a call that your latest lab test “found something the doctor would like to speak to you about.” Do you really want EITHER of those phone calls?
Even worse, you will have done EVERYTHING right, and when you collapse in a heap she will offer to ‘dispose’ of the condom for you… and zip, inside the baby oven go your swimmers anyway.
Think you can avoid this? Make her swallow and always dispose of the condom yourself tied up in a nice little bow?
You are missing the point.
Let me allow a fellow Gamer nail the point home.
Her: “I knew you were a sure thing.”
Me: “Hahaha. Moi?”
Ok, ear plugs? Check. A shield of some sort to deflect flying objects of rage? Meh… I will just duck and weave, I am pretty agile. Ready to take a punch? Only if Game-boy wants to take on a black belt, but sure, I think I can handle whatever comes my way.
The above is from a real-time narrative of a hook-up related by the above Game blogger in ‘scoring’ with his first groupie. A woman that is a fan of his Game blog and heard of him in some way. I only highlighted the above from the post because it makes my point crystal clear.
The girls you game, most of them… ALREADY KNOW THE SCORE!
You are, to be blunt… an easy fuck for these women.
You are a dildo to MANY of these women. All that “Game” does is ensure she KNOWS you are not some clingy nice-guy that is going to want a relationship with them. You are not tricking a woman into sex. She is USING YOU for sex! Go and read the whole post. You can see her lead this guy around like a dog on a leash. And like a dog to his dinner bowl, he behaved exactly as she expected him to and was rewarded with a doggy treat… some pussy. “I knew you were a SURE THING.” Think on that statement deeply.
“Great!” you say. “What do I care? I get laid, so does she, we are both happy.”
Are you really? I read somewhere that people in the porn industry, men and women both, are really just desperate for someone to love them. All the overt sexuality is a cover for inner insecurity about being loved in any deep and meaningful way by another person. Sure, maybe some girls can’t see you coming and Game gets you into trouble because she develops things like “feelings” and you have to “manage expectations” as Game teaches you to do.
But that just proves my point. You are avoiding her feelings and suppressing yours. In the case of those wonderful slutty girls that know the score and are glad to find a male-slut who “gets it” and just wants to get laid… well, congratulations. You are now both emotionless, mutual, masturbatory dildos for one another.
But, we feel emotion. Sex is emotional. We just don’t get all tied up by our emotions or let them rule our lives in any way. What is wrong if both people consent and are having fun?
Nothing. Nothing at all. The problem is… that is the EXACT delusion FEMINISTS want to have pervade the whole of society. Sex is just random hook-ups and flings. No bonding, no love, no children and God forbid “family” that comes with marriage and long-lasting companionship and also the attendant RESPONSIBILITY of BOTH SEXES.
Game advocates that focus SOLELY ON SEX… are playing RIGHT INTO the feminist end game.
This is not taking ANYTHING AWAY from Game and what it has unearthed about the nature of woman, the female. It is just pointing out the end game that Game is leading you boys to… total feminist domination over the whole of society. We can even see how some Game advocates are speaking the same language of feminists and their utopia for society…
Absolute freedom of contract between the sexes in matters of sex and marriage.
- Freedom Twenty-Five
Ok Gamers, tell me… how does the above NOT SOUND like the first commandment of feminism?
Ok, are you settled down now? Breathe. Jesus, did you ever break a lot of shit! You almost clocked me with your MacBook! And if I had not tripped you up and aikido’ed you into the couch ass-over-tea-kettle, you might have sent me to the hospital.
Look…
I and other MRAs are not saying you can’t do whatever the fuck you want. It’s your life.
God knows, if there was a generation of young men with MORE REASON THAN EVER to simply say FUCK OFF to the whole of society… it is you.
All I am saying… all the MRA is saying… is stop for a minute. Look at your life. Look at the woman next to you that you just Gamed into giving up what she used to believe and once thought was special and important enough to give to only one man she loved who would care and provide for her for the rest of her life… and yes, this was a BELIEF SYSTEM and not her feminine nature… and ask yourself the questions.
- Is this really what you want the men’s movement to be about?
- Is this really what you want future relations between men and women to be like?
- Is random sex, no marriage, no children, no family… really going to be in the best LONG TERM interests for society?
No… of course not. Right now, marriage and family is suicide. You are young, horny and have the skills and cojones to fuck beautiful women anytime, anywhere, and on your terms.
But you can’t stay there forever.
You will have to grow up. You will have to… gasp… man up.
Yes, I just said man up and to the ire of both MRAs and Gamers. If you are angry at being told to do so, that is because YOU are still TRAPPED in feminist and traditionalist dogma and bias about what “man up” means. I am here to tell you there is a CORRECT way to man up and THAT is and should be THE GOAL of this men’s movement. When men TRULY man up, feminism is over… c’est fini!
That is all I, Maximus, am saying. Men are going to have to man up, young and old, and right this society or it will collapse. And even if it does, we are still going to have to man up in order to build society up again.
So now that I have thoroughly pissed off both sides, I will end this piece on a positive note.
Just because Game focuses on sex does not mean that is ALL there is to Game. Game has many TOOLS to defeat feminism, but Game alone will not win the day.
Just because MRAs seem to hint you are going to have to grow up and stop hunting pussy does not mean you have to abandon the hedonistic lifestyle you have come to love and enjoy living. It does mean you are going to have to question the MORALITY of your life and if that is the BEST WAY for a man (and woman) to live. What you choose is left up to you. You are your own man.
It means men are going to have to TAKE BACK what “man up” means and redefine itself in MASCULINE terms. Of course, if men truly believe they have no responsibility to society and women at all… humanity is truly lost, because women are not going to do it.
I may have a way that a man can do all the above and not be seen to have capitulated or given up any ground of autonomy, independence or, most importantly, respect, that each camp claims to have the final word on.
A way that a man can both incorporate Game into his life AND demand the respect and recognition of masculinity in leading society back to sanity that only MEN are going to be able to enforce.
You under 30′s are the future.
I want your life to be about more than Game and sexing women… and more than fighting feminism and declaring war on women that is being an MRA.
But that brings us to my #3 goal of this essay… and this one is long enough as it is. The answer will take a little bit of time to craft and get right and I know very few will agree with me. But agreement is not my goal. I simply want to show men another path, the middle road, and attempt to get masculinity and manning up back on the true path.
That is assuming of course I am not banned outright from both communities after this post. If you really want to fight… THIS is what the men’s movement should look like to a feminist.
Any questions?
{ 94 comments… read them below or add one }
there’s no Great Divide and there’s no Erupting Conflict, except the false “conflict” that, ahem, this site initiated with its shit-stirring between two very disparate groups, gamers and mra, and the emergence of somebody named Frost who baited Elam into a goofy debate, creating a divide where no divide existed
apparently the shit-stirring just won’t stop, which makes me suspicious of the motivations of the whole contrived “controversy”
whatta long article, mebbe can wade thru it tomorrow
did notice this tho:
“The Spearhead was one of the very first (I believe, you can correct me) men’s blogs that literally spearheaded the exposure of all the ills that feminism has wrought on western society. Without Bill’s work and that of his contributing authors and community… I don’t know if we would have the network of men’s blogs we have today.”
that paragraph illustrates much of the, well, let’s call it ‘misunderstanding’ — so many of you folks are entering these areas very, very late in the game (excuse the nomenclature lol)
spearhead’s a great site, but there were antifems online, publishing thru geocities and similar build-em-yourself webpages, well over a decade before the spearhead launched — The Liberator, Angry Harry, and a small but persistent group of others
in those days there were no p.u.a.s or gamers … at least none expressing antifeminist sentiments online, to my knowledge
i’d never even HEARD of p.u.a. and game until a couple years ago, and of course more recently with the attempt to graft game onto general antifem/m.r.a. sites, blogs, and issues
hey, the more the merrier, there are v few of Us, and many millions of Them
but no matter how many debates are artificed into existence, and how many essays attempt to join the two groups, the focus of m.r.a.s is never going to be picking up women, and if you think “understanding females” came into the world with Rossy and Game, Inc., well, that’s part of the problem, and i can understand why serious m.r.a.s and antifems dont want the public’s first mental association of m.r.a.s to be picking up/banging lots of chicks
it doesnt raise the profile
the N.O.W., American Association of University Women, U.S. government, and endless other powerful groups would like that, indeed… but it doesn’t advance the antifem movement, it limits and constrains it, just as it’s beginning to get wide public traction
everything is going just fine in antifemland, thanks alot for your interest, but the last thing m.r.a.s need is a false-flag “war” where no alliance, nor controversy, ever existed
Wow, talk about a day late and a few fries short of a happy meal.
Ha, funny you used my story. You got a few details wrong though. She genuinely likes me, and we have great no-strings sex together. Win-win.
Desperate for someone to love me? That’s a good one.
Another MRA article bitching about men doing what many want to do (have no strings attached sex) is wrong and meaningless.
Being promiscuous is normal for men, and in our programming. It’s not men’s fault, we’re not corrupting all the innocent princess women who had no thoughts about sex till we came along. They had a sexual revolution and chose to be sluts and career women till their mid thirties when they try to snag a man.
Manning up isn’t a productive way to spend your time. Thanks to TV, education, indoctrination and such there aren’t that many women around who are worth manning up. They are unattractive, overweight, arrogant, slutty. You can’t lead without good followers. For the right woman PUA do fall in love- but in the west few women are right.
If you want an allegiance with gamers, who are probably more common than MRA activists, you should focus on issues that often screw them over. There is a lot of common ground. Trying to shame them into leading sluts and pigs isn’t going to work. It is good to work with PUA. Women value the words of attractive males a lot. PUA can teach their friends and family about the raw deal society gives men. You’re not going to succeed if you tell them to trust untrustworthy people.
You say in the other article
“If your woman is unhappy in her relationship, sadly, it is your fault – you are not leading her, you are not being masculine, you are not being “the man.”
Women are unhappy because the media feeds them a meaningless pile of drivel about relationships and they believe it. And game is very effective at teaching men how to be masculine, both in a raw sense and in a media drivel sense. Game helps you be a leader in your personal life. Most choose to use it for lots of sex because few women are worthy of a relationship.
Jesus H. Tap dancing Christ.
What an epic post. Game/PUA are the yin to MRA’s yang.
I have to agree that sex is not everything. Not by a long shot. Self-respect is paramount above all.
Without liberalism, feminism could not exist.
Chop at the base of the tree and rip out its root; don’t just hack at the branches.
In that you differ from gamers.
Witness thesecond above who defends what men want to do (have no strings attached sex) without reference to whether what they are doing to get this no strings attached sex is compatible with self-respect. It simply is not an issue for him – self-respect, whats that? I want puuuuuuuussssaaaay!
I think we got to accept that most men are like that. Nature designed most men as cannon fodder (women too, not just men. Most people) who have been programmed to be followers who see no problem in altering themselves to be liked by women, or even other men. In fact, it is time we recognize that such men are biologically designed to derive maximum pleasure not from having a backbone and being their own man but from winning the the approval of other human beings.
You cannot argue with pleasure – it is the great motivator of all our actions. If you are the sort of person biologically programmed to feel pleasure when others approve of you nothing will make you feel pleasure in having a back bone and standing for something. Your pleasure centers are simply built to make you a follower, canon fodder, a bend with the wind kind of guy (in short, a gamer). Conversely, there are men who feel their most intense pleasure when they have a back bone and refuse to bend to others. They may enjoy sex too, but they are biologically programmed to experience an intense psychological high when they have a backbone that makes them balk at the prospect of changing their behavior and personalities just to please women (in short, anti-gamers). These latter men are the leaders, rulers, warriors, successful businessmen, artists, geniuses – in short all fiercely independent men.
Arguing about this basic biological divide utterly misses the point – it is like arguing over whether being taller is better or worse. It is not up to you – you are either tall or short. Similarly, the choice is not given to most men to choose between being a gamer or an anti-gamer, the choice has been made for them at birth. They either derive their maximum pleasure from the approval of others, including women, or they derive their maximum pleasure from being fiercely independent and scorning to alter themselves to be liked by anyone, including women.
“The future of the men’s movement has to be about sexual self-respect and asserting a strong, re-definition of masculinity that is not ideological, but based on what we know about men as a gender from science and creating a new philosophy through rational discourse on the nature of man.”
The future doesn’t exist.
@ K
“Conversely, there are men who feel their most intense pleasure when they have a back bone and refuse to bend to others. They may enjoy sex too, but they are biologically programmed to experience an intense psychological high when they have a backbone that makes them balk at the prospect of changing their behavior and personalities just to please women (in short, anti-gamers). These latter men are the leaders, rulers, warriors, successful businessmen, artists, geniuses – in short all fiercely independent men.”
What he said.
I know many will not like what I have to say regarding sexual self-respect… but if the women are fucked up… it is because WE MEN are allowing it.
As you say… women will be women and are easily manipulated into believing they are the princess entitlement bitch they have been told to believe they are.
However… the times are such that with the kind of men we have today… women are able to BEHAVE this way and get away with it. Game… has many good ideas and observations about women… but at the end of the day, Game practitioners are enabling these princesses.
These women did not exist in the days of King Henry VIII.
I am almost finished watching the whole Tudors series… and while women are women… back then, they knew… they KNEW… if they went to far with a man… they were fucked and left for spinster hood.
Men… just fucking walked and balked at princess attitudes, especially men with “game” and by Game… I mean self-respect.
Self-respect begins before fucking does. If you show a woman you are willing to chuck your self-respect out the window to get pussy… can we really blame women for behaving the way they do?
I know this is a long article… but I do no write for short-attention spans.
I am writing to reach men who want more than the surface of this gender war and it causes. I want men to think about the roots and then start coming up with solutions. Game is one of those solutions to ending feminism. But it will not win the war.
To sum up the final battle… when it comes to “gaming” women… I hope men will DROP or NEXT a girl BEFORE sex even takes place. You use Game to get inside her world… get her to open up and be “herself”… and when you see princess entitlement bitch… you WALK without fucking her, no matter how hot she is.
I hope as those who practice Game get older… they will use the skills they have honed to weed out the takers and find the women who give.
In the end… the sexes cannot be at war forever and Game vs Entitlement Bitch only ends in mutual destruction.
“It means men are going to have to TAKE BACK what “man up” means and redefine itself in MASCULINE terms.”
Yes, this. The problem with the MRA thing is that it is modeled on feminism, and borrows heavily from a blank slate group therapy mindset. It wants men to change what they are so they can be more successful, and “more equal,” in a peaceful, childproof, female oriented pseudo democratic society.
For the record, Bill Price and I are exactly the same age, which puts us in the middle of the whipper-snappers and the old fogies. I’m 37.
I think this article misrepresents the MRM. There is no man-up culture or imposition of traditional masculine values in the MRM. Men are free to decide for themselves what it is to be a man. The Spearhead isn’t an MRM site. At best it is an MGTOW site with a lot of traditionalists. Bill is a butthurt traditionalist with romantic fantasies of the past.
There is no need to unite gamers and MRM. They have completely different objectives. As a gen-x-er MRM, I see a lot of value to game but y’all need to be more realistic about game being the solution to all men’s problems. Game doesn’t mitigate risk.
An article about uniting the manosphere which leads off with a left-right divide is rather hypocritical. This is more about consolidating the right than it is about unity.
“Another MRA article bitching about men doing what many want to do (have no strings attached sex) is wrong and meaningless.”
This is not an MRA article, but rather from a conservative traditionalist viewpoint.
The future doesn’t exist YET. But its ingredients do, in the here-and-now.
What do you want of your future? Pleasure? Success? Personal achievement? Inner peace and tranquility? A wife and kids? Or simply, plenty of pooooossssyyy? Whatever it is, or whatever combination, you’re the one who will have to build your future so that it contains what you want and hope to attain.
What if I want something different, or a different mixture? Does that offend you, do you feel smug and superior in your own desires, do you feel the urge to “correct” me and lecture me on what I “should” want? Do you want to shame me for my structure of my personal goals? Why would you feel that way? Especially if my goals for myself, and my actions toward those goals, cover no common ground with your goals and your path?
I don’t “have game” and I know it. I’ve adjusted to solo life, I’m used to it and I prefer it. I like to travel, to visit new places (and some old), and my eventual goal is to sail beyond the sunset … once my aged aunt, my last living close relative, has Gone West and no longer needs my help.
Meanwhile, I spend a certain amount of my time and my thought here, online, on IMF and The Spearhead and MGTOW Forums and AVfM. I see the injustices that Modern Femisupremacist Society heaps upon my sex, and I speak out against them as and where I can. I share what I can about living the MGTOW life, though I’m learning from others’ experience more than contributing from my own. I don’t read much about Game and I don’t contribute there, because I’m not playing Game – but there are way more sites and readers about Game than there are about Men’s Rights and MGTOW, so it’s balanced out without me.
I visualize MRA/MGTOW/Game as a triad. I believe they’ll all be strongest if they stand with each other, support each other, rather than standing apart and even fighting each other (viz: Paul vs Frost, et al). We’ll need all the tools, all the weapons, the best of tactics and of strategy – and a common philosophy to guide us
I see this divide as both generational and philosophical. The generational split was covered pretty well in this post. And the philosophical split was mentioned. But the biggest gap between the two seems to be the MRAs pushing an idealism of a 1950s culture that is dead and buried and will never come back and the Gamers who see Game as the ultimate pragmatic solution. Pragmatism v. Idealism. In cases like this, pragmatism almost always wins out.
As much as I dislike some of the effects of feminism, railing against it and seeking to “fight” it are misguided and will be ultimately fruitless. Face it, organized “feminism” is in a tailspin of backbiting and recriminations, and it lost the majority of its power decades ago. Yes, feminism “won” a few decades, but in winning it also kneecapped itself from further advances, and is now intellectually spinning its wheels, seeking to take the Marxist/Feminist ideals of the 1960s and 1970s and try to make them fit a society that no longer has room for either.
I agree we need to re-define masculinity. But publicly hating on feminists to make ourselves feel better is pointless. Publicly hating on Gamers because they have sold out for pussy is pointless. Being pro-MRA doesn’t mean you have to be a Southern Baptist Conservative who believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible, Barefoot and Pregnant. I think one reason Gamers shy-away from MRA-oriented issues is the perception that all MRAs are politically conservative, and the fact is that the Gamers as a rule are more politically liberal.
If you want to see a consolidation of the movements, then focus on re-defining masculinity away from the 1950s ideal or the 2010s hookup reality. Forget the feminists. Forget the women of easy virtue. Focus on men, masculinity, and what it means NOW, and we will forge a new way forward. Nothing less will do.
Maximus, you did not really get it if you think game is in any way shape or form compatible with an attitude of fierce independence.
Let me clarify with a very clear example – game says women like tough guy jerks, but let us say you feel friendly and kind. One who practices game will try and act like a jerk however distasteful he finds it, in a pathetic attempt to curry favor. The fiercely independent man will continue being kind and friendly and laugh if women do not like him. Sure, he may regret the lost sex, but he values his independence more. Self-respect actually gives him more pleasure, pure and simple, than sex. Maybe he will go to prostitutes. That is essentially the attitude of the upper crust of humanity. Game is for the 90% of men who nature designed to be sheep. There is nothing wrong with being a sheep – civilization has always depended on a broad base of such people – but let us call a spade a spade.
There is simply is no overlap whatsoever between the game mentality and the mentality of the fiercely independent man. None. The two are utterly antithetical, and that is a law of nature.
Unfortunately I did not have the patience to read through your whole essay, Maximus, but from what I did read I think I can articulate the problem between the parties in one word; aspiration. Young men aspire to having sex, hell, it is the biology of the young male; our sexual imperative. As we age, this aspect of our male being diminishes in its intensity; I suspect that this is hard to believe when you are in your twenties and thirties, but it is substantially accurate as an observation of male sexuality. We experience the world differently and our focus changes. I was desperate to be sexually successful with attractive women in my twenties and thirties, and succeeded to a certain extent, but not consistent with my desire. Now in my early fifties, I almost don’t give a shit! Focusing on Boomers, GenXers, and the subsequent generations that followed isn’t the main gig: it’s a father/son dichotomy.
GREAT fucking article.
What code ought a man to follow in a world where God, marriage, and democracy are dead? This has been on my mind a lot lately, waiting to coallesce into something worth transcribing. One thing for certain is that the code will not be infinitely permissive – in fact, I’m taking a hard look at some of my own actions and questioning whether they need to be reformed.
The destruction phase is coming to an end within the next decade; we must start preparing for the rebuilding phase.
That’s all I’m going to say for right now.
This article is a nice analysis, but injecting religion into it just creates a false dichotomy. Religious and non-religious people are present on both sides in numbers sufficient to remove religion from the equation.
