That Ol’ Time Game

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.]

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “That Ol’ Time Game

  1. Nice video choice for the end.

    This dovetails with something I heard at, of all things, a homeschool workshop. A scientific model is not the same thing as the thing it models, but we often mistakenly think it is. A model may work brilliantly, and still not be true. Something is not true crusts it works.

  2. @LtRM

    Nice video choice for the end.

    That movie had an outsized effect on my life. I was a Southern Baptist, and when they boycotted Disney because they owned Miramax, Pulp Fiction’s production company, Miramax) I quit being a Southern Baptist.

    I had many arguments with my friends and family over that fact that while it was fine for Disney to exalt hedonism and feminism in one princess movie after another, the minute Disney accidentally produced a film with Christian values, repentance, and adoration of a father (albeit set in dramatic ways) Southern Baptists had to draw the line. Really stupid.

    This was..94? 95? Long before the Manosphere.

  3. One of my husband’s favorites. He can quote whole swaths of it, and and many of his professors in college found it incredibly profound. It asks all the right questions.

  4. Cane:
    The arguments against those tools of Game that are evil shouldn’t rest on whether it works or not.

    It doesn’t. But that they are both evil and ineffective is surely of interest.

  5. Pingback: Further Ruminations on Game | Donal Graeme

  6. Thank you for your extended series which exposes the covert feminization of most men. When you said,”The reason increased use of pornography among men is concerning is because pornography use is something sinful women do, and it’s concerning because porn use by men is the fruit of the labors of decades of the intentional feminization of men.”https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2013/12/01/retched/ I did not understand. This was a new idea to me. But after three weeks, I came to see the truth of it. PUAs are those men who have placed themselves in Eve’s stead, Gen 3:16 “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”. The PUA’s desire is for the women, and as you point out by statistics, the woman ‘rules’ over the PUA. Manliness is about the ‘work’, not about whether the girls think you are ‘pretty’. Keep hitting them out of the ballpark.

  7. Pingback: Lightning Round – 22/01/14 | Free Northerner

  8. >What I can’t accept

    DAAAAWWWWWWWWW

    That’s so cute!

    >is when someone comes along and says that’s what Neg meant all along; whether PUA or traditionalist. Both now claim it frequently.

    Except, of course, for how it does. See, I was there at the time in ASF and the SS forums and so on, and yes, “negative hit” actually does and actually did refer to *inverting* the supplication involved in trying to get the attention of someone with options.

    It changed as the community expanded and noobs started taking the term at face value and using it as an excuse for ‘payback’ in working through their realization of their essential disposability to almost everyone around them.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about; I was there at the time and know better.

    You can talk all you want about what you cannot accept. . .*sweeeeeetie*. .

  9. Except, of course, for how it does. See, I was there at the time in ASF and the SS forums and so on, and yes, “negative hit” actually does and actually did refer to *inverting* the supplication involved in trying to get the attention of someone with options.

    It changed as the community expanded and noobs started taking the term at face value and using it as an excuse for ‘payback’ in working through their realization of their essential disposability to almost everyone around them.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about; I was there at the time and know better.

    Not sure what made me read this, good post by the way, but see here, this comment is more of what i was getting at with “I figured out whats wrong with the manosphere”. regardless of topic, game, or the other things I keep harping on, the comments last sentence reveals the “feel – in” drive. he is like the high school boy or college student who wants to be the first to discover a new band, he tells everyone, hooks em up, then a strange thing happens, the 2nd or 3rd album comes out and the kid walks in a room where its playing and says, “why you listnin to that commercial shit man”

    Feel – in, until everybody is in, then get out to feel in again. T^he endless yammering to define game…..feel in, the painfully obscure citations from history, literature, ancient plays and poems, NOT…..NEVER….any that more than a couple of people would know…..because that philosophers second album was too commercial.
    \
    The guy in the comment above, I feel like he is desperate to feel in and suddenly game is everywhere, from cheap kitschy books for sale to little boys in 42 year old bodies like the vidz above, so the commenter finds his point of sufficient obscurity, drops some terminology that is dated to establish his bonafides, and says “I was there man”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s