When I look at earlier Game gurus (Mystery, Strauss, even pre-2011 Roissy) there is very little conflation of Game and the pursuit of manliness.
[Game writers say]: The Red Pill man should imitate the Dark Triad man, because the Dark Triad man is successful at sleeping with women. The Dark Triad man is successful sleeping with women because he thinks like his single mother–he is the wannabe rocker, the aspiring rapper. He is the disaffected ne’er-do-well of a single mother. He projects onto everyone else what he has always and only known: how to make mother happy,
and get what he wants. This works very well in our society, for obvious reasons.
That does not make it healthy, and admiration isn’t even a goal.
In the previous TINP post, I showed how what we in the Manosphere call female solipsism–hamsterization–is really a low-to-mid-level expression of the Dark Triad traits left uncured in the minds of uncivilized women…which in our era is nearly all women. The two most well-known people (in terms relevant to the subject of the exhibition of solipsistic/Dark Triad traits) are Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton.
Game separate from general self-improvement or general social engineering is about getting the attention of women, then the interest of women, then sexual relationships with women. It was formerly sexless nerds telling other sexless nerds what they changed about their behavior and thinking to reliably repeat those those endeavors. Zippy’s right on the math according to the numbers provided to him, but it’s not terrible helpful because those numbers are questionable. They’re hardly rigorous as the PUAs giving the figures are not interested in proving themselves according to chart-able metrics, but in selling themselves. Obviously PUAs can only get some women, but they’re in sales, so it’s left to hang as all women…and it’s plausible because there’s so many women who are delighted by the lure of these narcissistic mirrors
that the opportunities are endless for one man; especially compared to a former sexless existence that is a problem in a fornication market. More importantly: Each sexual partner represents many sexual episodes; so an improvement (in Game terms; a measure used in the fornication market) from 0 episodes with 0 partners, to fornication with 2.7% of approached women times 10 episodes per successful approach is a damnable improvement.
2.7% is a high percentage in the fornication market. It’s like saying the 4% of millionaires aren’t actually rich because their money is a very small part of the economy, and they didn’t become billionaires. From both angles the problem is the fornication market itself, and the fornication market trades in pop culture and celebrity.
My suspicion for the reason of the conflation of Game with manliness is that when more people read and commented on Game, more of them made the charge of Game being full of effeminate behavior; of which I think it was/is often guilty. An example is the Neg. The Neg used to be pitch-perfect passive-aggression; cattiness with plausible deniability.
Now Negs have been rebranded as manly nonchalance. Hilarity aside, I can accept taking the term Neg captive and making it mean “tease”, and thereby changing the whole tone of the interaction. What I can’t accept is when someone comes along and says that’s what Neg meant all along; whether PUA or traditionalist. Both now claim it frequently.
Wounded by the charge of effeminism (as men should be) the PUAs started to respond with more sophisticated evo-psych nonsense about Game being a covert, esoteric, and ancient manliness. Covert so as not to upset PC sensibilities during the performance of Game; esoteric so as to explain why their knowledge about such tactics aren’t common (When they are by all accounts procreationally necessary, and even genetic! How did all those Alphas spawn all these Betas?) ; ancient so as to cast a glamour over those susceptible to the trappings of tradition.
This sophistication confused the topic massively. The “old” Game was more honest in it’s pursuit and portrayal of Dark Triad/feral female camouflage, and I think worked better at attracting sexual partners from among the majority of women. Now it’s just a lot of guys who actually aren’t very attractive to a wide swath of women cherry-picking traits and cobbling them together in an attempt at self-justification, e.g., “This is how I’m Alpha…” More specifically, it is cherry-picking incidents of success at fornication, and then co-opting whatever behavior is displayed during said incident as “a function of Game science, once properly understood”.
To me the mathematical success argument is beside the point. The arguments against those tools of Game that are evil shouldn’t rest on whether it works or not. I’ve heard it said that gays make the best lovers because they know how their
opponents partners bodies’ feel, but I ain’t doing that either.
Let’s hear Jules on the value of objective good over what feels good. (cussing ahead)
[Ed: Re-purposed and expanded from this comment.]