Religion should also be removed as a necessity for morality, which is the making of choices that are good because they are good. Religions impose rules that are enforced through threats and bribes, and when people make choices to get personal benefits, that is self-interest and not morality. Thus morality and religion are mutually exclusive.
Morality is not a second-hand guessing game about what “god” wants, which serves to empower the dishonest and victimize the gullible. Religious moralities do not want man to think, but rather to change who does his thinking for him.
Man deserves credit for morality only when he can define and defend what he means by “good”, and then demonstrate that he has made this choice. One way to objectively define “good” is through the “better” of common experience. For example, not hungry is better than hungry, not injured is better than injured, and so on.
The problem is not lack of religion, but the presence of evasion. The solution to the problems that you have described is for man to state: this is what we know; this is what we don’t know; this is where we are; this is where we want to be (what “good” is); and this is the best way to get there.
For example, what is “masculinity”? Is it the fucking of as many women as possible?; is it understanding women in order to manipulate them?; is it understanding women in order to “put them in their place”; is “their place” a controlled environment, created by men, where women can thrive without doing damage?; is it the guiding of a family and the raising of children?; is it the creating of civilization? (and then you must define “civilization”).
Almost every so-called paradox is a failure of definition and enabled by unstated assumptions. For example, I have seen excruciatingly long articles on “what is the sound of one hand clapping”, even though “one hand clapping” is not defined, so whatever is being discussed, it is not that.
It is essential to explicitly state starting assumptions and definitions, because stating them explicitly allows mental models to be updated as more extensive or more accurate information becomes available, and prevents delusions and lies from masquerading as knowledge.
The next step is to account for ALL of the pieces, and how they fit together. Ultimately, the question is whether you would rather be better or have been right.
If your goal is to end up being better, then clarity and completeness without evasion will allow convergence to an actual solution, where what you claim to be doing and the results of your actions are the same.
But if your goal is to have been right, then the story of “the blind men and the elephant” is the way to go.
“Witness thesecond above who defends what men want to do (have no strings attached sex) without reference to whether what they are doing to get this no strings attached sex is compatible with self-respect. It simply is not an issue for him – self-respect, whats that? I want puuuuuuuussssaaaay!”
I do have self respect, and see no conflict between that and no strings attached sex. I am happy, I feel better about myself, I am socially more popular, I feel less stressed. My self respect has increased with more sex, actually, as I am a better person for it.
I presume you’re old, and your testosterone level is lowish. When you’re young (20s-30s) and you have a high testosterone level sex is extremely fulfilling and boosts your self esteem and self respect.
“I think we got to accept that most men are like that. Nature designed most men as cannon fodder (women too, not just men. Most people) who have been programmed to be followers who see no problem in altering themselves to be liked by women, or even other men. In fact, it is time we recognize that such men are biologically designed to derive maximum pleasure not from having a backbone and being their own man but from winning the the approval of other human beings.”
So if you accommodate people and change your behaviour and personality to get what you want from others (seek maximum pleasure) you lack a backbone and are a drone, are a follower, a leaf blowing in the wind. I’d disagree.
This ‘lack of backbone’ is a common trait among leaders, not followers. Politicians manipulate your emotions and change their stance to win support, flip flopping to align 51% of people with them. Leaders soothe sore egos by being aware of emotions and changing their behaviour, they listen to people’s problems and seek resolutions, they structure activities with an awareness of their followers. Businessmen sell their products by convincing people emotionally that their product is worthwhile (quality helps too). Artists become famous by seducing the right people and getting their artwork into galleries (quality is less important, given the state of modern art).
This is why PUA and MRA have a sharp division. MRA have this idea that doing stuff that makes other people happy means you are a bad person.
I suspect it comes from the common situation of men here- you live your life and you meet crazy histrionic women in marriage and work. You try to accommodate them, be respectful, kind, understanding. And they reject it and act bitchy.
There’s a better way though. Game, based on an understanding of female psychology. You can get her to do what you want by changing your behaviour and showing a different part of your personality. It actually works, which is why PUA can help MRA a lot. Maybe your wife would be less bitchy if you passed her shit tests. And we need help with the legal aspects, the social aspects so we don’t get screwed over by the feminist state.
But the shaming language will only divide us. If that’s all you want to do, complain about how PUA aren’t real men while you are real men who are better than us and how we have to man up and be like you- well, might as well not bother. We don’t care.
“The problem with the MRA thing is that it is modeled on feminism, and borrows heavily from a blank slate group therapy mindset.”
nonsense
m.r.a.s might be the ONLY individualists left in u.s. groupthink culture, and developed very differently from feminism, which was always a group/collective enterprise, even going back to seneca falls in 1848
feminism was not, and is not, a movement of individuals, but of collectivities, as their thousands of organizations illustrate clearly
“It wants men to change what they are so they can be more successful, and “more equal,” in a peaceful, childproof, female oriented pseudo democratic society.”
dunno where you got the idea this is what m.r.a.s want men to be, but you make no sense whatsoever
What code ought a man to follow in a world where God, marriage, and democracy are dead?
a man should follow the code of him who made man … instead, in the brilliance of his wonderful fabulous intellectual self, following the false codes of himself, or of other people
democracy is dead, marriage is (properly) dying, but god very much lives
sorry to hear he doesnt live in you
K-
“If you are the sort of person biologically programmed to feel pleasure when others approve of you nothing will make you feel pleasure in having a back bone and standing for something. Your pleasure centers are simply built to make you a follower, canon fodder, a bend with the wind kind of guy (in short, a gamer). Conversely, there are men who feel their most intense pleasure when they have a back bone and refuse to bend to others.”
thoughtful comments, and i’d agree about these basic biological natures
however, they are predispositive programming, not writ in cellular stone, and to some extent can be overcome
the bible says that from the beginning of time, long before the creation of this planet, god chose some folks to be “his people” and other folks that were not, and when i read yr comments about knuckle-unders vs backbone people, it fits — in the real world, it’s true that the vast majority simply want comfort and ease
america’s the perfect example, b/c it’s been so wealthy the past century that few will rock that boat, and this provides the perfect breeding-ground for the soft-totalitarianism of feminism/matriarchy — men are already bio-programmed to please/want/love females, and when you toss material plenty on top, few guys will rock the rowboat … until and unless their OWN lives are destroyed
and even THEN, the majority of guys cannot break the inertia of a wealthy, male-hating society, on top of the please-females bio-cultural progamming
this is esp true for young men (like most gamers) who are programmed for sex and repro,in the most sex-saturated society the world has ever seen
not until those boink-imperatives die down a little, after age 40, can they see the culture for what it is — and for how it cynically uses them
Ok… some awesome comments. This essay is getting better reviews and favourable treatment than I thought it would. Maybe there is hope.
I will respond to many in this single comment. I don’t want to plug up the comments with individual replies to up my comment count on this essay. I want the comment numbers to truly reflect reader input and contribution, not my inane ramblings. LOL
————————-
@ Jack Donovan
I thought you were close to my age… no idea it would be the EXACT same. I pegged you precisely in my generation. Bill (Spearhead) I thought was a little older, but not much. And you are correct… we are in the middle of the whipper-snappers and old foggies… and thus, at odds with both camps and hopefully, in time… a voice of reason and guidance to reconciliation.
You are also one of the very few to AGREE with my use of the word man up… and to own it as men again. I want to hopefully get men to stop reacting knee jerk fashion to this term. MEN did once own this term. There WAS a way for a man to behave and act. Much philosophy has been written on it, but it smacks of “tradition” to the whippers and the foggies were all hypocrites on this subject which is why we are in the mess we are in. The only generation that had a MASCULINE sense if identity and did man up was the generation of men that fought in WWII. After that, it was capitulation all around with the ease and prosperity that came after 1950.
I also agree that much of the MRA is about modeling the movement after feminism. When you mention things like a man needing to be dominant in a relationship or assert leadership or that women are lacking in logic and moral reasoning, MRAs do tend to distance themselves. They want RESPECT for men… but don’t want to impose any gender power structures/views on this supposed request for respect. This is why it will always be less effective. MRAs… refuse to lead.
This… is where Game kicks the MRA in the ass. Game… goes with science and biological understanding of a woman’s nature. Dominance… is key to masculinity and to manning up. Dominion over one’s life and women. Note… I do NOT mean dominate, which is not masculine but tribal/animal. Masculinity, dominance and leadership are not about control. It is about asserting oneself as a man and standing alone within the relationship to society and women.
MRAs seem to want respect for man without demanding man’s place in society… the position of leadership. NOT because men are better leaders, but because men are more NATURALLY suited/gifted to dominance which leadership requires. The OWS movement is the classic example of liberal PC bullshit regarding leadership and thus EMASCULATED values… they refuse to designate anyone as a “leader”.. and surprise surprise.. nothing is happening. Worse.. those that claim “there is no leader” are the ones that WANT POWER THE MOST. Classic passive aggressive thinking and behaviour, which is feminine, not masculine.
True leadership… is about exercising one’s own power with respect to the wishes of others.
You LEAD a woman… not command her. You LEAD a society… not subjugate it.
Leading is masculine. Commanding and subjugating is feminine.
Refusing to lead is refusing to be a man. To dominate with force and control, is to show others you are not a man that can COMMAND submission by his MASCULINE nature alone.
————————-
@ Dennis
There may appear to be no man up culture within the MRA/MRM… but it IS there, in the demographics of the age group Jack defined as the geezers/baby boomers. MRA’s reject “man up” because they did… and got fucked over in feminist society. But that does not mean the underlying VALUES of manning up (being responsible, a leader, taking care of women and children) are therefore wrong and should be rejected. The problem is men have FORGOTTEN how to be the kinds of men that saw these values flourish in a healthy society. Men let feminism take over… and now we have the opposite: irresponsible men and women, abandoning of children and family, and hypocritical and corrupt political leaders. It all connects.
This essay is also NOT a right-left politics issue. That is your view of the world, not mine. It’s a waste of time. Change your thinking, change the world.
Get back to basics. Get back to nature. Get back to God (or the Tao) dare I say.
Do… what WORKS!
That is where Game is so explosive and powerful. It shows… traditional masculine values like leadership and dominance work. Portraying an air of confidence and assurance… cocky funny… is saying you CARE about yourself and the world, but you don’t take yourself seriously. A man who has Game lives life on his OWN terms… the snag is that the whole philosophy is about sexing women instead of being a man. For the younger generation, that is all they have been taught being a man (or woman) is… right down the illuminati gang plank to slavery. The older generation… still has SOME traditional values, even if they say they reject tradition as practiced TODAY.
This is the divide I wanted to highlight and show a way to reach across and join forces.
————————-
@ BeijaFlor
I understand your perspective and am in your shoes myself. I don’t practice Game and I guess would be more MGTOW than MRA. But, I do know Game and it has helped me interact more successfully with women. I like your goals and they are also masculine. This is where Game falls flat. A woman… is supposed to ADD to your life. A woman is an ADDITION. A woman is not supposed to be the focus of your life and that is why Game for me fails as a philosophy to guide and live my life by.
But… and this is a big but…
I would suggest you study Game. Learn from it. Try to understand WHY these young men have attached themselves to Game and live that life. There is MORE to Game than getting laid, but the deeper meaning is buried under getting pussy. Much of Game is about adopting more masculine behaviours (i.e. alpha) to attract women… but that is NOT supposed to be the end of it (i.e. sex).
Game… is also good knowledge simply for dealing with women in every day life even if you are not looking for sex or a relationship. I just used it last night on a woman (my own Game) to EJECT her from my life… no sex. Game is the red pill of woman and once you study it, you can’t go back. That said, you don’t have to adopt it (i.e. pussy chasing) as a way of life.
Quote: “I visualize MRA/MGTOW/Game as a triad. I believe they’ll all be strongest if they stand with each other, support each other, rather than standing apart and even fighting each other (viz: Paul vs Frost, et al).”
This is all I am saying in this essay. While some may think there is no conflict or I am highlighting divisions that are at best superficial… they are there and for many, it is a serious divide.
I want people to simply try to understand each other’s view of the world better. With understanding, comes co-operation and unity.
When you see your triad of men (MRA/MGTOW/Game) all agreeing on CORE principles and then going their own way to live them… THAT is when feminists will shit their pants. It will be… GAME OVER.
————————-
@ Ian Ironwood
I know the allusion to 1950s culture was ideal… but that is why I highlighted it. There WAS an ideal all men and women used to strive for as a gender and as human beings. Now… we have nothing but the nihilism of Gen Zero and the divorce disaster of the boomers.
Society will not continue this way. Normality has to return and normality for human beings is co-operative gender relations based on mutual love and respect for the raising of children. In 50 years… all the feminists and nihilists will be dead or soon to be…. and the society of the future WILL be traditional. NOT because it is a right politics issue… but because we are human.
Men and woman are made for each other. It ain’t perfect, but it is a whole lot better when we TRY to love and work together than fight.
Right now… men are still fighting (or walking away). Men… are going to have to return. Man… is the gender that loves. If you expect women to change, they will not. They are total chaos and always will be. Men are the ones that change and mold society ON A PATH of stability and peace because they CAN enforce morals and ethics by MANNING UP and saying no to bullshit. (i.e. feminism and entitlement bitches)
When men say NO to women… and yes, that will include sex… society will change.
————————-
@ K
I do get Game… but that is because I came to the game before it became Game with a capital G.
The whole tough guy/jerks thing has NOTHING to do with Game and everything to do with MASCULINITY. A jerk lives by his rules, not the woman’s. That is all Game comes down to in a nutshell. The rest is nuance and detail. If all a man did was live his life as he saw fit… we would all have Game. But, many men are living for pussy while emulating the jerks “independence” to get it.
The secret of the jerk… is that he really DOES NOT CARE about sex! Not at all. He expects it… he demands it… and he finds a woman that will put out. It is not about living his life FOR SEX. A jerk, lives his life FOR HIMSELF! This… is where Game is flawed.
The jerk… is the ultimate independent male. Game… applies “jerk” behaviour but does so with dependence on wanting sex.
I like your pleasure analogy. But I would refine it to what a man wants his life to be, not just pleasure.
A jerk… wants sex for himself.
Game… seeks to emulate the jerk to get sex.
The independent man… wants LIFE for himself, on his terms, and emulates no man to do so.
So… there is a connection between game and the independent man and jerk. The difference is goal/intent. One is about living life. The other two are about living life for sex.
Be the man that wants to live his own life. After that, game is irrelevant and you will get all the sex you want, or not.
————————-
@ j24601
Quote: “I was desperate to be sexually successful with attractive women in my twenties and thirties, and succeeded to a certain extent, but not consistent with my desire. Now in my early fifties, I almost don’t give a shit! ”
Yes… when you are 20… sex is all there is to life. But this was not always the case. Go back in history and many men were obsessed with MAKING something of their lives. Look at Alexander… his mentor and idol was Achilles. Look at Caesar… he looked to Alexander. Napoleon… looked to Caesar.
Gen Zero.. looks to Game and sex with women?
This is the difference of today from the men of old. Men… for the majority of our history (even pre-history I suspect)… simply did not give a shit about women or sex. They wanted to DO something with their lives. And in the doing… they got laid… a LOT!!! They were men… women fuck men… it was not a big deal. They went out and made something of themselves, great or small, and woman came along for the ride.
Now… we have a bunch of men living for nothing but sex, porn, and video games… and they have to study the science and art of “Game” to get laid by even one woman.
It is absolutely backwards.
Game… will lead men back to the ways of old if they keep pondering their lives and their own meaning. It will take time… but that is why I wrote this essay. To get men to start thinking about WHY the MRAs have a problem with Game.
But… I also wanted to give respect and praise to what Game has done. It has brought young men out of their nihilistic shells and forced them to go out into the world to start to make their mark. Yes… that mark is pussy… now. But these men are in their 20s… and soon… they will set their sights on something else. When they do… I hope they will think back on this time and this blog and what that nutter Maximus was writing about “manning up.”
I also believe… that much of the desperation to be sexually “successful” with women… is all about self-esteem. A man does have a need for success with women to feel good about himself… but this has been so hyper-marketed today, that men have forgotten they have self-esteem in being A MAN.
This is a father/son issue. Look at the father… and will know the self-esteem of the son. The more the father esteems himself over sex with women, the more confident and independent the son will be.
————————-
@ Aurini
Glad you liked the essay. It dovetails nicely with your earlier piece last week that I really identified with.
We are NOT Neil Young’s generation of men.
The code of man… is not that old. We are simply taking the long way around to getting back to where we have always been.
————————-
@ Reader
Man vs God will be back next week. This was not a religious essay. I mentioned it briefly only to illuminate the context of the 1950s and the morals and sexual ethics of the time that religion fostered.
Atheism… and the lack of religion in people’s lives… has led us to… the feminist utopia of making up sexual morals and ethics as we go along and whatever we want them to be.
Trying to argue there is “no room” for talk of religion… when it was feminism that banished God and religion as “patriarchal”… is proving my point.
God… the concept… is required for the proper moral functioning of man. All of your logical hedging and equivocations trying to assert “god” is not required for moral decision making is foolish.
The very foundation of religious teaching… is to do good for good’s sake, not reward or fear of punishment.
But… funny thing… put reward or punishment before man and he believes it… and he seems to make better choices. Take away both, he acts like a child.
Quote: “Man deserves credit for morality only when he can define and defend what he means by “good”, and then demonstrate that he has made this choice.”
So… who says what is “good?”
Where is your standard of judgement? In what that man can define, defend and demonstrate in his life? Well… Stalin and Mao defended there actions. Should we be following those men? What about Ghandi and Malcom X? How do we decide?
With God, you can at least claim there is the possibility of an OUTSIDE judge that every man is responsible to and who sets the rules. With your reasoning, man, is the only person who can judge what is “good.”
As long as you can argue your case and get others to believe it… what is good is what you can get the majority to agree with, no more. Morality… will be the morality of the masses or the powerful. As a man who believes in God… no matter what you decide is moral or good… I can always claim a higher power than yourself or any man to impose on me his beliefs. Funny… that is precisely what you accuse religion of doing is it not?
With God… I can go my own way. With atheism… I am in chains to the mob, the dictator or both!
————————-
@ thesecond
Thank you for your comments. I want to challenge them, but do not take them to mean you should change your ways. Just think about your life.
There is no such thing as no strings attached sex. You are lying to yourself. There is always some string attached, even if that string is to agree there are no strings! Which is really saying… “I have no emotional investment or care for you what-so-ever. You are a flesh dildo for my pleasure, no more.” This… is un-healthy. But it is not your fault… it is what our feminist culture wants men and women to believe… that “fucking” is what animals do. Just rut in the mud and go about your business because it “feels good” and both consent.
There can be some fulfillment in sexual gratification and getting some sexual experience is good for self-esteem. I will testify to that. But.. how much self-esteem to you need? If you are the kind of person who constantly “needs” to have sex to have self-esteem… there is not much there to begin with. And what does it say if you have not had sex in 6 months to a year… you feel bad about yourself? Just try to understand what I am saying.
I was in my 20s. I was as horny as the next man… but I never felt that not having sex somehow made me less of a person or that I could not respect myself. I had sex later in life and I don’t regret it. In fact… it only confirmed for me that I was obsessing OVER NOTHING!!!
Sex… getting it or not… is not a matter of testosterone and youth. It is a matter of psychology. The young generation today was raised in a MORAL VACUUM and taught that sexual gratification was the ULTIMATE path to self-esteem/respect. I did not grow up in this culture.
Sex is not a matter of biology… but of belief. Contrary to 20 year old belief, you will not die if you don’t have sex. Therefore, why a biological DRIVER, it is not a DETERMINANT. Many men and women spent the majority of their lives celibate or in marriage or in serial and single long-term relationships for the majority of human history. This idea of a sexual free-for-all, no-strings-attached “modern” young men and women… is BACKWARD to our entire evolutionary history, except for maybe pre-CAMBRIAN-pre-history, before even the cave. It was only the 1%… the alpha males and females… that had such freedom… and look at how fucked up they are! Watch The Tudors on DVD. Regular folk… were sexually responsible and respectable. But the 1% want us ALL to be like them, because that is how you control people. Control a person’s sex life, control the person.
When you have long term loving relationships… there is FAR MORE esteem and respect among and between men and women. They are also far less controllable. Why do you think the elite’s goal with feminism was to a) destroy the family and b) the middle class which is the defense of family values? It’s all about control. And if you can get young men and women to think sex has no strings attached and that they should all just fuck each other with no emotional attachment… well…
When the older generation laments about the sex lives of young people… they are not trying to impose anything on you. They are trying to show you there is another way to live your life. And when I say older generation… I am talking BEFORE the hypocritical baby boomers. They are almost all gone now. You should talk to one of these really old foggies one time.
