Franz von Stuck, "The Lady in Red"
788 words
“Game” and “pickup artistry” are not the same thing. That clarification alone would have saved much of the confusion and ill-will Ava Moretti’s recent piece generated.
If a man is described colloquially as “having game,” it means he is able to build and—in the case of long-term relationships—maintain sexual attraction with women. He embodies or exhibits interpersonal traits a vast majority of women are attracted to, largely because they signal genetic fitness. Such a man may be a misogynist, a womanizer, or fancy himself a pickup artist, but none of these is necessarily the case.
When a man goes about “learning game,” in the best case he is learning to better market himself to women. He may learn to tell his stories in ways that better communicate his values and interests. He may approach and converse with large numbers of women in order to gain confidence and reduce social anxiety. He may upgrade his wardrobe, improve his conversational skills, start working out, or simply learn the contours of female psychology and modern dating culture. This man is still “being himself,” he’s just being himself better. “Learning game” for him is the female equivalent of putting on makeup, though the improvements are less ephemeral. Most men, if not all, do this to some extent, and it’s hard to imagine any women being upset by this.
For another type of man, “learning game” means creating a façade—a lady-killing alter-ego that’s a good distance from his true self. Neil Strauss’s The Game chronicles this type well, describing how some men learned magic tricks, donned feather boas, and adopted silly nicknames in their efforts to win the favor of the fairer sex. This is the domain of pickup gurus and their “lust-filled beta male” followers Miss Moretti refers to.
It’s easy to scoff at men like this who “become someone else” to succeed with women, but I believe it is typically only an ego-preserving, intermediary step in a man’s relational development. Most men—even those who are physically attractive—must endure a tremendous amount of rejection on their path to become men with a variety of high-value partner options. Creating an alter-ego to withstand the brunt of this rejection helps some men as they develop the basic courting skills necessary in today’s anarchic sexual marketplace.
A pickup artist (PUA) is typically a variety of this latter type. A PUA uses game insights and techniques to establish fleeting relationships with large numbers of women. They measure their success by their “notch count”—the number of women they have bedded—as well as the quality of each “notch” and perhaps the stylistic flourishes of the seduction.
Pickup artists are nothing new. Casanova didn’t come “straight from the ghetto” and Porfirio Rubirosa wasn’t the product of Jewish machinations. Some Jews have certainly been behind the recent push to spread the pickup artist lifestyle, but even The Game’s Jewish author Neil Strauss advocates marrying and having children. His book itself shows the most well-known modern pickup artist, Erik “Mystery” von Markovik, as a histrionic, suicidal manic-depressive who seemingly spends more time crying than picking up women—hardly as anyone to emulate.
Pickup artistry is more of a lifestyle and an identity than a means of self-improvement. It’s morally dubious, hedonistic, and certainly not civilization-promoting. I’m not sure how widespread this phenomenon is, but I imagine a not-insignificant number of women have squandered years of their prime fertility window under the thrall of PUAs or men going through a PUA phase.
Certain PUAs (but not all of them) are the ones Miss Moretti says “devour techniques of trickery to strip unsuspecting members of the opposite sex of their panties along with their honor.” They are the ones willing to “swap whatever moral fabric is left in Western Civilization for soiled sheets as proof of their promised instant sexual gratification.” They are the justified targets of Miss Moretti’s scorn, but I believe she is wrong in conflating this form of pickup artistry with game in general.
Game is not monolithic, nor are the men who formally take to learning it. Instead of rejecting game outright, white nationalists could take what lessons PUAs and “gamers” have to teach and fuse them with our own values and ends. There is already a significant overlap between human biodiversity (HBD) enthusiasts, race-realists, and gamers, so this is fertile ground for outreach.
As is clear from Miss Moretti’s piece and the 183 comments it inspired, many men and women are passionately frustrated with modern sex relations, which is not surprising since traditional courtship seems a thing of the past. This could be seen as a tragedy or an opportunity. I think of it as both.
28 comments
“There is already a significant overlap between human biodiversity (HBD) enthusiasts, race-realists, and gamers, so this is fertile ground for outreach.”
Roissy (Heartiste) has lots of race-realist info on his website. And let us not forget the brooding majesty of game/alt-right/dark side of radical traditionalism that was Ferdinand Bardamu of the soon-to-be-fabled In Mala Fide. And I see that Roosh (Turkish descent) has posted a rather interesting article in which he views black men who sleep with white women as a microcosm of American men and women as a whole. More than a few WN’s might well read the article and fly into a rage, but its a good look at why people may choose to date and even marry outside their race, white or not. There is at least one openly-WN commenter who has expressed his thoughts on that thread, showing overlap between these different online subcultures.
Game is, above all, a tool. It can be used by any man who is interested in having sexual and romantic relationships with women. It is in a sense outside of ideology (used by white nationalists and black players alike). But it is a rather effective tool and is something of a gateway drug to a community where men go beyond just picking up women and actually trying to improve themselves in other aspects of their lives. Some might become international playboys, but then they are the ones exploiting the current system for what it’s worth. They are an unintended result of the current structure and, insofar as it is human nature to try and make the most out of a situation, cannot be entirely blamed for doing so. (Although we might try and influence them into a different direction and examine how such trends impact a society in decline). But if the playboy and the man working towards a new order both find value in the tool of game, so be it. Strange bedfellows and all that.
