A miscellany of comments on Game

LA writes:

Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative has been discussing Game also, and an Anonymous commenter tells how Game helped him find a wife:

This is wrong. I am a very socially introverted Traditionalist male, and was never naturally good with women. What studying “game” taught me was NOT an artificial set of cheat-codes to unethically trick females, but how to be more “Male”, and in that I mean to focus just on being confident with myself, and as a consequence having a full life, in short, it was successful for me in that it gave me the power to undergo an attitude shift. Think of it this way, introverted males do not sell themselves well. Being logical and analytical about what attracts females gives you the confidence to know HOW to sell YOURSELF, that’s all. It helped me meet my wife of 5 years, we have perfect son, and plan on more. Nothing but positives have come from it.

Richardson, however, is not automatically buying it. He replies:

Anonymous (11:56),

You make a good point that being socially introverted is likely to make things more difficult for a man when it comes to dating.

I’m curious, though, to know which particular aspects of Game were helpful to you. Or was it an overall psychological effect?

You have provided evidence that Game was useful in achieving a more traditional purpose and I do take this on board.

However, I do still think that “Game” often comes with a particular outlook attached.

Many Gamists seem to have adopted the idea that there has been a permanent shift in society, so that there is nothing to do but play and win by the new rules.

This then means that you “win” not by challenging what is happening in society, or by getting to traditional goods in your own life in spite of the difficulties, but by succeeding in a dating culture in which love and marriage have been either vaguely deferred or openly rejected—which then distorts what individuals select for.

Mark P. writes:

Clark Coleman wrote:

I think it is also likely that Game succeeds partly by making the practitioner different from the norm, hence intriguing, mysterious, etc. But how can Game then become the norm for huge numbers of males?

By this reasoning, women should stop wearing make-up.

LA writes:

Roissy writes at his site:

I highly recommend that all the new and befuddled readers who are coming from sites like Larry Auster’s and who seem to fall on the traditional conservative (read: beta) side of the ideological spectrum get up to speed by reading Mystery’s seminal work on the science and art of game. You may also want to read Magic Bullets by Savoy. Then maybe you’ll be equipped to discuss matters for which you seem to have zero understanding to date.

I’m posting this because Roissy is directing us to writers other than himself, who presumably discuss issues non-pornographically.

Karl D. writes:

I was writing at my blog about the whole Game thing that has been going on and I think I hit on something that no one really brought up. I could be wrong as I have not read every single comment on the subject, but here goes:.

The tables have been turned. Now the males act like the rare jewel to be appreciated and chased. They now act like the proverbial tease. In some ways game seems downright feminine instead of “Alpha Male”. The art of “The Neg”. Giving a backhanded compliment to lower her status and raise yours. Isn’t that what bitchy girls do to one another all the time? I dont know? Its strange. Another one is called “Peacocking”. Wearing some outlandish outfit or accessory to start a conversation. Again, a little feminine.

LA replies:

Personally, I’d rather live alone in a hut in the forest than practice Roissyite techniques on another human being. But that’s me.

Dan M. writes:

Game is a topic with which I have some familiarity, being 34 and single in the San Francisco Bay area. Some things to bear in mind: As has been mentioned, the game is one part self-help (with its own ’60s transformation-inspired brand of self-help gurus), one part psychology and one part dating strategy.

As I believe Steven W. pointed out, many men come to Game with reasonable goals, i.e., learn how to approach women and learn what works to build attraction and maintain it. Why then does it seem like many of the advanced proponents of Game seem to espouse this hedonistic, nihilistic view with which you and many traditionalists take issue? It occurs to me that I know the answer.

On one level, many of these guys are making a seriously profitable living from their “skills” at social interaction. They are paid handsomely to educate other men, many of whom do not aspire to pursue and bed women endlessly, but simply have options, learn basic social skills, or not settle for the first woman who is nice to them out of fear of an inability to find the right woman, etc.

It’s much easier for these pickup artist gurus to demonstrate skills at manipulating women into bed, than it is to demonstrate lasting powerful relationships and marriages that form the bedrock of our society. The latter might secure their happiness, but the former employs them gainfully.

Secondly, this hedonistic approach plays into the psychology of women. If I, as a man, project an untamable spirit, a cad, a seducer of women, even an educator of seduction to other men, I tap into the powerful urge a woman has to tame me, to civilize me, to draw me into a relationship that causes me to give up my partying and settle down. Women don’t want boring and easy, they want a challenge. In particular, women who are extremely attractive and used to men fawning over them, see a notoriously successful cad like Roissy and want to be the one who finally causes him to change his ways, settle down. [LA replies: Just a side point: Roissy is a pseudonym. The people who meet him socially wouldn’t know that he’s the Web sex guru.]

I’m not saying that this will never happen. As has been stated, the issue with becoming so competent at meeting and seducing attractive (and very bright, very successful) women is that some men decide that that is an end in itself. But many do not. And this is true of both men who developed this hyper competence through study and those to whom it came naturally. I absolutely agree with you that it is silly to position these skills in social interactions as a school of conservative philosophy. I just wanted to point out that it is impossible to know the heart of an advanced practitioner. Even if he’s been a successful lothario for many years, he may be holding out for the one, or may come to understand the beauty of a single, committed relationship.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 27, 2009 09:36 PM | Send