You also have leadership all backwards. You look to TODAY’S politicians for a definition of leadership? Today’s politicians… are the OPPOSITE of leadership. They are… the feminist/female ideal. Accommodation, bending over backwards, changing personality and behaviour to get what you want form others… wait… say that again? Is that not EXACTLY what Game advocates you have to do? Change your personality and behaviour toward women to get sex?
Lack of backbone is not a common trait about leaders… we don’t have leaders today… we have psychopaths.
A man with a backbone does not look for shit tests… because he does not care. He is with a woman as long as he wants to be… and when he does not, he moves on.
Game… says you have to deal with a woman’s shit tests if you want to get past them to get laid.
A man… does not care about getting laid because he knows its what a woman naturally wants… so he goes looking for a woman that won’t shit test him as often as other women will or one that does not at all! Yes… there are women out there… who won’t test you because they don’t want to lose you!!!
See the difference in attitude?
Game… does have the psychology of the female down to a science… but you should not have to live your life as a Game.
What Game does is move a man back toward a more masculine frame of mind… and at the end of the process… you THROW AWAY Game and simply be a man.
Game… is still about manipulation and I quote you: “You can get her to do what you want by changing your behaviour and showing a different part of your personality.”
Yes… Game does work… but you are changing yourself to fit into HER world instead of accepting/rejecting women that don’t fit into YOUR world.
It is a subtle play on words… but that… in one sentence… articulates the metaphysical and attitude difference between being a man… or one that pretends to be one.
Please don’t take offense. I support much of what Game advocates… but it is a stepping stone… to being a man, not the top of the mountain.
Please think on that difference.
Are you doing this FOR HER… or are you doing this FOR YOU? If you still think you have to DO or BE something for HER to respect and have sex with you… you will never be a real man.
This is not about shaming language or getting you to “man up”… it is about asking yourself ultimately… WHAT IS THE MEANING of your life.. as a MAN?
Game… will only answer this question to a certain point. If you stay in Game… you will be locked in a conditioned box of patterns and behaviours all intent on pleasing and manipulating other people… and never about simply being yourself… a man.
I think people can be mixes, yes, and some people can be followers at some point in their life and then snap out of it and become leaders and refuse to bend. People can stray from their natures and then return to it.
A good litmus test is a persons reaction to it when you explain to them that game is really about having no back bone. It took me a while to grasp that for lots of men this is not a problem at all . I did game for a bit, but as soon as I perceived that it meant not having a backbone, I became horrified and abandoned it immediately and was just myself. In other words I was led away from my nature but not truly understanding what I was doing and by all the game marketing tactics that it is really about masculinity. Game never felt right on a gut level but I was confused by the mixed messages and it took me a while to articulate what I knew on some level of my being.
I simply needed to perceive clearly what game was. Arguing with gamers has led me to see that for many men this simply is not a problem.
Let us look at this quote from thesecond -
In other words, sex and social popularity increase his self-respect. He has no internal sources of validation but depends on others reactions to him for his opinion of himself. It does not even matter to him that he is manipulating this reaction and the good opinion he so craves is not even given to his actual personality, but to his manipulations.
So in other words he freely admits that he gets validated by others and sees no problem with this.
Once I grasped that there is this fundamental divide between I stopped arguing with gamers. There is nothing to argue about. We are simply biologically programmed to derive pleasure from different things.
So for most men it really IS cut in stone at birth, and arguing is pointless. You are either a follower or a potential leader. Yes, a small minority of men might be led astray by false claims, etc, but when you see gamers defend game it becomes quite clear that they grasp what it is very well and see no problem with it.
And to be honest, that is fine – like I said, civilization needs for followers to be in the majority. Whatever the case, it is not really a choice. One is what one is by virtue of being ruled by our pleasure centers. We cannot argue with what gives us pleasure.
@Maximus
This is just silly. You are knee deep in the cognitive dissonance game excels at producing in the minds of its followers. Living by your own rules means being yourself without caring if women are attracted to you. Changing your behavior to be liked by women is the exact opposite of being your own man. Gamers say game is just about being your own man – and I fell for that too for a while – but then they tell you to change your behavior in a million ways and fake your personality in a million ways to be liked by women. This is obviously the exact opposite of living by your own rules.
So SNAP OUT of the cognitive dissonance induced game trance. Stop playing with these pointless paradoxes and contradictions. They are designed to put your mind into this frozen cognitive dissonance loop where paradoxical things are said that have no relation to reality. This way weak minded people are confused and feel convinced that even if they dont understand it there still must be something there because so many intelligent people believe in game. The stage is then set for guys like TFH to come onto the scene almost as if on cue and intone in solemn and grave tones the mystifying formula *99% of men will never ever understand game!*.
Oh and being a jerk is not being your own man – why are you playing with words? Being a jerk simply means being rude and offensive to people. It is perfectly possible to be your own man without being rude and offensive to others. Stop using weird game induced ways to define perfectly normal terms that already have clear definitions.
Thats a politician, not a leader. And only in a democracy, at that. Artists become famous by having an original vision and not compromising on it in order to seduce anyone. Do you know anything about the history of art? Every single great artist was an original who did his own thing without giving a shit – he was often reviled for it but he did not compromise. Successful businessmen have a vision that they do not deviate from in order to win popularity. They design a quality product or service that stems from their uniquely individual way of seeing the world.
Look, I see the value in your type of person, and there is little point arguing about it – but it is a fact that the people who move humanity forward and play the most important roles are ones who do not compromise who they are to be liked by others. You can sit here and try argue with me that it is a wonderful thing to be liked by others and it is well worth accommodating yourself to them but the fact remains we are just programmed to get pleasure out of different things, you and I, and that this is a fundamental divide that shows up across the human spectrum.
The top crust of humanity does not compromise themselves to be liked. The gamer type does. No point arguing about it.
Maximus: I applaud your efforts. As what you would call a ‘old fogey’, I would like to extend some correction and advise; (ie.) what I believe is your statement that the 1950′s masculinity was an ideal. You are wrong, men of the 50′s were hollow men who had nothing to offer the generation that followed them. The insanity and stupidity of the 60′s generation was a direct result of the hollowness and stupidity of the WWII and 50′s generation. The men of the generation of the 50′s were experimental rats in a maze, eventually escaping into the open in the 60′s…all the while still experimental lab rats.
Also you advice on learning from the series ‘The Tudors’. It is highly unfortunate that you think a television show in anyway reflects reality other than how they want you to think it does. I imagine your ideal on the 50′s also comes from the tv show ‘mad men’ or otherwise.
I do not mean to negatively criticize you, I just want you to think about some possible errors in your world view. You should be aware that media only reflects the reality of the agenda of those who create it. And never assume they are necessarily benevolent or honest, simply because they aspire for popularity.
That said, much of what you said is positive and constructive. The model for men to reclaim their destiny exists now where it always has, in our own minds. That is where the battle is.
Maximus
I am disappointed that you chose to focus on, and cite a part of my earlier comment out of context. You ignored the important and substantive part of my post prior to the bit you extracted, thus denuding it of its proper meaning; c’est la vie.
I have no doubt that your intentions are good, but I feel that your methods are questionable.
Too many words, to be honest.
As for the substance, I wrote about this as a possibility at Chuck’s blog back in November when the shit was going down. In retrospect I don’t think it’s worth it. There is no bridging this divide — it’s too huge, philosophical and generational. As a 44 year old with my own life experiences I have no interest in preaching “man up 2.0″ to under 30s, and they are not interested in hearing it (nor do I believe in it). The under 30s will make their own way, and make their own mistakes, and pay for them themselves, and have their own successes as well. They are fundamentally different from any generation that has come before, in good and bad ways. But they need to figure this out for themselves, because the gap between us is basically unbridgeable.
Go out and game boys, you’ll understand the other side when you get older. Thus site and a couple less popular blogs that piggybacked it are the only places I see this “fight” mentioned. Take a trip outside your bubble once in a while
Maximus; I did not cite any of your comment, out of context or otherwise. I pointed out that your reference to a 50′s ideal is based on fantasies concocted by main stream media. I do not ignore the important and substantive part of your post prior to the bit you say I extracted. I applaud and agree with the overall message you deliver.
Also, my methods are unquestionable, for no method is needed to point out fallacy. Perhaps you mean to ignore the overall message and focus on isolated data? It is the isolated data by which the ground is swept from under your feet. You would not be at fault in recognizing referencing reality to television and media will undermine your understanding of reality. Doing otherwise allows others to own your history, and therefore your future. As I said the battle is where it always has been, in our own minds.
I have yet to see a writer, calling for the restoration of a patriarchal, wholesome society, that addresses the notion that a patriarchy is a sort of prelude to our current feminist shitcake.
If a patriarchy were reinstated tomorrow, it would not sustain. A few radical feminists managed to manipulate the emotions of the entire western world in the 60s. This was a time when people only got their news from “big media” which was controlled by men. Despite all these problems faced by feminists in the 60s, they still succeeded.
Now, if a patriarchy couldn’t survive the 60s, how the fuck is it gonna survive in ur current information driven society. The feminists have even easier means of reaching and manipulating people’s emotions now because even if big media were defeminized, they would still have the internet and minor tv channels at their disposal to stir up the female sense of entitlement.
Frost’s idea of a freedom of sexual contract is a compromise, the traditionalists can live how they want, with a marriage without no fault divorce in which the man has legitimate dominion over his wife. The egalitarians can live how they want, with their dumbfuck divorce laws and a “nice” husband. And the hedonists can live how they want, with (in my ideal world) 1 wife for each day of the week.
Utopian? Yes. Feminist? No! The idea gives men the freedom to man-up as you suggest in your essay, because in our current society there’s very little framework through which a 20something can man-up. The problem with MRAs is that they think very retrospectively, and reject new ideas. They’d rather go back to a system that would benefit society here and now, but lead us back to the same feminist dystopia we have now in maybe 2 or 3 generations.
I believe there are 2 solutions. Either shift the moral zeitgeist towards an emphasis on freedom, where anyone can have a marriage contract that suits them, rather than the current model of shoving square pegs into round holes (modern men into state marriages). This solution would maximise men’s opportunities and allow women to see how women in traditional marriages are happier, and slowly drop their cunty feminist attitudes.
However this is all very pie in the sky.
The second solution is a bit grimmer, but much more practical. This solution dictates how I live my life.
LET SOCIETY FAIL
Society is damaged beyond repair, and strongly worded intelligent blogs are a bit like bringing a dustpan and brush to an earthquake. Too little, too late.
I’m not belittling the work of these blogs, I just think we should wait for society to fail, then rebuild from the ground up, using the knowledge and insight found in this blogging community as a preventative measure for the problems of tomorrow, rather than a cure for the ills of today.
Will there be casualties? Yes, there always are; but we need to realise that society is damaged beyond repair. Then we need to focus on surviving it’s downfall (riding the hedonistic wave for a while) and then on rebuilding a society that, unlike the 50s patriarchy, won’t be susceptible to feminism.
The observation that The Spearhead (I have been on the admin side) is actually not the original site as stated, AngryHarry.com is as far as I am aware and I have been an MRA since early 1990′s. There were older forums (2 were deleted) which pre-empted the Mens News Daily site run by Mike LaSalle (started in 2001. Most the online MRAs like myself have been involved in one way or another. I have had sites deleted and removed (mid to late1990′s) as in the beginning, no one was permitted or allowed, to state anything negative about women or feminism, period..
Timeline to site in 2001..Wayback machine.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011112094121/http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/
Maybe we need some history introduced to list all those activists who supported the MM right from the beginning..
Any, I am an MRA and I approve of this article. It has definitely changed my outlook towards the “Game” which I never had an issue with to begin with, didn’t need to. But I was appalled when Fidelbogen and I noticed the slanging MRAs received on one of Roissy site posts. Ever since that time, it was going to be an issue and one that had to be faced and corrected, I think it has. There will always be shit-stirrers who fail to see or comprehend the bigger picture and it is about time they did..
Great article,well done. I will be postng a response as well and it will be in a positive light as this was..
Interesting thoughts. I hadn’t seen much about game until relatively recently, but some that I saw fits with your characterization completely. It seemed all about getting sex. While that can be nice, it is not the sole goal of life. I agree with your comments about pursuing something more meaningful with your life.
I disagree slightly with you that things can never be “as they were.” I do agree we can and should never go back to the mythical 1950s, but families and thus society are built on long-term relationships, not recreational flings. A stable society requires that. Anarchy is far more dangerous than most people realize.
Some of this is because they have the ideal view of anarchy, viewed in the context of doing what they want with the remain (though crumbling) support of modern culture. Many (most?) of them would crumble in a true anarchy as they have nothing of value to trade with others for their very existence.
We are headed for some might nasty times in the world.
Ditto Brendan.
K–
In other words, sex and social popularity increase his self-respect. He has no internal sources of validation but depends on others reactions to him for his opinion of himself. It does not even matter to him that he is manipulating this reaction and the good opinion he so craves is not even given to his actual personality, but to his manipulations.
ok thx for expanding on yr thoughts
i grok what thesecond writes, and i freely admit that sex (unless intentionally used to degrade) DOES lower stress, provide a sense of security, and boost self-esteem — however, that type of self-esteem is fragile, and one is then DEPENDANT upon females/further sex for continued validation and good-feeling
i’d have probly gone for game in my twenties, having been inexperienced, rather introverted, and extremely unaware of the truth of female psychology and behavior… and doubtless it would have helped me score
instead, i had to develop other areas of character and ability, and when i finally began to grow into myself (around age 30) the females came to me, from every direction
that’s my major concern w/game– it doesnt allow young men, in a radically feminist, fatherless society, to become themselves — while theyre busy gaming females, they end up also gaming themselves
young guys are in a hurry, it’s an instant grat culture, and when i was 27 (pre-cambrian period! when oh when will the icepack melt?) i was the same — existentially neurotic, wanted to get laid and be accepted, etc
at around age 45, i started to do the work god had prepared me for in this life, and began to recognize that the preceding years of grind-it-outness were preparatory for engaging that work, which now i would not trade for all the sex and money in creation
if roosh and rossy had been around, i might well never have developed into my authentic nature, never have engaged the work i was always meant to do
who would have benefitted from that loss, or misdirection? well, roosh and rossy et al., but also the very persons and organizations i now oppose — so when i see calls for alliance between game and antifeminism, i speak out
god has a plan for each of our lives, something i only recently learned myself, so i’m not too hard on others that dont see it… but it’s true nevertheless
be patient, difficult as that is, and let him lead you, not salesmen and pop psycholgists
The observation that The Spearhead (I have been on the admin side) is actually not the original site as stated, AngryHarry.com is as far as I am aware and I have been an MRA since early 1990′s. There were older forums (2 were deleted) which pre-empted the Mens News Daily site run by Mike LaSalle (started in 2001. Most the online MRAs like myself have been involved in one way or another. I have had sites deleted and removed (mid to late1990′s) as in the beginning, no one was permitted or allowed, to state anything negative about women or feminism, period..
kudos to you
i think, in the long run, youll be v glad you invested such a great amount of time and energy is a v unpopular — and to some, worthless — cause
my old geocities site was never deleted (until yahoo did its recent purge) possibly b/c the essays werent solely antifem, but general-interest (with a lot of antifem included)
or maybe they were just skeered, which works too :O)
in the mid/latter nineties i can remember scouring the net for the like-minded, and finding almost nothing — richard doyle’s “the liberator” and v few others — back then, the few antifem guys were still trying to publish trad books, and mostly getting nowhere against what we called The Lace Curtain… or having to self-publish and self-distribute (zubaty’s a good example)
dont recall AH from the mid-nineties, but do remember MND somewhat later, which i criticised for its mercantilism and reliance on right-wing ideopolitics as a solution to the matriarchy (boy they didnt like that!)
but apparently MND, at least in part, helped lead to the Spearhead, an excellent effort… so what do i know, eh? lol
Maximus –
Glad to read your comments and find out we are somewhere in the same age range and ideological ballpark in some areas.
I’ll be interested to see what you have to say about my complete take on masculinity when the book I’ve been working on is done and released. I think I have it pegged–it’s all I’ve been working on for years–and everything you are talking about fits on a scale somewhere. Can’t get into it now, don’t want to ruin all of the good stuff.
If I’m a traditionalist with traditional ideas about masculinity, it is only because I feel like I have explored the idea enough to realize what I was wrong about as a kid–when I was both a feminist and the type (like many of the older MRAs and smart young kids) who associated masculinity with dumb bullies.
K
In other words, sex and social popularity increase his self-respect. He has no internal sources of validation but depends on others reactions to him for his opinion of himself. It does not even matter to him that he is manipulating this reaction and the good opinion he so craves is not even given to his actual personality, but to his manipulations.
Actually I just changed my personality. My actual personality is now different due to game and I can get internal validation from that. My internal validation is pretty strong, I do like my inner world. The external validation massively strengthened the internal validation, if that helps your attempt to feel superior. They feed into each other.
“Artists become famous by having an original vision and not compromising on it in order to seduce anyone.”
Van Gogh didn’t become famous till after he died because he was a douchebag to everyone he met. Artists become famous by meeting the right people and convincing them to exhibit their work.
“Successful businessmen have a vision that they do not deviate from in order to win popularity. They design a quality product or service that stems from their uniquely individual way of seeing the world.”
Nah, they tend to fail. You have to build a product for your target audience, not for you- one big reason is you tend to be smarter than your target audience so you need to make your product simple and easy to use. Successful businessmen adapt to succeed. Plus you have to convince investors to give you money which requires bootlicking and accomodation and such.
“but it is a fact that the people who move humanity forward and play the most important roles are ones who do not compromise who they are to be liked by others. ”
No, that’s something you just made up. As you noted, the politicians, the most powerful people, do compromise a lot. In companies the people who everyone likes and who boot kiss and backstab tend to get promoted. The most powerful charismatic leaders are intensely aware of their follower’s needs and adapt to fulfil the void. It is a fact that ‘lacking a backbone’ or charisma as most people call it is more important than results or quality.
Maximus-
“There is no such thing as no strings attached sex. You are lying to yourself”
The no strings attached bit means no relationship. As in, you are not tied down.
““I have no emotional investment or care for you what-so-ever. You are a flesh dildo for my pleasure, no more.” This… is un-healthy. But it is not your fault… it is what our feminist culture wants men and women to believe… that “fucking” is what animals do. Just rut in the mud and go about your business because it “feels good” and both consent.”
Well, I have some emotional investment. But I chose to take the path I did because it’s pleasurable, soul fulfilling, and less vulnerable to the machinations of feminists. I am no less capable of fulfilling long term relationships and making love.
“But.. how much self-esteem to you need? If you are the kind of person who constantly “needs” to have sex to have self-esteem… there is not much there to begin with. And what does it say if you have not had sex in 6 months to a year… you feel bad about yourself? Just try to understand what I am saying.”
I don’t need to have sex. A while back for a work thing I abstained for a couple months. It’s not hugely pleasurable, but I can do it. My self esteem remained high. I understand what you’re saying but it’s not me.
“Sex… getting it or not… is not a matter of testosterone and youth. It is a matter of psychology. The young generation today was raised in a MORAL VACUUM and taught that sexual gratification was the ULTIMATE path to self-esteem/respect. I did not grow up in this culture.”
I’ve tried lots of self esteem/respect increasing things, and nothing has worked as effectively as sex. Work, camping, hunting. They helped, but so far sex has proved to be the best and most long term path to self esteem and respect. Maybe it’s not for you, but it is for a lot of people. It is deeply meaningful and powerful even outside of a relationship.
“When you have long term loving relationships… there is FAR MORE esteem and respect among and between men and women. They are also far less controllable. Why do you think the elite’s goal with feminism was to a) destroy the family and b) the middle class which is the defense of family values? It’s all about control. And if you can get young men and women to think sex has no strings attached and that they should all just fuck each other with no emotional attachment… well…”
I’m fine with long term relationships, and settling down with a woman and having a deep meaningful relationship. Women respond really badly to promiscuity in mental terms, and so the sexual revolution hasn’t treated them well in terms of their long term prospects. There aren’t many good prospects.
“You should talk to one of these really old foggies one time.”
The low testosterone and the blatant lack of awareness of what the dating scene is actually like is obvious.
“Sex is not a matter of biology… but of belief.”
Sounds feminist. “If I believe I’m like a man, I can be a man.” Sex is mostly biology.
“Is that not EXACTLY what Game advocates you have to do? Change your personality and behaviour toward women to get sex?”
Well, it tells you what personalities and behaviour works at different times (female desire varies according to where they are in their cycle). I tend to tune up the aspects of my personality that work best at different times.
“A man with a backbone does not look for shit tests… because he does not care. He is with a woman as long as he wants to be… and when he does not, he moves on.”
The woman has a say in this. She won’t date someone who can’t pass her shit tests. If you want an attractive non feminist intelligent woman you need to learn to make her happy.
“A man… does not care about getting laid because he knows its what a woman naturally wants… so he goes looking for a woman that won’t shit test him as often as other women will or one that does not at all! Yes… there are women out there… who won’t test you because they don’t want to lose you!!!”
That’s called dumpster diving. I like to go for attractive women, rather than going for someone who is desperate for my approval. I can’t have an equal romantic relationship with someone who’s dating market value is vastly below my own.
Plus, it’s not that hard dealing with shit tests.
“Are you doing this FOR HER… or are you doing this FOR YOU? If you still think you have to DO or BE something for HER to respect and have sex with you… you will never be a real man.”
That is obvious shaming language. I reject your false duality. I do stuff for her so that she does stuff for me. Being true to yourself isn’t a good value. It’s not a biblical value. It’s meaningless feminist popspeak. False self love is a blight on mankind. We are sinful and naturally do a whole lot of cruel, stupid crap. Part of being a member of a functional society is changing yourself and going against your nature.
2 Timothy
3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy.
I am not true to myself. I am a sinner. I go against my sinful nature to be a better person. I do not do it for me (well i do to some degree but whatever), I do it for others, for God. If you try to impose the “Be true to yourself” self love bullshit on PUA it will also fail badly.
Heh. Right. That is exactly what I said. You need external validation. Your point is that this is perfectly OK – I agree, it is. I would go further, and say people like you are essential for any civilization. A race of independent men probably could not cooperate long enough to get serious work done. I am merely saying that I get pleasure from different things than you do and am a different type of person.
And yeah, I am sure the top crust of humanity merely bends to the whims of others ;) That sounds just about right.
Okay, how could anyone NOT see the Rhino do the J/O motion over his head in the Spider Man cartoon?
I don’t think that’s just a millennial thing. I’m Gen X and I saw it.
Moving on to the Gamer vs MRA spat, I don’t think that MRAs have a problem with the *overt* side of Game (being unreactive, taking no shit, making decisions, leading women, etc).
Its the *covert* side of Game (showing rather than telling, not verbalising your intentions directly, not showing your hand, lying, etc) that MRAs can’t stand. It reminds them too strongly of female behaviour. That’s “pussy begging” in their terminology.
I have nothing against men who go ghost and say “fuck it, I don’t want to be bothered with women”. Good luck to them.
But men who think that Paul Elam’s “Shower & Ignore” Game will get them some poon are going to be disappointed with their results in-field.
Thanks for discussing this important subject.
For defeating feminism first we must eliminate the gender hypocrisy from the society, because of it blinds us and it does not allow people to understand the truth about the nature of sexuality.
Feminism is not based on the natural femininity of women, that is the fact which we must keep in our mind. We must accept and protect women who are feminine and not following feminism. Remember, we must defeat hypocritical men who are supporting and promoting feminism including fathers of feminists too. We must develop masculinity of boys, and we must not allow girls to follow masculinity.
We must defeat liberalism, Marxism, Post modernism and all the kinds of crazy ideologies. We must refuse liberal democracy as well.
http://spiritofnature99.blogspot.com/
“And yeah, I am sure the top crust of humanity merely bends to the whims of others ;) That sounds just about right.”
You get to be part of the top crust because others give you power. Others buy your product, philosophy, whatever. How would you get to the top if everyone hated you?
As Gustave LeBon said, you don’t become great by driving social change, you become great by putting your shoulder to the wheel of history and pushing it where it wants to go. Serve the needs of others and they’ll give you power.
Obviously, you get to the top because others recognize your merit. I never said otherwise. I merely said you dont change yourself to fit anothers preconception of merit.
Great artists and leaders often have to endure unpopularity and even vilification before recognition comes – sometimes they are only recognized posthumously. Often it happens in their lifetimes but it happens because they remained uncompromising and others eventually bent to THEIR position. Did Winston Churchill merely bend to the fashion of the times or did he remain uncompromising in his vision for his country and eventually Britain bent to his vision? Did Leonardo Da Vinci simply do what everyone else did or did he do something entirely new and original without bending to anyone and eventually others recognized his merit?
The men who simply bent with the fashions of the times are forgotten by history, so far from the truth is your claim that they rise to the top. They sink to the bottom – fast.
Your outlook is essentially the outlook of the spineless – again, just as a civilization needs Winston Churchills it needs men like you to bend to the will of men like Churchill. Game is the great sifter of men in that sorts everyone out into their position on the spectrum.
What is interesting and amusing about a man like you is that rather than jump at the opportunity to cast of your shackles you invest ingenuity into devising arguments for why chains are a good thing to have around ones neck. It is the slave arguing for his bondage. In my naivete I used to think men would jump at the chance to cast off their shackles if given the chance. I now know otherwise. Many men are quite taken with wearing a chain around their necks. I have now revised my view to take into account the men like you – who to be honest are the majority of gamers – who are biologically programmed to be servants and attendants of men (or women) more powerful than themselves. Over two thousand years ago Aristotle argued that some men are born with the souls of slaves.
It’s interesting you mention Churchill. I’ve always been extremely interested in him and his lifestyle. Your description of him- bending Britain to his will- that is utterly opposed to what he actually did. Your style of leadership vs his is actually one of the major reasons why the allies won the war. Churchill was an excellent listener, and understood his men and the people extremely well. As he said “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”
He selected his cabinet and his people based on merit, not on how well they bent themselves to his will, selected from both friends and foes from every party. In contrast Hitler selected people who agreed with him only, yesmen. Churchill was an excellent judge of character and was very able to find the best. He understood in speeches to soldiers that they didn’t die for patriotism, or to fuel the war machine, or any of that crap, they died for their brothers. He was excellent at getting behind the views of the British and gently guiding them into his preferred path.
In contrast, Hitler bullied Germany with his powerful charisma. He could make people believe anything. He forced his uncompromising view on the world even when he was wrong, and since he sucked as a military man he was often wrong.
Although even Hitler compromised a lot. His views were a mishmash of all sorts of popular prejudices, and he did a lot to satisfy the people’s need for luxuries and butter. Just when Germany disagreed, when his generals disagreed, his will always came out on top.
Churchill also had game. He was a brilliant diplomat and he was willing to change his behaviour and compromise to get what he wanted- see his allegiance with Stalin, a communist who he hated- how does that indicate he was unbending and unyielding? He changed his style of persuasion and wording in his many telegrams with Roosevelt some aggressive some charming, and was extremely persuasive in bringing the Americans over with his “lack of a backbone”. Hitler had a “backbone” and so he wasn’t able to do diplomacy as well as Churchill.
http://www.winston-churchill-leadership.com/trait-collaborations.html
See this for some more stuff on his leadership style.
And Leonardo Da Vinci? You know he spent most of his time bending over and compromising and working for rich men with money? You know the Mona Lisa and the last supper paintings were paintings for his rich patrons? That is how good artists work. They find a rich patron who’s willing to give them money. He was extremely charismatic and managed to keep their interest despite mostly doing what he wanted.
Churchill and Leonardo Da Vinci evidently had the souls of slaves. I mean, can you imagine Churchill in his telegrams, spending ages writing it, trying to find the right words, the right behaviour, the right personality to get America to bring their armies over and help him. I mean, damn, he compromised himself to be liked. Do powerful men do that?
“I am not true to myself. I am a sinner. I go against my sinful nature to be a better person. I do not do it for me (well i do to some degree but whatever), I do it for others, for God.”
If you are living like you claim (with sex outside marriage), you are not being true to the Christianity you claim to serve. At best you are a poor witness.
He did not compromise his principles or his personality or what he stood for. When did I say no one should compromise? That sounds like something game would say. I am all for compromising with women in a healthy relationship, instead of *dominating them*. My point is the autonomous man does not compromise who he is to be liked by others . Churchill always stood for the same things and was the same man, of course he was willing to compromise on objectives or material goods to obtain other material benefits in exchange. But did he compromise his values? Did he compromise his personality? Did he pretend to be someone other than who he was so Stalin would like him? No, he stated his values and goals plainly, and was willing to give some material things in order to get others.
You do realize this contradicts your idea that benders are the ones who make hsitory? But no matter – do you get that Churchill did not care if the people he selected bent their will to him in every area of life and thought, but only that they agreed to carry out the tasks entrusted to them for the larger goal of winning the war? In other words, they bent their will to him in the one area where it mattered, agreeing to do what it takes to win the war?
You see, at that time many in Britain were clamoring for surrender to Hitler. It was Churchill who stiffened their backs.
Your post is just one gigantic pile of sophistry. I used the two quotes above as typical examples of the type of thinking you employ. Your method is to elide crucial distinctions and steamroll over essential logical distinctions. This is the method you operate by. This is what it always comes to with gamers – these endless discussions where every logical distinction that should be blindingly obvious has to be pointed out – usually again and again – and the discussion revolves around me catching the gamer each time he tries to rape logic again and ignore crucial distinctions.
Dude, its pointless. What is fascinating about you is that you will invest all this ingenuity into creating this sophistry in the first place – it obviously takes some level of intelligence and effort to so systematically ignore obvious distinctions – rather than mobilizing your intelligence to figure out ways to cast off your chains. In fact, it is discussions like the one I am having with you now that led me to my central insight that game for most men is not an intellectual mis-understanding – as it was for me – but rather something they understand quite well and will passionately defend on the PRECISE basis I would reject it for. That guys like you would passionately defend game precisely for what I would reject it for was what opened my eyes.
“I understand your perspective… But… and this is a big but… I would suggest you study Game. Learn from it. Try to understand WHY these young men have attached themselves to Game and live that life. There is MORE to Game than getting laid, but the deeper meaning is buried under getting pussy. Much of Game is about adopting more masculine behaviours (i.e. alpha) to attract women… but that is NOT supposed to be the end of it (i.e. sex).
“When you see your triad of men (MRA/MGTOW/Game) all agreeing on CORE principles and then going their own way to live them… THAT is when feminists will shit their pants. It will be… GAME OVER.”
I see the value in what you’re saying, Maximus, and I can recognize some value that learning Game might have for me – even though I am one of those crusty, curmudgeonly old Boomers that get such blame-and-shame heaped on us by the Gen-X-ers and the Millennials.
Maximus, Jack Donovan -we are of different generations (I’m 58) and we view the world differently. And the Millennials view the world from yet another perspective. But we are all MEN – we are all searching, or exploring, or reaching for a way to handle ourselves, our lives, and the world we still share. We face the same problems – femisupremacy, institutionalized misandry, judicial duplicity and legalized discrimination. We may be going after different goals, different ways, but we are all striving to make our lives better and just possibly forging a better future.
That which divides us is much less than that which unites us.
@K
Quote: ” I did game for a bit, but as soon as I perceived that it meant not having a backbone, I became horrified and abandoned it immediately and was just myself. ”
It’s not that Game does not have backbone… men simply CHOOSE to not have one in order to get laid. Game however… will show you WHERE you are compromising to get sex. You can’t practice Game without KNOWING you have a backbone to compromise.
Betas… have no clue they have or should have a spine. They go all soft and think being friends with a girl, letting her cry on your shoulder, putting up with crap or buying them stuff will get them laid. Game… emulating the alpha… does not do any of this shit BUT does allow a girl to get away with crap if he knows it will let him get pussy. Game puts a fake spine in a beat male… and lets him try it on for awhile… it throws a man on the masculine path.
I think that might be why you left Game and why I have never adopted it as a lifestyle. I simply could never bend my spine for sex. Some men need to, other men don’t even have one.
I know you are hard on Game for probably many of the same reasons I am… but don’t be too hard on it. Game… will bring men out of their beta shells. It did for me and it looks like it did for you as well.
Quote: ” In other words I was led away from my nature but not truly understanding what I was doing and by all the game marketing tactics that it is really about masculinity.”
BINGO!!! Masculinity is the key. I wish it was I that discovered this, but I did not. Frost’s throwback week does not go back far enough. There is a man-o-sphere writer that NO ONE links to that taught me this.
Game never felt right for me either… because it is not MASCULINE. It is feminine because WOMEN are the ones that are fully sexual and seek it out at every opportunity they can get it. Just look at most women today… sexuality UNLEASHED!!!
Quote: “In other words, sex and social popularity increase his self-respect. He has no internal sources of validation but depends on others reactions to him for his opinion of himself. ”
BINGO again! This… is the red pill Game advocates are going to have to swallow if they want to go BEYOND Game. I think you will like what I have to say on this point in the future.
This also shows.. Game… is a purely FEMALE concept. Social validation and self-respect/esteem derived from OUTSIDE oneself. A man… masculinity… is all about who one is and relies on no outside social consent or authority to “feel good” about oneself.
Quote: “You are knee deep in the cognitive dissonance game excels at producing in the minds of its followers.”
I am not in denial of anything. I stand by my definition of jerk as you quoted of me, but you are free to your opinion of me.
With regard to changing ones behaviour… I also disagree with you. Betas… behave one way. Alphas… behave another. This is all Game is teaching a man. Now… that does not mean you SCRIPT yourself… it must become NATURAL. That does not mean you have to go the Roissy way and be rude to people for that IS being a jerk. This is what you disagree with about Roissy’s Game.
Women… respond a certain way to certain men based on how those men BEHAVE toward them. And how a man behaves is a DIRECT result of how that man THINKS about himself.
THINK alpha.. and you become one. BELIEVE you are the prize… and women treat you as such.
That is the secret of the jerk. He is the prize to be won by HER… but… he goes to far in being UNABLE to control his testosterone… his masculinity controls him instead of the man controlling his masculinity. The jerk lashes out, does asshole stuff, he truly does not give a shit.. aka Roissy. IT WORKS! Women… would STILL prefer this type of man to a beta… but they ALL want a man that can keep his spine and bend a little when HE decides he wants to because doing so makes her happy. HE bends his own spine… not the woman.
If you don’t think you have to change your behaviour to SOME degree for women… you have a problem. It is not about women merely LIKING you… it is about women WANTING you… and your cock most of all. LOL
What you don’t want is to adopt beliefs / behaviours you DON’T AGREE with and are therefore fake. THIS is your problem with Game.. it felt fake to you like it did for me as well. Some men… need to adopt Game to build that spine and they do so by starting to straighten the one they have to make a new one.
I want those who have adopted Game… to move beyond it. You and I appear to be at odds… be we are not.
Quote: ” Every single great artist was an original who did his own thing without giving a shit – he was often reviled for it but he did not compromise.”
I agree… completely. But you can’t just assert something for the sake of not giving a shit… that makes you an asshole/jerk. What an artist brings to the world has to come from someplace deeper… some place authentic. There are plenty of unheard of no talent artists out there with lots of spine that no one has heard of. There are also plenty of no-talent artists that do everything they can to be known and are. The true artists… does not care if anyone things he has a spine or not. He does what he does… and does not care if he is considered an artist (or a great writer).
Great art… comes from being a great artist. Spine… has nothing to do with it. If a great artists SHOWS spine… it is only because he won’t change his art for anyone else. He is being true to HIMSELF. You can hypocritically screw up a spine all you want… it won’t make you a great artist. There is something more to it than simply being true to your “vision.”
I find it interesting that after reading this essay… you seem to think I am some weak-spined Game advocate. You did read the parts where I rip Game’ers to pieces for being easy fucks for women did you not?
All I attempted to do with this essay is what you want…. get those that practice Game to SEE the problems with it… but praising where Game gets it RIGHT so as not to alienate anyone.
@ etype
The Tudors… is an excellent series. Art imitates life. I was in no way saying the Tudors was LITERALLY a case example of male/female dynamics… but it is not far off.
It is also a VERY historically accurate series. I looked up many of the plots and characters… everything that happened in the series… pretty much did when it came to Henry VIII. There was very little artistic license taken with the series other than how to literally “tell the story.” The facts… are 100% accurate.
I have never watched man men… so I know not of what you speak.
I don’t take your comments critically… they are merited. But have no fear… I do not look to TV for my information on male/female dynamics. LOL
That said… anyone who watches the Tudors and DOES NOT see the reality of male/female dynamics portrayed in them… is naive I think.
I agree that much of the 1950s man was a hodge-podge of male stereotype… but if it was ALL wrong… why is Mad Men such a success? Why are viewers getting something out of the series?
It’s not the hypocrisy of the times they are getting off on… it is the MASCULINE and FEMININE nature of the times… much like Tudor England.
I see series like The Tudor’s and Mad Men as a subtle undercurrent in society that the great shift back to a more masculine/feminine form of gender relations is on the way in the future.
@ j42601
I did not intend to take your quote out of the context of that which came before it. I thought it merely articulated so perfectly EXACTLY what Game advocates are going through… their 20s and sexual identity. Nothing has changed, young men want to have sex… but… the context of the times these men live in and pursue sex has changed. You may have pursued sex “desperately” as you say… but you probably also had other goals. In your 50s now.. there was still a idea that you could do something in the world, in society.
Today? Gen Zero sees nothing but Rome burning. That’s the difference. If all about you is flames… you throw out thoughts of doing or becoming anything significant with your life. With family taken away, it gets even worse. It is just outright hedonism, for both sexes.
This is all I was trying to highlight. I was not taking anything away from your observation that men in there 20s are naturally more sexually obsessed than men in there later years.
@ Dulst
I understand your reasoning behind the strength of the media that underlies the pervasiveness of feminism. But the MSM is dying even faster than society for the under 20 set. This simply will not affect the lives of those men who have woken up.
Quote: ” Now, if a patriarchy couldn’t survive the 60s, how the fuck is it gonna survive in ur current information driven society”
Correction… CHRISTIAN patriarchy is what failed to survive the feminist 60s. I have an essay on this coming soon that I tripped upon in my last Man Vs God series in one of the comment debates I was having. Without Christianty… feminism could not have succeed the way it did. Christianity… is why feminism successfully took root. Those that are wondering why Christianity “failed” to prevent feminism do not understand Christianity. It is also no surprise only die hard Christian soc-cons are still advocating the family values of Christ and failing.
This is why I highlight Islam in my Man vs God series. Islam… is almost invulnerable to feminism. They are seeing this even now in Egypt where secular liberals are “shocked” that the Muslim Brotherhood is winning elections. They should not be. Islam… is a masculine faith and one that will not change for anyone. It is also far more in line with natural male/female dynamics than any other religion. Feminism.. simply has no intellectual ground to plant its seed in Islam.
I can concede your argument that Frost’s sexual contract is a compromise… but real men don’t compromise. A man gets what he wants or he walks. That is the problem I have with his sexual contract is that it goes against civilized society. We would not have the advanced state of man we have today… without patriarchal (read religious) values that keep sexual union between a man and wife, ideally. If hedonists are allowed their way… no man’s wife is safe for they refuse to “see” the monogamous world those traditionalists want to live in. Hedonism is also a drag on progress. Wallowing in pleasure produces no great art or science… only a decadent, weak and impotent culture. Give men and women enough rope to do whatever they want and they inevitably will. Which is why the Illuminati are getting away with their feminist plan to destroy the family and have us all rutting like animals with no “sexual contract” what-so-ever.
Hedonism will end exactly as you say it will… with the collapse of society.
All I am saying with this essay is… you hedonists… had best start thinking about the future because if you don’t… you are going to get pinched in the coming crack down. A stable and progressive society is simply incompatible with a hedonistic lifestyle.
The future of man must have family and children as the cornerstone of its organization… because anything less will keep reverting us back to the shit we find ourselves in today – no strings attached sex.
And to the idea that no-stings means no relationship… THAT IS EXACTLY the feminist dream! Life is just one big orgy. Anyone who believes they are having no strings attached sex is deluding themselves. Emotions are involved and its the DENIAL of these emotions that feminists want.
I also disagree with your assessment that 20-something men have no avenue to “man up” today. They do… by the very fact they are MALE! You still see manning up in terms of religion and family. It is not. Manning up is about asserting what is right and good… family is merely a by product of manning up, not the reason for doing so.
I do agree that we can’t just “go back”… if we do without correcting the problems of today… we will get the same shit again in 2 or 3 generations as you say.
The problem I see with allowing the 2 solution plan of society you envision… one traditional, the other hedonist… is that WOMEN won’t allow it.
The female… rejects traditional roles, even if she IS happier in that state. Her biological and evolutionary genetic programming will not go along with one man, life long marriage. It is not men we need to keep from hedonism… it is WOMEN! You would not be getting laid the way you are now if MEN did not reward them for spreading their legs. Every time you fuck a slut… you are dragging ALL men down with you to the gutter.
This is the problem… if MEN don’t enforce sexual moral restraint, women never will. They want their cake and eat it to… big daddy government provider and the cock-carousel.
But.. I also agree that freedom must be the emphasis in the future. So what we have to work out is a “contract” that enforces sexual morality in a way that allows men and women freedom to choose family or not in the future without resorting to Babylon whoring on one side with Lot and his family on the other trying to keep his family safe from rampaging hedonists.
It’s quite the puzzle… and I hope to contribute to solving it.
brada “If you are living like you claim (with sex outside marriage), you are not being true to the Christianity you claim to serve. At best you are a poor witness.”
Could you give me a clear biblical cite for that, that sex outside of marriage is untrue to Christianity? I know there are lots honouring marriage and saying to abstain from sexual immorality (incest, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery), but I don’t know of any which say sex before marriage is wrong.
K.
He did not compromise his principles or his personality or what he stood for.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1208754/Churchill-believed-charm–Stalin.html
Actually, he did.
Stalin was able to orchestrate his performance precisely from start to finish, with every nicety of courtesy and insult adjusted accordingly.
Churchill left the meeting smarting and angry. In private, all his latent animosity towards the Soviets bubbled forth, revived by abuse from the leader who 18 months earlier had been content to collude in Hitler’s rape of Europe….
Later on, he invited Churchill to his private quarters to relax and talk man to man. After several hours, Churchill, who always prided himself on his ability to win round doubters by sheer force of personality and woo them to his side, came away satisfied that he had established some sort of rapport.
He left Moscow feeling his visit had achieved as much as was possible, in bleak circumstances. He had displayed the highest gifts of statesmanship, placing a brave face upon bad tidings and never flinching when his host lashed out at him. One of his aides wrote: ‘No one but the Prime Minister could have got so far with Stalin.’
Stalin shit tested him and Churchill repressed his usual witty cruelty and anger and was polite to Stalin. Stalin later went his own way, but Churchill managed to maintain good relationships with Stalin despite his provocation by pushing down his natural behaviour and personality.
“You do realize this contradicts your idea that benders are the ones who make hsitory?”
Well, you’ve made the definition of bender incredibly broad. Not many people aren’t benders under your definition. People who I’d see as steadfast and solid men are benders by your definition.
“But no matter – do you get that Churchill did not care if the people he selected bent their will to him in every area of life and thought, but only that they agreed to carry out the tasks entrusted to them for the larger goal of winning the war? In other words, they bent their will to him in the one area where it mattered, agreeing to do what it takes to win the war?”
And in the same way, a gamer does not care if a woman does not bend their will to them in all ways. I perfectly agree with what you say here.
“Your post is just one gigantic pile of sophistry. I used the two quotes above as typical examples of the type of thinking you employ. Your method is to elide crucial distinctions and steamroll over essential logical distinctions.”
Well, no, you’re just factually inaccurate in your view of history. Churchill did “compromise who he is to be liked by others .” he was naturally witty and rude, but avoiding being so to win Stalin over. It’s not about words or logic, it’s about what actually happens in reality.
“it obviously takes some level of intelligence and effort to so systematically ignore obvious distinctions”
Yes, like you ignored how Churchill changed his personality and behaviour to convert Roosevelt to his side. That is a factual event that happened, he changed himself to win another over, but you ignored it when making your theory about how the world works. You have this picture of how the world works in your head which has no relation to what academic sources say the world is like, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. I’ll end with a quote from the man himself, about whether you should change yourself to be liked.
“I realised that I should be on my best behaviour – punctual, subdued, reserved – in short, display all the qualities with which i am least endowed.”
Weird cognitive dissonance. Faking yourself to *impress* women is not having a back bone. If you are feeling one thing but hide that and act on another you have no back bone, you are a puppet pulled by strings held by women.
Gamers are just a more refined version of betas. And what is wrong with letting a girl cry on your shoulder? How does doing that in any way indicate a lack of back bone? Some of the fear of normal emotional expression amongst gamers is reminiscent of an adolescent male terrified that his masculinity will be in question if her permits himself any emotion at all.
Game does not emulate the alpha. The core attribute of the alpha is that he does not do things to be *impressive* or liked by others. There are about 50 different schools of game, and each game school emulates the behavior of one particular man who the creator of that school knew who did what he wished. One game guru knew a guy who was aloof and did not care to disguise that fact – so he mistakenly thought this was the core of alpha and he invented a school around that. Another game guru saw a guy who was quite talkative and charming, and so invented a school around that.
Added on to this is a whole host of attitudes and techniques that a true alpha would never ever do, like needing to pass bitch tests, like persistence, like approaching from indirect angles.
If you think game gurus emulate alpha I advise you to go onto youtube and check out some videos of mehow, mystery, or Neil Strauss or others – these guys look and act the furthest thing from a poised, composed, self-confident male imaginable. One of the things that helped me out of game was watching videos of Strauss, mehow, roosh, and others and thinking – this is not what confidence looks likes at all!
Roissy specifically recommends Mystery and Strauss, so maybe check them out first.
No, it drives a man deeper and deeper into beta-hood while letting him believe all along that he is doing the opposite. That is the distinctive corrosive poison of game – it disarms the critical faculties that would let a man see clearly that he is supplicating by encouraging men to practice double-think – to say one thing, and do another. Gamers will say *you must be your own man and do your own thing* – sounds great, right? – then the next sentence out of their mouths will be *if you are feeling affectionate, you must pretend to be indifferent and cocky* – which is the exact opposite of doing your own thing and being your own man.
This is why I fell for game myself – parts of the message sounded good. When I grasped that all gamers practiced double-think, I went through a stage where I thought well some parts of game are surely good, so perhaps some of it is salvageable. It took me more time of wrestling with the ideas involved to fully grasp that the problem is at the very heart of game – the very idea that you do things to impress/please others. Adopting such a mental frame cannot help but make you less masculine, no matter what you do. Expressing tenderness when you actually feel it is more masculine that faking cocky indifference. It takes more courage, it takes more back-bone. When I finally realized this, I realizes game was tainted at the very roots in a way that makes it completely irredeemable in every last way. It has to be completely abandoned – full stop.
The more the poor sap who does game buys into the concept that he must act to impress women or make them attracted to him, the more he buries himself deeper and deeper into beta-hood. The very idea of making women attracted to you is tainted – it has the capacity to destroy your independence and masculinity.
Lokk at poor thesecond – he is arguing for a lack of masculinity, and why that is a good thing.
Only in the sense that a mild dose of poison might stimulate a mans immune system. In other words a man who practices game will soon feel self-disgust, abandon game and realize that he has to learn how to be authentically masculine.
However, this presupposes that a man has a healthy immune system. For the man with a weak immune system, even a mild poison can kill.
But there is no point in going through the detour of game for ANY man.
On one level this is false, on another level it is true. There is no one way an alpha acts Some alphas are indifferent, some are charming and talkative. Some are great romantic lovers, some are cocky and teasing. This is why there are 50 different schools of game
However, it IS true that there is ONE way in which alphas and betas essentially differ - the alpha is unafraid to express his true personality, whatever that is, while the beta hides behind masks. The alpha acts to please himself, the beta acts to please women. This is why gamers are just a more refined, indirect version of betas – beta 2.0, if you will. A gamer who fakes himself is not acting like an alpha. He is adopting the mannerisms of someone he knows who is an alpha without grasping that the specific mannerisms (aloofness, cocky) are not essential to that guys alphanness, but that what makes that guy an alpha is that he is not afraid to do his own thing. If the beta guy wanted to emulate an alpha, he would necessarily become his own unique person who emulates no one.
Nope, that is an example of cognitive dissonance. Game teaches a man to act to please women in indirect ways – the opposite of being an alpha.
More cognitive dissonance. If I feel affectionate and act indifferent, I am scripting myself, no matter how much I tell myself it aint so. If I feel gentle but act cocky and brazen, I am scripting myself. It is not natural no matter how many times I tell myself it is. And no matter how many times I do it, it will not become natural. I will just be learning to better ignore my natural emotional system and will probably eventually become depressed or a nervous wreck.
Women do not experience sexual attraction to men based on how men act. This is completely 100% false and is the central game claim that has been not been proven by a single study, and all studies have pointed to other factors.
The interesting thing is that if a man THINKS about himself in the way that he *has to create attraction*, he thinks that WHO HE IS is inadequate – in other words he is being taught to think of himself in a beta way. Another example of game cognitive dissonance – it instills beta thought process in you like you have to create attraction with your behavior even while telling you this is not so.
How are YOU the prize if you have to pretend to be someone you are not in order to create attraction? If you have to do a bunch of tactics? If you are not allowed to act normally and spontaneously without thinking about it? Is this not the opposite of being the prize and in fact putting women on a pedestal? Are you beginning to see the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance?
This is the attitude of the beta male. Women should want who I am – or not. That you have this attitude is at the root of your problems.
Our differences are enormous. You have a mixture of incompatible attitudes some of which I agree with and most of which I dont. You are perhaps stuck in a relatively early stage of your exit from game, but you are not quite there yet. You have too many game attitudes still in you and are waist deep in massive stinking piles of cognitive dissonance.
Lol, dude, it is called being polite, and it does not involve any change of personality or faking yourself. It merely involves a commitment to not causing pointless offense or pain to others. I do it too – and guess what, I am not faking myself.
Can it be you really do not grasp these distinctions? I think it more likely you are emotionally motivated to deny them.
@ K
It seems you definitely have your idea about Game and dislike it. Very good points all around. Again… I am not an advocate of Game nor a true practitioner. I think you might be projecting a little too much simply because I do see some advantages to knowing and practicing Game… I just don’t see it as the end game.
“Women do not experience sexual attraction to men based on how men act.”
This here… I will call you on. If Game has anything down freaking pat… it is how to behave properly around women. This dramatically changed my interactions with women for the better. I am still myself… as I don’t fake anything, but some of the cues on body language from Game like:
- standing tall (most guys can add two inches EASY if they just stood up straight)
- moving in a relaxed, calm and centered manner
- not being overly excited in your movements or speaking
- proper use of kino
- maintaining an open body posture that welcomes
- looking a women in the eye
These are all important body language tips… and they are now natural to me (pretty much always were but I have a better understanding on how women respond to them than before when I was clueless)
You have some good points about where Game fails… but you are also why I wrote this article. I want people to respect Game for what it does at its most base level… give guys some tips and pointers that work. Yes, it is “fake it till you make it” for many and some never get out of Game script, but it is a start for many men who have had ZERO success with women and are tired of being told to “be yourself.” You can’t tell a guy “just be yourself” as you advise when that is ALL he has ever done and FAILED with women.
I grasp your distinctions… I have no emotional attachment or motivation to Game… but I will not dismiss it like so many (and you) appear to be doing. This is why Paul’s article caused such a stink… lack of respect for what Game can offer men.
I agree with you… Game most be a stepping stone and something you discard in favour of an authentic interaction with yourself and with women… but I will not declare Game as pointless or regressive. It clearly has merit even if you refuse to see the points where it does.
Like Ferdinand said in another comment somewhere. You don’t have to like Roissy or the Game he plays… but you are an idiot to dismiss him as a fool.
Ok K… I am going to go point by point on your last comment. I thought why bother but it should help you see where we agree and disagree.
“Faking yourself to *impress* women is not having a back bone.”
One of the only real tips of Neil Strauss that I can agree with… is the idea you CAN be a BETTER version of yourself. This is not being fake and does not mean you don’t have a backbone. It is about becoming a better person who is more socially aware and comfortable around women. In the beginning it may feel fake… and it will only be fake if you truly are trying to be something you are not. Neil does not advocate being fake. He stresses testing your personal social shell a little and try something different with your personality. If you like it and it works… then it is a new you. If not, then you can try another approach or way that does work for you with women.
The point is… just “being yourself” has not worked… so what is the harm in trying to be someone different? It’s called exploring your personality instead of saying “I am good enough just as I am.” Which is fine and you should believe that and have this base of self-esteem… but there is no harm in trying something different with women if other guys say it works. I don’t understand why you would object to this.
“Gamers are just a more refined version of betas. “
Yes… if they stay focused on sex… which was my whole criticism of Game you seem to continually miss. I do have a big problem with Game on SEX being the only goal. But Game’ers do get laid… which many betas cannot claim.
Which would you rather be.. a beta with no sex or a Game beta that gets laid?
“And what is wrong with letting a girl cry on your shoulder?”
Nothing… as long as you don’t think it is going to get you sex. Too many guys do. They play “the caring friend” and then are disappointed the girl does not “see them that way” (i.e. suck his cock way).
That is all I was saying. If you are friends with a girl… and have no plans on bedding her… then knock yourself out if you like to listen to a girl blubber about her emotional problems. I for one have no patience for it. Not because I don’t “care” about the girl… but because I really don’t care to have female friends blubbering their emotions all over me. I like guy friends that talk about guy stuff. Girls just talk chick stuff and it bores me to tears. LOL
“the fear of normal emotional expression amongst gamers “
True this… but it has roots in female evo psych. No woman… wants a man that cries or comes to her with his problems. She will not respond to it except with pity and worst of all… MOTHERING!!!
No woman wants to be a mother to the man she hopes will fuck her.
Yes… some Game’ers go too far and cut off their emotions entirely… that is where they error. But if they go BEYOND Game and learn WHEN to display emotion, their Game is taken to another level.
In short… I hope you don’t believe being emotional with girls will get you laid… it won’t. And even if it does… its pity sex.
There is also the status of the girl to consider. A near perfect 10… wants nothing to do with an emotional, blubbering loser. A desperate 5 or 6… will love you telling her you love her over and over again.
“One game guru knew a guy who was aloof and did not care to disguise that fact – so he mistakenly thought this was the core of alpha and he invented a school around that. Another game guru saw a guy who was quite talkative and charming, and so invented a school around that.”
Ahhh grasshopper.. you are seeing through the matrix of Game. This is very key.. there are MANY WAYS to be alhpa and the core is not worrying about impressing anyone. But for a guy that DOES worry about this… and how to do it the right way… there is nothing wrong with “pretending” he does not care about impressing people to learn what this FEELS like. Soon… it will become a part of him and he will LOSE the desperate desire to be liked by others. You practice Game long enough… you just fade out of it IF you mature in the process.
Sadly… many Gamers don’t mature and are stuck in Game. This is all I am saying.
“Added on to this is a whole host of attitudes and techniques that a true alpha would never ever do, like needing to pass bitch tests, like persistence, like approaching from indirect angles.”
Look… the ONLY difference between an alpha doing the above and a Game’er… is the alpha does it NATURALLY without thinking about it. A Game practitioner is AWARE and learns how to do it. THAT is the only difference. Alpha’s pass bitch tests, persist and approach approach approach all day and LAUGH at guys who practice Game and “talk about how to sex girls.” If you are a NATURAL alpha… then Game ain’t for you. But if you are NOT… then Game opens a WHOLE NEW WORLD to many men.
When I said Game throws a man on the masculine path… I mean this.
Game… forces… shy, beta, nice-guy, chump, dateless, “just being myself should be enough” guys to actually LOOK at where they FAIL with women and STOP doing the same thing they have always done.
The masculine path is all about improving yourself as a MAN… and one of the primary tests is your success with women. Now… this should NOT be your source of self-esteem as many Game advocates seem to see it… but it IS a test of manhood.
Anything.. that forces a man out of his shell with women… gives him some “game” (i.e. confidence) to approach women… fail, get up, try again… is a POSITIVE thing for a guy.
That is all I am saying. Going out looking for a woman… is… masculine. And a man… should have a plan.
“Gamers will say *you must be your own man and do your own thing* – sounds great, right? – then the next sentence out of their mouths will be *if you are feeling affectionate, you must pretend to be indifferent and cocky* – which is the exact opposite of doing your own thing and being your own man.
I don’t think you understand Game very well at all, if I may say so.
The whole point of being able to recognize when you are getting all warm/fuzzy with a girl… is to STOP yourself from blubbering like an idiot around her.
Have you ever heard a girl talk about the super HOT guy at the club… only when he finally approached her… every word that came out of his mouth kept turning her off more and more and more and more until they guy could have been a Brad Pitt look-a-like but she would rather shoot herself in the head than fuck him because of HOW HE TALKED AND BEHAVED around a “hot” girl.
Can you not see that Game helps a guy lose his pedestal/worship/”love” (before he even knows her name for God’s sake!) type behaviour toward women… even if in the beginning he has to suppress natural feelings? He can still feel them LATER… he is just learning it is not always GOOD to express whatever you feel/think with women RIGHT AWAY.
“the problem is at the very heart of game – the very idea that you do things to impress/please others”
Dude… you have NEVER done ANYTHING to impress or please others? Come on. You are human. If you have ever just SMILED at a waitress to be pleasant and personable… you are doing it to PLEASE someone even if you also pleasing yourself. Our whole functioning as a society is dependent on people at least on SOME level desiring others to be pleased or impressed by them so we can work and play and have fun together. If everyone TRULY did not give a shit about what anyone thought.. this place would be… well.. America quite frankly to be blunt. Ever wonder WHY Canadians are liked all over the world? Yes… it is because we are so gosh darn pleasing to be around and that impresses people.
I have only met a few Americans come up to visit my home town… and instantly… LOUD, ABRASIVE, CORSE, RUDE. Walk around like the own the whole God damn planet.
I don’t want to live in a world where NO ONE does anyone to please or impress anyone. So… I guess that makes me a beta then.
I think you are ripping apart Game for some personal reason I can’t quiet put my finger on.
Here is an example of what I mean about pleasing people… or women…
“Expressing tenderness when you actually feel it is more masculine that faking cocky indifference.
Ok… I agree here… WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT. It is masculine to express what you feel. But… with women… if you come across all “tender and sweet”… you will get what one woman called a guy I know who is constantly being turned down by women… “Oh… he is SOOOOO NIIIIICCCCEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!” The man is dead meat to women sexually BECAUSE he is always being so “tender and sweet” to them. The fuglies will love this guy… but not the 9s and 10s a true masculine man wants for himself.
So… if you WANT a female friend… then go right ahead and be “tender and sweet” whenever you feel it with a woman. But if you want to FUCK her… or at least have her put you in the FUCK category and not the friend zone… then you better bust out the cocky-funny because THAT SHIT WORKS!!!! Being tender gets you “the hug and pat” from a girl. Being cocky-funny gets her lips around your cock every time.
“The alpha acts to please himself, the beta acts to please women.
This is correct. Will not argue this and it is my biggest beef with Game.
But… I will not throw out Game and tell other young men to dismiss it just because it MIGHT get them to act in a way that pleases women. There is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. You WANT girls to like you don’t you? Girls DO respond to a pattern of male behaviours that CAN BE LEARNED… so why not learn them? You can still be yourself later as no man’s Game is identical as you said.
I just don’t understand WHY you feel Game is so bad if it gets men to become more outgoing, social and attractive to women.
What is your advice then? To a guy that is FAILING with women every day for years.
Just be yourself?
Fuck that. Do the same thing you have always done… get the same results you always get.
Game mixes it up and teaches men to try something different. I don’t see how you can rant and rave it is poison to simply try something different than what you have always been doing.
“Game teaches a man to act to please women in indirect ways – the opposite of being an alpha.
Look. If you think an alpha NEVER has to please a woman in any way… you have ZERO understanding about women. EVERY MAN has to please a woman at SOME point in his dating/mating life. Even an alpha will have to bend at some point… or else he becomes what we DON’T want to become… a jerk/asshole that fucks up women for the rest of their lives.
But.. funny thing that… the jerks/assholes get girls and sex… blubbering emo-man she cries onto his shoulder about her “horrible asshole boyfriend” gets ZERO PUSSY!
You will have to please women… even if that means BEING the true, alpha, masculine man that “does not care about pleasing her.”
It’s a paradox… not pleasing women pleases her. You can’t escape pleasing a woman!
Ok… time for bed. I wonder if this italics thing will work.
I’m sorry, but I had to stop reading about 20 paragraphs into the longwinded article when I realized the author was trying to imply that being an MRA is not about eliminating prostitution laws and stopping new and higher age of consent laws. If you look at the MRM that way, there is no way a decent alpha PUA would not be an MRA. Where PUAs get annoyed at MRAs is when they concentrate too much on divorce law, implying that marriage should still be the main focus of a man’s life.
I think the author mistook being an MRA with being a social conservative. If you look at it that way, then yes, there is a huge divide among men.
And this divide will never be bridged.
If the author was attempting a sneaky, back-handed attempt to capture the term “MRA” for the dwindling “social conservative” camp who know the moniker “social conservative” is now a turn-off to the general male electorate and who would love to claim they own the “men’s rights movement” because it sounds better, that bullshit is not going to work.
And, no, I don’t think the older generation is that much more social conservative than the younger ones. Maybe some of the older guys are impotent and defeatist by now, but I know tons of older guys who aren’t.
And older men can and do pay for sex with very hot young women. MRAs, by definition, want that to remain legal at least for the customer.
Sorry for not having read anything, including any of the comments, after I realized the author was trying to pretend that the MRM is some kind of social conservative movement.
Social conservatives will never represent men.
Evo Psych proves that ideology is mostly in the female interest.
Men who want to divide over this only help the feminists.
An exception would be Ron Paul who is a social conservative but would never think of imposing his personal values over other men via government.
“Lol, dude, it is called being polite, and it does not involve any change of personality or faking yourself. It merely involves a commitment to not causing pointless offense or pain to others. I do it too – and guess what, I am not faking myself.
Can it be you really do not grasp these distinctions? I think it more likely you are emotionally motivated to deny them.”
“Weird cognitive dissonance. Faking yourself to *impress* women is not having a back bone. If you are feeling one thing but hide that and act on another you have no back bone, you are a puppet pulled by strings held by women.”
You have arbitrary distinctions. You yourself feel one thing but hide that and act on another to avoid causing pointless pain to others. I do the same, but you condemn me. There is little point in arguing if you do not understand your own behaviour.
You do things in order to be liked or found impressive. I am polite in order to spare people pain who have done me no wrong. I am not trying to be liked by them or found impressive – I am not seeking their good opinion, not seeking their validation. I am seeking to spare them pain if they have done nothing wrong to me. Nor am I faking or hiding anything – I can be quite open about the fact that I am annoyed or angry and yet still refuse to strike out or insult another person who has done me no wrong. Being yourself does not = acting on every stray emotion that passes through your head. It DOES mean not HIDING that emotion, to yourself or others, and it DOES mean acting on your values and convictions without regard to what others think, and it DOES mean to express what you actually feel in appropriate social situations even if you fear others wont like you for it, but it does not mean volunteering it regardless of context (blurting out details of your love life in a business meeting, for example), nor does it mean acting on every idea that pops into your head.
Sheesh. Man o man. You have to be a real nerd and social retard to not grasp these things. I allowed myself to be dragged into one of these surreal retarded gamer arguments again where you are arguing with an autistic nerd who does not understand the most basic social concepts – I promised I would not let that happen again.
Maximus
Thank you, and keep up the good work!
There is an incredible amount of passion in this debate, which can make for heated engagement, and I accord with your central thesis, if I understand it right: We are all on the same side – all having to deal with modern western women in a deranged world. DYB brothers, BYB.
“I can be quite open about the fact that I am annoyed or angry and yet still refuse to strike out or insult another person who has done me no wrong.”
So you’re not doing what Churchill did, hide his anger and annoyance at Stalin’s insults so he could negotiate with him better. People can read your anger from your body language and respond with anger and annoyance even if you don’t lash out. This is basic social theory. You get pissed at someone, you go in private to cool off before you try to get something from them because otherwise you’ll piss them off too.
“it DOES mean to express what you actually feel in appropriate social situations even if you fear others wont like you for it”
So again, not what Churchill did- if other world leaders didn’t like him then they wouldn’t give him their armies to protect britain. If they didn’t like him millions of britains would die. They were powerful strong men who could not be forced around by strength of will.
“Sheesh. Man o man. You have to be a real nerd and social retard to not grasp these things. I allowed myself to be dragged into one of these surreal retarded gamer arguments again where you are arguing with an autistic nerd who does not understand the most basic social concepts – I promised I would not let that happen again.”
I apologise, I assumed you had some basic social skills and that your behaviour involved these social skills. I was wrong I see.
thesecond – now explain to me how not having a spine and bending to the desires of others is really about masculinity and strength.
Anyways, this has been a surreal conversation. I honestly never thought I would b arguing with people who advocate for not having a spine. I keep on repeating to myself in amazement – this guy is actually arguing for not having a spine. Its surreal. And you are not alone – GL piggy also argues for not having a spine, and so does roissy, and so do all gamers.
Like I said, a fundamental divide. Cheers.
A nice little contrast with the gamer mentality I found in this profile of Sean Parker. Not pleasing others and doing your own thing whether others like it or not (while still being polite, lol) seems to be pretty much the common element amongst all the hyper-successful. It can be documented almost at random.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/fashion/sean-parker-brings-facebook-style-skills-to-new-york-social-scene.html?_r=1
But noooooo, being independent is baaad, you need to do game so women will like you. I agree that world full of Sean Parkers would not work. The world needs its roissys, its the seconds, its gamer-types.
This is my definition of game – an attempt by incurably weak men to disguise their weak supplicating behavior as strength so they can conceal from their minds the painful fact that they are weak. True, thesecond offers us an interesting innovation – he says yes we gamers are weak, but so what? All men are weak, it is the way of the world. It is not to have a spine and be do things so that others will like you. It gets you things, it gets you goodies.
50% of gamers will defend game as being about masculinity, like Maximus does here, thus buying into its cognitive dissonance, and 50% of gamers will defend not having a spine as a good thing, like thesecond. Clearly the second group is more intellectually honest.
K…
Correction… Game IS NOT masculine… I never said this. Game… MOVES a man onto the masculine path.
Please stop incorrectly stating what I believe.
This essay does not support Game… and it does not support social conservatism. It CRITICIZES BOTH… while also affirming what is POSITIVE in both philosophies. It is a BALANCED essay aimed at reconciliation and understanding. I have also achieved my aim… as it seems I have pissed of both Game and MRA advocates.
Game… should be viewed as a TRANSITION TOOL to becoming your own man. Just as the article above you linked to states. Doing your own thing and being polite about it. That is pretty much what I do.
But… why be polite? Would that not be PLEASING other people? Are you not against pleasing anyone?
This is the cognitive dissonance you say I am undergoing… a refusal to see the natural dynamic of humans to WANT to please each other since we EVOLVED that way to be able to co-operate to work and play together. You see anything a man does to please anyone as not having a back-bone. I see it as simply being polite. Who is right?
You are correct ONLY on the point where those who practice Game NEVER transcend the scripts and patterns learned to ingratiate themselves to women. You have to move BEYOND Game to become a true man. However, I will not do as you do and turn around and rip apart Game from some personal ideological conviction that it is anathema to a man’s development. It is a TOOL… as I stated in the beginning of this essay. YOU YOURSELF did practice Game… therefore there was SOMETHING about it that worked for you… and you MOVED ON when Game had completed its purpose… of molding you into the man you are today. You cannot claim Game has had no affect on your life because here you are vigorously disparaging it. Relax a little. Other men can choose how to interpret and use Game without you needing to “protect” them from themselves.
Whenever you have to defend you are right until you are blue in the face… you are trying to convince yourself more than others. All the above is for your own ego and I am the first to admit I have engaged in it myself at times.
Quote: “Anyways, this has been a surreal conversation. I honestly never thought I would b arguing with people who advocate for not having a spine. I keep on repeating to myself in amazement – this guy is actually arguing for not having a spine. Its surreal. ”
It’s been surreal… because you have encountered people who just don’t bend over backwards and agree with you.
It’s called.. HAVING A SPINE!
We have spines… they are just different from yours. If we had no spines, we would just bend over and submit to your obviously superior intellect and argument.
I stand behind this essay and stand by my assertion you have not understood Game or my argument properly. You are free to disagree. But the fact you have commented the most here about back-bone and spine perhaps suggests you yourself might not have that which you accuse others of not possessing.
A true man with back-bone… can ACCEPT that others will not acknowledge or bend to his will or opinion because he himself has a back-bone and knows it will not bend for anything less than a convincing argument by the other person. In short… a man with back-bone RECOGNIZES it when he sees it in others.
You… refuse to believe others can’t see your point of view and label us as therefore not having any spine. There is a chance all your verbiage above is simply projection onto other of your own failings.
Thank you for your comments… for everyone that contributed. If that pleases some of you, well, I guess I don’t have a spine according to K. Or am I just being polite? I am so darn confused!!!
I am not against pleasing others or being kind – quite the contrary. Gamers are against being kind in an effort to impress women with their *toughness*. I am merely against trying to make others like me. Do you spot the distinction? Wishing to be kind to other people is perfectly ok – I support it heartily. Making an effort to be liked or be found impressive (i.e game) is what I find pathetic and spineless.
Gamers frequently conflate two essentially distinct but related notions in order to prepare the ground mentally for accepting game. Gamers will take a notion that has widespread acceptance and is considered innocuous – like being polite, say, or girls wearing make up and dressing nice – and say it is just like changing your behavior and personality in order to be found impressive by women. It is this deft little manipulation that is so insidious.
Lets be clear here – being polite is not trying to be thought impressive by women. It is trying not to give offense. Cooperating amicably is not the same as making entire personality changes in order to win the approval of women. <These ideas are distinct.
Now you say that game can serve as a transition into genuine masculinity – how? How can something that makes you less masculine be a transition into greater masculinity? The only way this can happen is that when you see game does not work you get fed up once and for all with trying to manipulate others and become a forthright, direct, assertive male who does not change himself to be liked by women. But then there is no point doing game, you can just become a direct person who does not bullshit without going through the mental damage of doing game.
So please explain to me how learning to be less masculine can be a transition point into being more masculine. Explain to me how implanting into your mind the idea that it it is your job to impress women can make you more masculine. Explain to me how by adopting an essentially weak mental frame – that you have to make women like you and that you are not like-able as you are – and operating out of such a weak mental frame you are learning to become more masculine.
You see, game can be like an addiction, where even where guys who get that game is damaging and does not work and is generally bullshit, have a residual attachment to it that just wont let go. Game has this way of persisting in the mind for reasons I will explain in a moment. I went though that stage too and I have seen this stage in a lot of guys. After I got to the stage where I realized most game is bullshit it took me another year of saying – oh well, but there are still some good things in game – before I realized that whatever was good in game was contradicted by and cancelled out by all the harmful crap and could be easily gotten elsewhere.
For you, this residual attachment against what you really know takes the form of saying – well, game is bullshit, but it can serve as a transition point blah blah blah. For me, it was – well most game is bullshit but SOME of it is good blah blah blah.
All these equivocations and fudgings just delay the final reckoning when you make your complete and total break with game – they are just delaying tactics our mind plays on us, and the sooner overcome the better.
Now, there is a reason game has this hold on your mind and wont let go, and that reason is bound up with its appeal to many men. Game is intimately bound up in a confused way in our minds with notions of being masculine and strong and all that.
And the thing is many men these days ARE desperately searching for ways to become masculine, and they believe that abandoning game means abandoning masculinity. They feel this in some dim way even if they cant really articulate it.
And at the end of the day, there ARE one or two good concepts or ideas in game, but the trick is the basic idea – that you need to impress others, however indirect you wish to be about it – is utterly rotten to the core and colors all the other concepts associated with it to the point where the good ideas become poison. So even the one or two good ideas of game become poison when imbibed in the context of game.
That is why it is necessary to make a total and clean break with game and get it out of your system once and for all – cold turkey.
This is the essence of the issue for me – doing masculine things in order to impress women cancels out the masculine content of that behavior. Now, this point is somewhat subtle, but it can be measured in the effects on your psyche. When I did game, I found myself getting weaker and weaker emotionally, and I could not quite understand why. I did not grasp that doing things in order to be found impressive by women was putting me in a weak mental frame. People began reacting towards me as if I was weaker as well. I retrogressed as a man precisely when I bought into the idea that game makes you more masculine. Now, before you say oh well thats just because I did *bad game* and had I practiced *good game* things would have been different, stop and realize that this is just a cop out. I was always a reasonably socially calibrated person and a decent actor to boot – if anyone could do *good game*, it was me. And the fact is I did perfect game. It is precisely because I did perfect game that I got worse and worse. Not only that, but I have seen a few dozen guys do game and it made all of them weird socially and with women, and just weaker as human beings. I also watched videos of Neil Strauss, Mystery, roosh, etc on youtube and saw men who vibed very weakly, and it puzzled me that men who preached masculinity should come across as so unimpressive.
Now the idea that doing something strong and masculine not for yourself but it in order to be found impressive by others cancels out the masculinity of that behavior and actually puts you into a weak frame is a somewhat subtle and paradoxical point, and not understanding this kept me in game far longer than I should have been.
For the guys like thesecond who ardently defend not having a spine, there is really little to talk about. I have no real quarrel with such guys. They are honest about what they want out of life and what gives them pleasure and they are willing to act on it.
I write more for those guys who really want to become more masculine and develop into strong characters and mistakenly believe that game will help them along that path. I was one of those guys and game robbed me of a few years of my life, and I wish to spare others such a pointless sacrifice of years.
When I was seeking my way out of game and confusedly articulating my thoughts about why it was bullshit, it meant the world to me to finally discover that other highly intelligent men saw what I saw. Before I found those people I thought I was going nuts and could not understand how others did not see what was so obvious about game. So I now feel a small responsibility in merely making my voice heard, to give heart and courage to those men who see on some level of their being that game is bullshit but cant quite figure out why and think no one is on their side. To those men I say – take heart, you are not insane, others see as you do, and we are growing in numbers.
OK, you must understand why I call this kind of thing mere sophistry. So thesecond is arguing in favor of not having a spine…..which shows that he actually does have a spine. That is quite true and logically correct. The problem is you are confusing the logical category *always* with *most of the time*. That thesecond did not merely accede to me shows he sometimes can act with a spine. That he argues in favor of not having a spine towards women shows that he often does not act with a spine.
Now, your little specimen here is good example of gamer thinking style, which is essentially a massively fucked up thinking style that essentially operates by conflating different but related points, thus giving rise to mind bending paradoxes. It is a sly way of giving a kind of intellectual *cover* to indefensible ideas. Once you start doing game, you begin thinking this kind of double-think almost as a matter of course – the central game tenet, that it is possible to be masculine by trying to be found impressive by women, is the master specimen of this kind of thinking. Once your mind accepts that paradox, it paves the way for all sorts of bullshit – like say, you should never impress women, but you must do all kinds of DHVing, which somehow, in some universe, far far away, where the law of self-contradiction does not apply, is not a contradiction. If you question that then you are told you just dont *get* game (TFH? Where are you? This is your cue), further undermining your confidence in what you see plainly before your eyes. Game abounds in these kinds of paradoxes and contradictions that no one is supposed to notice – since once you accept the central contradiction of game, you attack your mind at its core ability to think clearly about this.
Dude, come on. This kind of thing is not impressive. You see, the central bone of contention in this argument is whether game means not having a spine – by taking this position by definition those who dont agree with me on this I accuse of not having a spine. But it is not because they dont agree with me, it is because of their position. Again, it is an excellent example of conflating essentially different but related points.
Oh and I am not an MRA so hope you were not referring to me there. I am just an aware adult male that knows just how much damage game can do to a man and wish to warn others against it.
This is the central LIE of game, and I know you are smart enough to see this. If a guy CARES about impressing others, telling him to *pretend* that he does not just adds one more layer to his fear of what others think of him!!!!!! It makes him MORE afraid of what others think, it makes him MORE trying to impress – he is now trying to impress even HARDER. You do not learn to stop trying to impress people by learning to try and impress people (through *pretending* you dont care) It is a contradiction that has no logical validity. You cannot learn what it FEELS like to not care by learning to care more
Get it? Do you see what I am talking about that game is based on doiuble-think???????
The only way out of the trap is to genuinely stop caring if others see all the bad things about you, NOT by by *pretending* to not care which makes you care even MORE.
The above lie is was is wrong with game in a nutshell.
@K
It sounds like you’re not arguing against “game” so much as against a macho, self defeating atmosphere you believe prevails on game forums and which definitely did prevail on PUA forums three years ago.
If that’s the case, if you really recognized the effect of feminism on getting males laid less, while causing females to waste their prime years feeling entitled, you’d be working to make the game forums more reasonable but not throwing the baby out with the bath water.
It’s clear that “game” is discussed most in geographical areas like Washington DC and London where feminism prevails and where socialism has transferred considerable wealth from males to females, for instance: student loans make women less in need of money from the males around them at the time when the women are at their most fertile, making it so the men they bang in their prime will have to have impressed them with something other than money or intellectual ability or career prospects.
But you can’t blame any male for wanting to fill the vacuum created by feminism and socialism: since it no longer requires being successful, smart and a real figure of power in the local community to get laid with the hottest young women in some western cultures, guys can behave “as dumb as the feminists” in order to get laid. It’s annoying to watch.
That said, it still takes game to win in non-feminist cultures. It’s just that reason prevails in those cultures more (e.g. college girls aren’t sitting on fat student loans).
Please get more specific when you condemn people like Roissy and go to his forum to change things if you feel you are right. I’d help if I agreed with you.
I’ll show you examples of where you’d have been right to criticize “PUAs” and Roissy in the past:
I and others have criticized him over the years for a whole list of memes that I believed were ultimately pro-feminist and non-masculine. In most cases, thoughtful criticisms won the day and his opinion evolved and changed (or clarified itself) or the opinion of his average commenter changed.
So, for instance, the Roissysphere once believed that, if a woman flaked (had a great conversation with a guy, gave him her number but then consistently avoided going on a date) it was all the man’s fault for not having had good enough game and he should QUIT and move on. That was also the female point of view on the subject. The man’s point of view, now accepted on his forum, is that it’s more likely that a woman flakes because she’s an idiot and there are ways to turn the situation around from there.
Feminist trolls had previously prodded guys on PUA forums to say “give up if she doesn’t seem to like you – you screwed up and she was smart enough to know you weren’t worthy”. You will see fewer and fewer of this kind of “PUA” trolls slamming other guys for trying to turn a flake around these days. But be careful that you’re not one of them should you approach the idea of trying to turn around a flake as being “non-masculine” or supplicating.
The Roissysphere used to take the female hamster point of view on other ideas such as the belief that a man should never lie to a woman (she’ll find out and reject you for having lied), offer to pay a normal woman for sexual activity (a normal woman won’t agree to it nor respect him for asking), offer to pay a bartender to call him whenever a hot woman came to the bar (cheating against PUA rules) or go to a foreign country (exploiting desperate women and avoiding the strongest, best and least desperate women in the world = Americans).
Those beliefs, which seemed to have originally come from the minds of western women, are mostly all gone now from the PUAsphere as a whole. It’s understood now that the female reasoning noted in the parentheses of the paragraph above, are hamster rationalizations. Real life observation and experience tells men that lying can be effective and is sometimes necessary to get laid, lots of normal seeming women can be bought, there’s nothing wrong with paying a bartender to call you when a 10 is present and foreign women are often superior dating choices. This is all common sense.
So you can argue and win if you feel some meme in the PUAsphere is not really masculine. Try to define masculine, however, as doing something that will help you get laid – it’s insane to condemn ideas that really do help a guy with that.
An example of a feminist meme that might still prevail a bit in the PUAsphere is the idea of “stalking” – last spring I mentioned at the Chateau how, when a woman’s pre-paid phone ran out of money and she couldn’t call me back, I went to see her at her work and got a date with her. I got attacked by another commenter for doing that, even though I had been successful in rescuing the relationship and she hadn’t called me back only because of the phone issue. Roissy didn’t directly criticize me but made it clear that he shared the feminist view that a man should, under no circumstances, approach a woman in person who hasn’t called him back. He used the word “stalker” in a way that showed me he didn’t yet know about the feminist lawmaking that uses the concept that all men are “stalkers”.
But he’s a fast learner (very bright guy).
Note, K, that we’re talking here about specific memes of “game” that can be argued about.
I’d never condemn “game” itself nor the idea of being a “PUA” because that would be like arguing against evolution after Darwin posited it.
I go after hypocrisy, region-specific ideosyncrasies and muddled thinking as well as specific ideas that feminist sleeper trolls infused into “PUA ideology” before MRAs found the PUAsphere about 3 years ago.
MRAs and other men have gotten many PUA memes changed or modified. It’s an ongoing process. Consider joining the process.
Look, I am familiar with this way of thinking, I went through this stage too where I thought I was not against game but just *mis-interpretation* of game or some aspect of game. Game is the idea that you learn behaviors based on how impressive they are to women – any action you do with this motivation in mind puts you in a weak mental frame and undermines your masculinity.
Let me try to be as clear as I know so maybe this will get through – in my view, a guy who is shy, nervous, and affectionate towards a girl and is honestly expressing these feelings is more masculine and shows more courage than the guy who feels these things but fakes cocky-funny-aloof to be thought well of by women .There. Does that make it completely clear? They very fact that you are being authentic and direct and honest is a masculine act. The very fact that you are faking yourself to be liked by women – whatever you do – means you are being a weak supplicator. It really is that simple.
Psychologically, the guy who accepts his shyness and nervousness rather than faking something he does not feel is more likely to develop out of his shyness – where the faker will just become more and more stuck in his social fears.
My position is simply that Game IS – by its definition – macho self-defeating behavior. Not just some aspect of game. Thats a cop out. Game in its entirety.
The only way to become more masculine is to stop caring what others think of you, which means ceasing game, once and for all.
Dude, false alternatives. Third alternative – the correct one – is that she flaked because she did not like you, and here is the astonishing thing you did not consider – this does not in any way imply anything about your value because women dont define your value for you. Nifty, huh? Yes, a feminist would say she flaked and this means that you were unworthy of her. But men with pride dont say that. The game position that you have to turn the flake around buys into the feminist premise stated above that it is the mans job to chase the girl and prove their worth to them. So you see how your gamer position and the feminist positions both rest on the same premise – that men need to prove their worth. Only my alternative escapes accepting that premise.
So, for instance, the Roissysphere once believed that, if a woman flaked (had a great conversation with a guy, gave him her number but then consistently avoided going on a date) it was all the man’s fault for not having had good enough game and he should QUIT and move on. That was also the female point of view on the subject. The man’s point of view, now accepted on his forum, is that it’s more likely that a woman flakes because she’s an idiot and there are ways to turn the situation around from there.
You see, this is exactly what I mean. So the girl is an idiot and flakes, and now it is my job to chase the girl and run after her and *turn the situation around*. Suddenly all the talk about never chasing girls is out the window and completely contradictory advice is given. You see how the idea that it is your job to *chase the girl* is presented as being more masculine rather than as the pussy begging thing it clearly is. That is exactly my problem with game – it is like a psy-op designed to fool you into thinking you are doing one thing while doing the exact opposite. Such are words and concepts twisted and abused in game. Let me tell you, if the girl flakes, the masculine thing to do is write her off and find another girl. It really is that simple.
Please get more specific when you condemn people like Roissy and go to his forum to change things if you feel you are right. I’d help if I agreed with you.
Roissy bans you if you criticize or question game on his site. I have tried that several times – if you criticize a core game belief, you are banned. Many others have been banned too.
That is fascinating. Are you aware that evo-psyche contradicts game, the idea that you can create attraction through your behavior?
Actually, you just repeated the standard PUA position and what seemed to be Roissy’s position in the past (his position fluctuates because he correctly recognizes that it takes someone with Asperger’s Syndrome to follow the same set of rules in all situations).
It remains a basic and correct meme that all women are expendable and one should avoid one-itis. If one woman is not available for tonight, a man should have equally attractive alternatives.
If that’s your general attitude, you get “game” more than most males do.
However, it’s more and more obvious that the men with the least self confidence are the ones who will give up too soon on any given girl when they don’t have to.
In any event, it is lethal for a man to assume that a female will think and behave rationally like a male and he can then reject women as having “flaked’ when they didn’t behave rationally.
Game is about teaching western males not to assume that a woman will think and behave rationally like a male or, for that matter, will be honest to herself and others about what she wants. I’ve added that game should include not assuming that the upper middle class girl you’re talking to isn’t a whore deep down inside, dying for a sugar daddy relationship or a quick fix when the rent is due. I’ve seen others in the manosphere add that game should include not assuming the girl wants the guy to be gentle and ask for sex.
It’s about not making assumptions like a “nice guy” would make.
The “nice guy” walks away all too often when things are not going according to how he’d been raised to think relationships should go.
Having been raised by feminists, I once walked away far too much because I believed in the idea that men and women are equals and that a rational woman who liked me, would make it very clear that she liked me, etc.
Because feminists believe that women are rational and equal to men, they would be the first to approve of the idea that a man should walk away if the woman doesn’t seem to be giving the green light.
If a girl flakes on you, what are your options exactly? Either you persist in getting in contact with her and ask for more dates, etc, and/or you do it in a way that involves doing and saying things that *prove* to her that you are indeed *worth* her time. Those are your only realistic options, and they suck and are pathetic. Adopting that as a mental frame will weaken you.
There is an important distinction that needs to be made her. Yes, women do sometimes offer up token resistance and pretend they are angels when the reality is far different, but anything that goes beyond token resistance or anything resembling a full out flake means she just is not that into you. You need to know the difference between the two.
I actually had this situation this weekend. I picked up this girl at a bar on Thursday after heavy signs of interest and we went clubbing the whole night for hours. She was all over me the whole night and initiated kissing, etc. But she refused to go home with me that night because of some issue with her friend she had to deal with and we agreed to meet the same night at the same time at the original bar. She seemed super interested. I thought I had this one for sure.
Guess what – next night she is nowhere to be found. I call her and she says she is tired and can we do it tomorrow. I got totally flaked on.
Now guess what, how do I turn that around? I dont. She clearly was not that into me and and just wanted a good time that night with someone she was sort of kind of into. Well let me tell you what happened. I agreed to re-scheduling for Saturday night knowing full well I had zero chance of getting in her pants, because she has hot friends I want to bang and she is a sweet girl and fun to hang with and I want in on her social circle. Now of course Staurday night rolls around and within the first hour she tells me she wants to be friends and does not want to lead me on – yep, friended! I smile warmly and just tell her sure, if she introduces me to her hot friends next time. She is totally cool with that.
So we continue our night and she does the same thing – she is kissing me and dancing up against me in the club, and I pushed for sex again knowing full well the answer – no. Which is cool. I will bang one or two of her friends God willing.
Point is, I could have predicted the entire trajectory from the initial flake. She was just not that into me but just wanted to have a good time.
You cannot turn around a flake. Nor should you try. You should merely not chase the girl and find another one if she flakes Flakes are final – what is NOT final is token resistance.
That is not what game is about. Maybe this is some of the things found in the game position but it is hardly what it is about. Much of this is pretty mainstream wisdom anyways and can be easily learned outside of game.
Ok, now we are talking about token resistance, and not flaking. Now it is important to understand something here – women are hypergamic. This means they aggressively pursue men they want. Now they will do this in socially approved ways by giving massive approach-me eye contact, etc, not necessarily by approaching full on, but a woman who has decided she likes a particular man will not make things difficult for him. Hypergamy means women pursue their own self-interest in mating aggressively.. Now she might offer token resistance, but no more.
Women might not be *rational* in a strict linear sense, but according to the logic of hypergamy and mating she is being perfectly *rational*. Most of the *irrationality* we observe has to do with 1) Women having different mating preferences different times of the month. Sometimes you will see a huge shift from day to day, where she will go from good-genes-seeking (looks) mode into provider-seeking mode, leaving you utterly bewildered because she seemed so into you yesterday, leaving you thinking she is *irrational* 2) Women have to both satisfy her own mating desires as well as social codes and mores, which sometimes create conflicting messages. But this is easily observed as token (meaning extremely mild, overcome after a single attempt) resistance.
<blockquote<It remains a basic and correct meme that all women are expendable and one should avoid one-itis. If one woman is not available for tonight, a man should have equally attractive alternatives.
If that’s your general attitude, you get “game” more than most males do.
That is not my attitude. I have no problem liking one particular girl a lot and acting on that forthrightly, and if one woman is not available tonight, it might not be true that I can find an equally attractive one, so believing that would be stupid.
None of this has to do with the fact that if a woman flakes on me, I would not pursue her again for sex (unless she re-engaged with me sexually, as in my example above, and even then only once and with little expectation). You dont need to implant all sorts of dubious beliefs into your mind that are not based on reality and that you know on some level is not true (like dont have a scarcity mentality, etc) in order to act like a man who does not supplicate. All you need is to have self-respect. Its really simple.
All this *believing* shit which may not be true is just harmful to your self-esteem and ability to operate well in the world, as as well as kind of pathetic.
Wow… I got busy with my business and this thread still gets comments.
Thanks Jerry for your contributions… especially this one…
This is for you as well K.
“If that’s the case, if you really recognized the effect of feminism on getting males laid less, while causing females to waste their prime years feeling entitled, you’d be working to make the game forums more reasonable but not throwing the baby out with the bath water.”
This is all I am saying as well to K. He has made good points, but seems to really want to hammer away at Game without giving it any credit at all.
To wit. K believes that a man “pretending” to not care about people is adding a another layer of self-deception to one ego. This would be true, if the man is doing so only to ingratiate himself to others. I have no doubt many Gamer’s do this and this is where you get Jerry’s correct point that many turn into idiots and mistake being rude for not caring what others think. However, this is a PHASE and many men adopt the “belief” that they don’t care because they RECOGNIZE they do care too much what other people think about them. Therefore, this “belief” is like a self-correcting psych trick that… over time… simply dissappears. The result? A man finds himself truly… not caring what others think of him anymore because his self-esteem has grown from “pretending” he does not. In short… you are what you think.
The other think you mentioned Jerry I liked was this…
“However, it’s more and more obvious that the men with the least self confidence are the ones who will give up too soon on any given girl when they don’t have to.”
K… you are correct in asserting that going after a flake is not a good idea… but it is STILL from the point of letting the female decide how the male should react. Jerry, going after a flake because evolved Game says you should not is also responding again, to what the female does.
Female flakes… man decides she is not worth it… NEXT.
Female flakes… mad decides he needs to up his Game and tries again.
BOTH of the above are not masculine frames of mind. Let me CORRECT the thinking in masculine terms.
Female flakes… not a problem, I got some work/reading done while waiting, man goes on with his day. He does not react positive or negative in any way to the event because HE is in control of how he feels, not the woman.
Choice matrix… How much do I want her? A lot? Try again. If not, then you can put her on the back burner and ask another girl out. If you see the flake in the future, you can be friendly and if she avoids you, no problem. HE DOES NOT CARE how she treats him because his self-worth is not defined by a woman?
IF a man chooses to go after a woman again… it is because HE wants to, not because Game says you should try for a woman again if she flakes and be persistent. If he NEXTs the the girl, it is because HE decides she is not worth the effort.
My above thinking… is masculine… because I put THE MAN at the center of the decision matrix. The woman “flaking” does not even enter the equation other than to be marked as a mental red flag for observation in the future if he decides to interact/chase her.
At the end of the day… pursuing a woman that flakes on the first date is not masculine. She has made it clear she is either testing you or simply forgot, which is even worse. It is a lack of respect for your TIME and a lack of interest in you if she forgot.
An interested chick… does not “forget” to show up for a date. The whole point of Game should be to find an INTERESTED chick. Sex… is secondary. The Game changes at this point because now, you are testing not for evo psych and sexual triggers… but for actual interest in you as a human being.
But even if the man decides to chase a flake… he does so because he WANTS her… at least at that point. As long as he wants her, he can chase her as much as he wants. Bt the second he decides she is not worth it, he should drop her and NEVER go back
That would be the single rule I would have for women who flake. Chase or not.. it is up to you.. but once you decide to NEXT that girl… NEVER go for her again. Not even for sex. If you bend your spine to get laid if she comes around, you are showing her EXACTLY where you are weak… where she assumes all men are weak.
You want to get her wet? Turn your back and walk away. The great catch NEVER goes back to a woman he has observed to have shown him disrespect… not even for sex, her last and only weapon in changing a man’s mind to her advantage.
Too… too many guys would think fucking this girl and walking would show this girl who “the man” is. They are wrong. The moment you fuck her, she knows she can have you again if she is patient. You have demonstrated a LACK of backbone to do what she WANTS a male to do.. CHOOSE the female he will send his genes into the future with.
This is something else that Game gets wrong. It falsely assumes the male needs to adopt all manner of tactics and strategies to “get it on” with a female. Women… are 100% sexual creatures. Their entire being is bent on union. You don’t have to “trick” a woman into wanting sex.
What a man does is choose a female. Men think, even with Game, that women still do the choosing. They do not.
Think about it.
A woman… can only say yes or no. Accept or reject. She must SUBMIT by either saying yes… or she must REJECT by saying no.
A man… can simply go to another woman. 10 women.. 100 women… 10000 women reject him… there is ALWAYS another woman waiting to be asked. The same can not be said for a woman. She is only going to have a LIMITED number of men interested in her BASED on her level of beauty alone… for the physical is the over arching criteria that men choose a woman by. This is Darwin and the women know it. Past 30/35… a woman is done. A man… can be just coming into his own.
So… if a woman flakes… what do YOU want to do? As a man… do YOU want to try again? If so, then go for her. If not, then forget her and pay her not a second thought.
Where men get blinded… as Jerry alluded to in paying a bartender to alert him to 10s coming into the club… is by the female’s true power… her sexual allure in her physical perfection. For myself.. paying a bartender to let me know when beautiful women arrive at a club… only to then run down there and try to Game her… is pathetic. It’s not masculine at all. This man.. is a slave to pussy.
A masculine man living his own life… does not chase ANY woman. He goes about his life and when 10s appear, he decides first if she is even WORTH his time to be afforded the opportunity to be allowed to bask in his presence. This is not arrogance.. it is confidence. The LAST thing on a masculine man’s mind is sex. The first thing is RESPECT and whether or not a woman will bring him joy, happiness and VALUE to his life. If a man places a woman’s value soley on her having a pussy… he is not a man. EVERY woman has a pussy and if you have not noticed.. there are LOTS of available beautiful women. You never have to settle.
Therefore… learn Game in order to give her the BEST chance to be with YOU. You are doing HER the favour of becoming more attractive in her mind for her to make the right “choice” in choosing you. (for that is all Game is doing, making the hamster mind justify why she is with you)
Give her the gift of YOUR presence. Don’t chase after a flake because she is a 10 and you just need to “up your Game.”
Make yourself the prize… not the woman.
You think you can wish something real out of existence by pretending it does not exist. This has been shown in psychological tests to be quite false. The more we fight the reality of our emotions, the stronger they become and the greater their hold on us.
Game DOES NOT SAY you should GENUINELY not care, i.e adopt it as a belief – it says you should PRETEND FOR THE BENEFIT OF WOMEN. Which of course merely makes you care MORE. Game CANNOT say you should genuinely not care what others think, because that wouldcancel out not only ALL the other game advice it tells you to do (the other 50 tricks),, but ALSO THE ENTIRE RAISON D`ETRE OF GAME ITSELF, which is MAKING WOMEN IMPRESSED WITH YOU.
So the more you PRETEND FOR THE BENEFIT OF WOMEN YOU DONT CARE, the FURTHER AWAY FROM GENUINELY NOT CARING YOU BECOME.
Genuinely not caring means letting HER SEE that you care, and eventually you will care less.
Dude, I cannot argue this particular logical distinction anymore with you. You simply refuse to see what is obvious.
So if I really want something then by definition anything I do in pursuit of that desire is masculine and self-respecting? Um, no.
Our desires can – and frequently do – lead us to ACTS OF SELF DEBASEMENT.
I see this argument from gamers ALL THE TIME. That merely WANTING SOMETHING makes anything you do to get it A OK. The idea that just because you desire something pursuing it is OK seems to be a common feature of the gaming mentality but is horrifyingly off base. The guy who grovels before the boss really really really really wants the job but he is still debasing himself.
Pursuing a flake is an act of self-debasement no matter how much you WANT the girl because 1) She has made clear she considers you of low value so continuing makes you the suppliant begging her to reconsider 2) You are allowing a relationship where she is above you and you are the suppliant in an inferior position to develop.
BTW, I skimmed your comment last time but just read it carefully and it is so full of contradictions and cognitive dissonances that it is just pointless to deal with it. You are very, very lost, my friend, deep, deep in a maze of your own making. My only advice develop a respect for hard logic and clarity of thought – that is the only thing that will help you out of this maze. I can point out your mistakes until I am blue in the face, but to a man who does not demand clarity in his thinking and has no respect for rigorous logic</I it would be utterly pointless.
You guys are really fucking yourselves up with all this macho bullshit and making it a million times harder for yourselves to get women. Trust me, I know. It is impossible to create attraction and all you can do is not fuck up it with weird and anti-social behavior, and the more you do game, the more arrogant/anti-social you become, and the more weird you become.
Back when I used to do game I cannot tell you how many girls I lost by trying to *pretend I dont care*, *act aloof*, *be alpha* be the tough guy, be *hard* – all I did was antagonize girls who were already into me with this kind of weird anti-social behavior. When I finally just dropped the act and started acting normal and comfortable around girls suddenly I was getting laid left and right.
Girls like you 1) Based on your looks 2) But they also care if you are comfortable being social around them, and the more you put on an act, the less comfortable you are in your own skin, the more you do game, the more anti-social you are.
The more you try to be *dominant* the LESS socially calibrated you become, the LESS you are able to RESPOND TO HER SIGNALS (because you are always trying to *lead* and *dominate* you cannot make appropriate responses to her like when to escalate and how much) and the more likely you are to FREAK HER OUT and make her FEEL THREATENED.
You more you buy into this dominant alpha bullshit the more of a social retard you become who loses the ability to respect others and who just goes about antagonizing people – girls included – who otherwise might have liked you. Let it go.
Beyond that its a numbers game.
The problem is that game alpha tough guy macho bullshit will HARM your chances of getting women who are ALREADY interested in you. The ONLY APPROPRIATE PLACE to display *strength* is when your legitimate rights are being challenged which is about 10% of situations, if even. For the VAST MAJORITY of the time you should be social and friendly and being macho and tough guy during these times will look weird and try hard.
You guys are thinking too much.
I prefer the logic of the guy who gets 4,400 readers per day, who has influenced me greatly and whom I’ve influenced measurably.
I also prefer the conclusions of my decades worth of experience.
Strange, individually tailored concepts of pride and masculinity are nothing if you aren’t getting laid.
Only a very insane young man would fail to walk across the street or down a flight of stairs if a friend texted him that a 10 was at the bar.
You’re doing what the feminists do, which is falsely defining and framing a concept, thus lowering the IQ level of the conversation.
Stop doing that. It’s intellectually dishonest.
First of all, there’s arrogance in that quoted sentence. One needs to grow up and respect that Roissy, who gets 4400 readers per day, is probably doing well with women. No need to pretend that you’re the one who is really getting laid so everyone needs to stop listening to him and start reading your advice. I’ve described how Roissy didn’t understand 6 or 7 different important concepts two years ago and how I helped change his mind, but I’ve never arrogantly assumed that I was better with women than he was.
Being rude to guys who get laid and can help you get laid is counter-productive.
It’s especially insane to say that, if I called you to say your type just walked into the bar downstairs, you wouldn’t get out of bed and come down. That’s like an open admission that you don’t just have a problem with learning game, getting help and advice from others to get laid, but you don’t really want to get laid despite a token statement that you would gladly have sex with a woman.
Secondly, while talk of dominance is only one small meme discussed at the Chateau, there’s very little talk of abstract dominance at the Chateau and more reference to specific circumstances where a man is considered by the women to really be dominant. For you to say that the women didn’t consider a given male in a story to be dominant, but rather obnoxious, this is just you insanely rewriting the story where you weren’t there.
It’s this kind of insanity that would get a comment deleted over at Roissy’s.
It’s like, if I were a blogger and I described the sky as being blue in an anecdote, if someone decided to argue that the sky was really purple just to be contrarian and sound like he was smarter than the blogger, I’d delete the nonsensical comments because they ultimately don’t say anything and are, indeed, insane.
If you second guess what a blogger writes about something that happened, be sure you don’t say that an alternative story happened that, apparently, did not happen. Saying that the dominant guy who got the girl in a story actually repulsed the girl in real life is like saying that the blogger telling the story has completely lied and you’re God.
Now if you see a film, such as one that Mystery posted of a set he did once, and you see something completely different than Mystery described it, then that is a different story.
I’m speaking of the video where Mystery actually bores the hottest woman enough that she leaves the group which ends up being mostly the boyfriends of the women he was trying to pick up.
I can’t believe Mystery posted that. He showed himself to be a bore who looked obnoxious by bragging about what cities he’d been to when he was in Australia.
But that was a case where the evidence was there that a blogger was saying the opposite of what really happened. Mystery lost a lot of credibility with me with that video. I’d still read his advice, however.
It’s possible that some day, we’ll see a video of Roissy boring a group of women with insipid conversation. But I’d bet that there’d be more videos of him doing well.
It’s smarter to just politely say to a blogger that, in a particular circumstance, you would have behaved differently than the “alpha” being described.
There is very little in the above thread that makes sense and even less that would be useful to a young man who needs to learn game.
I’m amazed that Ferdinand thinks that the concept of game (described as a behavior pattern that a man has learned via his own trial and error as well as advice on blogs, as being great for attracting women) is itself debatable.
You can’t be against the idea that men with great experience in mating with women should give out what they think is good advice. Readers will define for themselves if Roissy is giving great advice.
Pride and masculinity don’t mean much if you aren’t getting laid with the best looking women.
At this point of my life I consider myself to have great experience with women and great success with them too. I have tried game extensively and I have tried just being a normal person with self confidence (unafraid to be himself, unafraid to be normally social) extensively, and I have been around many people who have done both. So I know what I am talking about.
The tragedy is that I have seen many guys kill it with women who were into them because they started acting all *dominant* and *aloof*, and just weirded out and antagonized these women. This happened to me too.
Game can take years out of your life where you exit it you look back at how many girls you lost because of it and mourn.
At this point I actually consider myself pretty qualified to be handing out advice on what to do with women, and it is one thing and one thing only – be comfortable being social around her. Women get freaked out when you are weird and uncomfortable around them. Take all that *socio-sexual-dominance* crap and throw it out the window. It will either have NO effect – if you are lucky – or it will hurt you. Learn to be comfortable in your own skin. Thats all. Aside from that, women have to like your looks and who you ARE and the rest is a numbers game.
*Strength* needs to be displayed in only 10% of of the time and only when someone is challenging your legitimate rights, not otherwise 90% of the interaction should be EASY and PLEASANT and FUN.
This is based on EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE.
Ummm, yeahh, spoken like a true pussy pedestalizer. But whatever….
I dont think Ferd does. He buys into game.
Thing is, the host of scientific studies we have over the past decade pretty much conclusively prove that behavior cannot create attraction. That attraction is based on your genotype. This turns up in studies again and again. In the REAL scientific community I dont think this is in serious dispute at all.
Further, all qualified evo-psyche books say the same thing, attraction cannot be created. You can only fuck it up by freaking the girl out with your weird game induced behavior, lol
I did not define or frame any concept – I merely pointed out the consequences of believing you have to dominate women. It will make you less calibrated in the sense that you will be less able to RESPOND to her signals.
What does how many readers have to do with it? He gets readers so he gets women? Thats logic? And did you ever wonder why all his readers are adulatory? Its because he banns anyone who criticizes him. And stop implying it was because we were rude – I was EXTREMELY polite to roissy yet was banned, repeatedly. So were others.
There is good evidence that roissy is in LTRS through social circle with average girls and does not do pick up, either.
Basically all we have to go on is roisys boastful and bragging self-reports – and this is enough to convince you? Jesus, man, develop some standards for evidence before you abase yourself before him!
Dude, the rest of your post is on the same level of logic and just a bunch of weird non-sequiters.
But cool. I am pretty done here and have said all I had to say – in fact far too much. More for the benefit of potential readers who stumble on to this site than you guys who clearly lack critical thinking skills.
But good luck, and when you eventually exit the ridiculous game cult, come back here and post about it.
Just to clarify, when I say above *respond to women* I mean that you inititate and SEE if she is accepting, and then escalate more, etc. I dont mean you are passive and MERELY respond to being *led* by women. Obviously not.
The process of flirting means you escalate a bit and SEE how she takes it – if she does not take it well and you just plow ahead thinking you have to be *dominant*, you are socially mis-calibrated and will fuck things up.
Game makes you lose this social calibration where your actions are met with responses and then you modify your actions accordingly. It makes you think ONLY YOU are the the *dominant one*, which is after all a childish macho fantasy. Snap out of it.
Jerry:
I’m fine with debating game and the idiots on the game side (and trust me there are plenty of them), but the only “anti-game” writers I trust are Aaron Sleazy, Real Made Man/Assanova, and the guy at Lifestyle Journey for Men, because they have the cred and the experience to back up what they say. All the other “anti-game” writers are frauds and/or virgins.
The only reason I let “K” (in quotes because he sockpuppets under an array of different names including “Kevin,” “George,” “Harry” and “titian”, among others) comment here is because he’s a persecution troll — he’s TRYING to get me to ban him so he can run crying back to his fellow circle-jerkers about what a big meanie I am. His entire act here — his passive-aggressive style of writing, his put-downs, his use of weasel words to manipulate the conversation, his repeating arguments that were debunked and shredded at G.L. Piggy’s two months ago during the Frost-Elam debate — is designed to piss people off. He’s the adult equivalent of those kids in high school who would incite other kids to punch them in the face, then run to the teacher whining that they were being picked on.
I’d advise you just to ignore him. These are the G.L. Piggy posts where his positions were torn to pieces:
http://glpiggy.net/2011/10/26/no-voice-for-all-men/
http://glpiggy.net/2011/10/26/game-teaches-men-to-fish/
http://glpiggy.net/2011/10/30/elam-misreads-game-bloggers-mra-stance/
http://glpiggy.net/2011/11/01/responding-to-anti-gamer/
http://glpiggy.net/2011/11/05/novaseeker-on-the-only-games-in-town/
Lengthy, but worth checking out.
In any event, I don’t care to debate “K” or his handlers — his own behavior negates his arguments. If he has a spine and was against changing his behavior, why is he constantly changing his online handle? (Don’t even try lying “K,” I have your IP address.) Answer: he’s a liar and a phony. With the exception of the aforementioned guys (LJM, Sleazy and Assanova), all of these ex-gamers are either virgins who have yet to kiss a girl or resentful nerds who were never more than fringe players in the seduction community.
Didn’t see “K’s” parting shots when I made that comment, but here’s the irony of him attacking you for liking Roissy:
“K” worships/steals his arguments from a guy who makes fanciful claims about his involvement in the seduction community but has yet to prove any of them. No doubt Roissy banned him for pulling the same whiny, passive-aggressive, bad faith argumentation he did here.
Ferd, everything you say about me is true. I am simply a pathetic human being. None of that touches any of my arguments. But you are not capable of seeing the difference between a man and his arguments, which is why you are ripe prey for demagogues like roissy, who writes with *style* and *impresses* you. I have always said that critical thinking skills require one to be hard and not susceptible to emotional appeal. But like all excellent things it is for the few.
Thanks for those links, btw. Cheers.
I don’t comment much anymore in the manosphere because much of what I’d like to say is now being said by others. I’ve mostly written from the angle of an MRA who feels that all PUAs need to be MRAs. The new post by Giovanni looks like something I could have written, word for word.
If my past writings influenced others, that’s a good thing.
Three years ago, the comment section over at Roissy’s was a circular firing squad of young men who were flaming each other for saying they had done something right and succeeding with a female. Many seemed to have Asperger’s Syndrome, which is mostly an ability to see exceptions to simplistic rules.
K seems to have been turned off by the Asperger’s types who followed simplistic PUA rules to their own detriment.
Those guys were the bathwater.
I think I had a hand in changing the atmosphere over there in 2010 and earlier this year. There’s a whole lot less White Nationalist domination there now. The watershed moment seemed to be a flame war when a WN said that white men should be duty bound not to have sex with a Japanese girl if her Japanese brother wasn’t OK with that.
There is an interesting thread there now about dealing with flakes:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/anti-flake-tactic/
There are two factions that may as well respect each other because they can both be right: those that instantly stop pursuing flakers and those who work to turn flakers around. I actually belong to both camps. I will decide when I stop pursuing a woman. Both tactics work, although the second tactic, by definition, results more often in the man having sex with the flaker. It’s not as if a guy is going to want to marry the woman whether she’s a flaker or not.
And whats fascinating to me is that you would even contemplate banning me for what I have done here, Ferd. That you should even feel prompted to consider the possibility. All I have done is aggressively and passionately argue a position you strongly disagree with in a way that is aggressive but well within the bounds of acceptable discourse, and this stretches the boundaries of what you can tolerate? And you are not aggressive against the people you disagree with? You can dish it, but you cant take it, huh. Real masculine.
Whats funny about all this banning business on ALL the game blogs is that it so clearly reveals your own insecurities. If you were firm in your positions you would hardly feel threatened by passionate counter-arguments. If you had any commitment to intellectual honesty you would WELCOME passionate disagreement. Yet all you guys seem to want is uniformity and conformity and the first thing that crosses your mind when someone disagrees with you is – hit the ban button! And you DEFEND roissy for banning people for the slightest criticism. OF COURSE roissy does that – he is insecure and cannot tolerate challenges. He would not be roissy if he was a strong confidence person able to handle challenges to his position in a calm mature manner without throwing a hissy fit.
And what exactly is passive aggressive about my arguing style? I think it is quite straightforward and unabashed in its aggression.
And it is highly amusing that you seem to care so much about the alleged fact that I post under different handles. It is baffling that this is even a significant factor for you. It is fascinating that to you this actually invalidates my arguments! What matters to you is the personality of the person presenting an argument and not the logic of the argument! Thats how you evaluate the worth of an argument – whether you are *impressed* with the personality of the person arguing. This is essentially the mentality of a cult follower with weak critical skills . To you, roissy is an *impressive* personality so you are willing to receive the gospel at his feet.
Did it ever occur to you that one might be utterly indifferent to what handle he posts under and employ handles almost at random because he wants to deflect attention away from the handle and onto the arguments?
Can your mind encompass such a – to you – radical interest in actual ideas, facts, and logic above emotion, personality, and style?
So basically you have sketched out two basic features of the gamer mentality that I feel it is important to emphasize
1) When challenged, ban the challenger. This is pretty much par for the course on all game blogs.
2) Evaluate arguments based on the personality of the arguer – in other words, emotional factors are more important than logic in adopting beliefs.
Now, to your credit, Ferd, the first point exists in you in a much weaker form than in roissy and most other game bloggers, but it still characterizes your mentality to an extent that is nothing to be proud of. And unfortunately you have the second point in its full blown disease form.
Now, what these two factors reveal about the typical gamer mentality is
1) Insecurity manifested as an inability to tolerate challenges.
2) Either the lack of strong critical skills or the fact that ones emotions dominate ones critical thinking abilities, which may remain strong in abstract areas of no emotional concern.
When you anatomize the characteristic thought processes and cognitive style of gamers you begin to understand much better why they are so gullible, why their threshold for evidence is so ridiculously low, and why they seem so impervious to proof.
Fucking LOL “K,” three comments worth of butthurt in response to my needling? U mad bro? COME AT ME!
Actually don’t bother, because I’m not going to respond. I won’t ban you, though. You can comment here to your heart’s desire. Whether anyone will actually respond to you is another matter entirely.
I will respond to this bit of hilarity, though, because it illustrates what a sad, strange little man you are:
So you enjoy getting into lengthy, extended, multi-day arguments with people you disagree with, but you can’t be bothered to fill out a five-character pseudonym so they can at least identify you? Pretty weird behavior, man.
First off, your Aspergery idea that arguments are completely separable from the arguer is nonsense. You have a rep in the manosphere now — a rep as a troll who sockpuppets as different people to run them ragged with stupid, circular arguments, because that’s what trolls do — they pretend to be people they’re not to cause havoc. That’s what your “utter indifference” has gotten you. It’s not fair that you get judged in this way, but life isn’t fair. Your weird behavior makes people take you less seriously, because if you can’t even do something as inconsequential as pick a consistent pseudonym for arguing on a blog, it calls into question your credibility and judgement on other issues.
Second, you’re such a coward you can’t even admit to the truth. If you really were the strong, spine-having, take-no-guff man you were, you’d fess up to your behavior. After all, according to your own life philosophy, why should you hide the truth from me? Why should you care what I think? Instead, you spew this mealy-mouthed “allegedly” bullshit. Dude, even if you didn’t leave a trail of evidence as to your identity, I could (and did) ID you from your writing style and arguments alone. You can’t hide.
As much as you would like to pretend to be a Vulcan, existing in a world of cold logic and rationality, reality is more complicated. Verisimilitude matters. Ethos matters. In an environment where the participants are anonymous and don’t know who each other are (like the blogosphere), verisimilitude and ethos are the coin of the realm — we judge each other by the inadvertent truth revealed in our words, our writing styles, our attitudes and behavior. And verisimilitude and ethos are nearly impossible to fake — you’ve either got them or you don’t.
Roissy says stupid shit from time to time, but he has a following because he has verisimilitude and ethos — he conveys truth merely by how he writes. It’s not a conscious process — he does it inadvertently. That’s how it works. Roosh, W.F. Price, Hawaiian Libertarian, Aaron Sleazy etc. — all of them speak with credibility and authority on women and game.
You don’t have verisimilitude. Neither does your handler, AlekNovy. You both come off as dishonest, hysterical dorks trying to impress people with imaginary accomplishments — triply in his case, since he’s never produced any evidence that he was as involved with the seduction community as he claims. (Hey, there’s a homework assignment for you — apply the same standard of proof to your hero Alek that you do to Roissy and other game writers. Demand he show the evidence that he was anything more than a fringe dweeb in the PUA community.)
The irony is that you attacked your detractors for being “social retards,” but you yourself can’t seem to grasp this fundamental facet of social interaction. I’d say you’re a sociopath, but if you were, you wouldn’t struggle with this concept at all. You’re just a Aspergery nerd incapable of normal social interaction, demanding the rest of humanity bend over to accommodate your social tone-deafness.
But I’m wasting my time assuming you’re an honest man and not a troll. As I said already, I won’t ever ban you from commenting on IMF. You’ll just be stuck screaming into the ether, vainly hoping someone will respond to you, give you the attention you seek… and getting nothing.
Nah, man. Youre cool. I got no beef with you personally, lol (funny how you personalize everything). But some things need to said, some principles need to be illustrated – I attack the man as a way to get at the principle involved. (a paraphrase. If youre educated you might even know where its from)
I thank you graciously. You have shown yourself not quite an insecure loser. I write more for silent readers with doubts, for whom I wish to provide the spark that will ignite their intellectual independence. I dont for a moment think that the commited fools on this site have any ability to change their minds in line with evidence and logic, have no fear. Sometimes they provide me with a foil, sometimes not. It does not greatly matter.
Nah, man. I maintain the same name for the duration of each single argument, obviously, or it would be too confusing.
Lol, FAIL at comprehending the issues. I dont wish people to take me seriously. I dont wish to have any credibility. I dont wish people to respect my judgement on other issues. I merely wish people to evaluate my arguments based on their logic and the evidence I present. In fact, rather than people taking me *seriously* and according me *credibility* I would rather they develop their critical thinking skills and learn to judge for themselves. FUCK my *credibility*.
It is amazing to me how you STILL think in terms of *credibility*, and *people taking you seriously*, rather than in terms of logic and evidence. LOL, you are merely reinforcing everything I said about your characteristic way of thinking. Even as you attempt to rebut me you reinforce the truth of what I said about you! You are so completely trapped in that mentality that you cannot step out of it for one moment, observe it objectively, and craft an argument that does not depend on the principles of that mentality.
lol, why should I by into your philosophy that this issue has any importance at all? By confirming OR dis-confirming your allegations about my use of multiple handles I buy into your anti-rational idea that this has any significance whatsoever. I need neither need to deny nor confirm – I simply reject your premise that it has ay relevance and refuse to meet you on terms that accept the premise that it has some significance. The only relevance it has is in what it says about how adopt your beliefs – based on a cult of personality rather than logic, lol.
What an utterly bizarre cult of personality – dude, no offense, but you are an extremely gullible fool if you think this way. You are like those guys who call up porn hotlines and talk to some fat girl with a sweet feminine voice who has *verisimilitude* and believes he is talking to a hot young girl, lol.
Do you have ANY IDEA how easy it is for a bright basement dwelling nerd ( a guy like roissy, say) to CREATE AN ENTIRE INTERNET PERSONA VIRTUALLY OOOOOZING *VERISIMILITUDE* THAT IS NEVERTHELESS COMPLETELY FAKE? Thats what the internet is FOR.
My God man, you SERIOUSLY have to develop some skeptical habits of thought for the health of your own mind. You are just too credulous. You essentially have the mentality of a religious or cult follower. Dude, GROW UP intellectually, DEVELOP rational and critical thinking skills. How old are you already? Stop placing your faith in your ability to *judge* anonymous online personalities for the *truth*. Jeeezus.
Listen, precisely because the internet is anonymous and anyone can say what they want is why the only thing that matters is the logic and evidence for an argument and not the *personality* of the arguer.
Roissy says stupid shit from time to time, but he has a following because he has verisimilitude and ethos — he conveys truth merely by how he writes. It’s not a conscious process — he does it inadvertently. That’s how it works. Roosh, W.F. Price, Hawaiian Libertarian, Aaron Sleazy etc. — all of them speak with credibility and authority on women and game.
Utterly fascinating glimpse into the mind of a cult follower, thank you for providing that FB. This should go into the text-books.
So roissy does not have a following because 1) He bans those who disagree with him to make it seem like everyone worships him 2) A bunch of wishful thinking nerds worship his macho persona? No, clearly it must be because he has *verisimilitude*. Riiiiight. Got it now. Because we KNOW that throughout history demagogues NEVER succeeded through appeals to EMOTION but rather every successful demagogue clearly offered the truth and the masses who comprise a *following* are EXCELLENT judges of the truth. Yup. Thats just how history works. Thanks for clearing that up for me. Any more classic anti-rational tropes you care to offer up? So far you got the bases pretty well covered.
Ironically, though, it is precisely the way roissy writes that should ring alarm bells. It is bombastic and grandiose and full of macho posturing and appeals to fear and envy and emotion. It is the style of someone wishing to rouse the emotions and put the mind to sleep. It is the opposite of a style that appeals to logic and facts and evidence.
Ah, I get it, your magical ability to judge anonymous internet *personalities* allows to judge both Alek and Roissy for *verisimilitude*. Oh, and wishful thinking and your own personal desires have nothing to do with it. You are not basing your judgement on your own emotions. You just have this ability to TELL, you just KNOW, like you can INTUIT, when some anonymous internet dude is telling the truth or not. You are just awesome that way.
Let me shock you with something – to the extent that I agree with some of what Alek Novy says, I do so because – now pause and take a deep breath – of the logic of his argument or because his reports coincide with my own experience and he presents a rational interpretation that takes into account alternative explanations and possible false-attribution (and when was the last time a gamer was intellectually responsible like THAT?)>/i> It has NOTHING to do with Aleks claims that he was active in the seduction community, etc. It has NOTHING to do with me *judging* his personality and deciding it has *verismilitude*, lol. Alek could be a complete liar for all I know – his arguments are logical and are the best interpretations of phenomena after considering the logic of alternative explanations. (obviously I refer only to that of Alek Novy that I agree with)
Shocking, right? See, its about intellectuall responsibility. Not emotiona-based belief
lol, do you understand the difference between *social interaction* and *arguments designed to figure out the truth about something*? Now, perhaps you might want to sit down and meditate on that for a few months. In social interactions personality matters, in the search for truth, it is completely irrelevant. Only logic and facts matter.
Essentially you have crafted an extended paean to the legitimacy of emotion-based belief, to the judgement of truth based on the *verisimilitude* of the anonymous internet personality making a statement – you have provided a snapshot of the mentality of the cult follower who develops his belief system based on emotion and wishful thinking and has little use for critical thinking skills.
Good work validating everything I said about the credulousness of the gamer community – all you guys have to do is open your mouths and you do a better job damning yourself than I could possibly have wished for. Thesecond arguing that it is a good thing to have no spine and you arguing for emotion-based belief that depends on the personality of the arguer. Its awesome.
Human-Stupidity, J Hammers, The Antifeminist we all get hostility to the point of being blocked and kicked out from conservative father’s rights proponents, who think they are the only Men’s Rights proponents there are.
I understand there was an ugly fight on the part of Paul Elam with J Hammers, that finally seems to have gotten resolved (after J Hammers deleted his blog).
To my great shock, the main stream men’s rights is in favor of locking up men for decades for inadvertently (or on purpose) clicking on a photo of a nude 16 year old, or for banging a willing 17 year old (definitely prison for a willing 15 year old).
These people are totally in favor of jailing men for victimless crimes. They buy feminist BS about 15 year olds not being able to consent, not even after psychological counseling or with mother’s consent.
Does this have anything to do with the PUA vs Mens rights conflict? I recon that PUA does not want the necessity of notarized consent with ID verification by detectives.
teenage sexuality 
;child porn
My comment is awaiting moderation? Is that because of the two links, or are even authors moderated here?
** here the comment again without the links and thus uncensored.
You can go to Human-Stupidity.com and check the categories Teenage Sexuality and Child Porn Witch Hunt …….
Human-Stupidity, J Hammers, The Antifeminist we all get hostility to the point of being blocked and kicked out from conservative father’s rights proponents, who think they are the only Men’s Rights proponents there are.
I understand there was an ugly fight on the part of Paul Elam with J Hammers, that finally seems to have gotten resolved (after J Hammers deleted his blog).
To my great shock, the main stream men’s rights is in favor of locking up men for decades for inadvertently (or on purpose) clicking on a photo of a nude 16 year old, or for banging a willing 17 year old (definitely prison for a willing 15 year old).
These people are totally in favor of jailing men for victimless crimes. They buy feminist BS about 15 year olds not being able to consent, not even after psychological counseling or with mother’s consent.
Does this have anything to do with the PUA vs Mens rights conflict? I recon that PUA does not want the necessity of notarized consent with ID verification by detectives.
Details please. Where does Paul Elam say this? Where is the evidence that anyone calls themselves MRAs and believes this?
WOW… my business is now tits up effectively (and due to tits I might add for the twist of irony)… and this piece is still featured and going strong. I had no idea it would cause this much debate.
@ Jerry to quote ” “Strange, individually tailored concepts of pride and masculinity are nothing if you aren’t getting laid.”
Masculinity… has NOTHING to do with sex or getting laid.
It looks like I am going to have to sit down and start writing again. Might as well.. business is SOL and its back to being a wage slave.
{ 1 trackback }