Roosh is a non-white Turk who goes on sex trips to Eastern Europe and teaches metrosexualized non-whites (Asians and Indians, mostly) how to better approach da whyte wymmin. He’s hardly admirable from a WN point of view.
Ferdinand Bardamu is the most interesting of the three, since his brilliant site In Mala Fide had a lot of race-realist material and posts about tribalism, along with “game” articles and guides for hapless beta males. In Mala Fide was really a goldmine, and it’s a shame it closed down.
This is very good. It sets the record straight on game. I’ve noticed that the manosphere is increasingly huge. White Nationalists could study it and perhaps try to ally with it.
You nailed it!
Romantic and courtly love are paramount to modern Europeans and their descendents. So game theory is a tool to find your match. But this takes time, effort, and energy which can be spent on other things like activism and education. Arranged marriages may be the solution for a new White Rennaissance. Roissy/Heartiste may champion the “Alpha” 24/7 but even He/They acknowledge how society is built and maintained by “Beta” providers and workers. White folks are taking individualism to new extremes.
Our distorting MSM merely exacerbates the issue by disparaging anyone who hasn’t “started from nothing.” Collectivized Chinese and Indians are eating White kids alive in the job market. We’re smart enough to compete with them. As history and HBD show we’re much more creative and daring. However, a tribe of 30 will always defeat 100 isolated individuals. Whites are losing because we aren’t collectivizing and networking tribally.
Arranged marriage is again (part of) the solution. White families can find a good wife for shy but intelligent men. Shy and intelligent women can have desirable men. Nuclear-family centered views weaken us. For economic and cultural (distorting reasons) it’s easy to disown a nuclear family. Arranged marriages don’t break over night and have a eugenic role to play as well.
Though this certainly won’t be popular I agree with arranged marriages as being a good solution for many. Reading this article and the previous article I remembered my youth. I was a bit of a history nerd but I also started on the football team as a defensive end and having been “trained” by my neo-nazi skinhead older brothers to stand up for myself I tended to be very aggressive and even picked fights occasionally. Simply behaving the way I did and being six feet tall, muscular, and athletic combined with being a punk attracted many girls who were infatuated with me but my conscience seldom allowed me to indulge. I simply could not respect any of these girls because they were mainly attracted to immature and volatile character flaws and were not at all interested in me as a person or my beliefs and interests. I wanted women who wanted a true Knight and who would see me as such but from their comments I found that they simply saw me as their ‘little hotty’ or ‘bad boy’. Really? what kind of man wants to be that?
From these experiences I think I know how a lot of smart women, such as Ava Moretti feel about these PUA & Gamers. The really great women want great men who respect and value the greatness in their woman and who rather than oozing perversion have a virility and strength and confidence that is irresistible.
I am now a happily married man with two handsome sons. I am about as white as they come being of primarily Northern German descent, mostly from the area around Bremen, with some significant Norman ancestors. Personally I think we should look to the Catholics for guidance, at least the practicing ones, who have four to ten kids. My father raised us somewhat Catholic but I was still shocked at the age of 14 when he made friends with some Traditionalists Roman Catholics who all had huge families. One guy was only 36 and already had 11 kids by the same wife! In retrospect I’m not sure why I was I was shocked when I was the fourth of six kids. These families, as time went on, always seemed to be happy.
I know most New Rightists are generally anti-Christian but family life, self-sacrifice, militant discipline, holidays (holy days in the true sense), wholesome celebration as opposed to spotlights in dark night clubs is what we really should be seeking. I admit that I went through a phase where I tried to find fulfillment and happiness in ‘sowing my wild oats’ with many women and really as gratifying as it was it was also terribly hollow and always left me wanting something more. Really I have never been as attracted to a woman as when I met my wife and found a woman who took marriage, family, and finding a good man to be her husband seriously. She guarded and prized her sexuality and now so do I. Finding your Ostara, your Venus, is so much more important than hedonism. Sweaty romps with random strangers really is nothing compared to the sacred marriage bed shared with a true loving wife and days of joy with beautiful children who you can watch grow!
We are all our Race and Nation in miniature. If we really want a future for it we must have Race in Us as Greg Johnson pointed out in Confessions of a Reluctant Hater quoting Oswald Spengler.
Do you have a brother? J.K. Working on something now that describes what women want and it’s not too far off what you are saying. Longfellow is sugarcoating what is foul to the core. When the root of the teachings is to knock down the female in order to make the man feel superior then there is no salvageable hidden traits in ‘game’. If you want to learn to be more confident, why not read Tony Robbins instead of a sexualized knockoff? Verbal and emotional abuse that follows game (Roissy advocates to continue the insults even after a long term relationship has been established) may be attractive to average females but sane and solid women with a backbone will not tolerate such antics from men or anyone for that matter… at least not for very long anyway.
Ava in blockquote:
You must draw the Adult distinction between what women SAY they “want,” and what they WANT. The entire “Fifty Shades” phenomena reflects what women WANT, to one degree or another, and they show this by spending money on it.
They WANT Alphas Males – REAL Men, Men who lead, Men who are confident to rule. The “kinder, gentler” guy is just what they are using for support – a bit of Sport, if you will – until a REAL Man walks through the door.
“Revealed preferences” reveal what they really prefer.
REAL Men.
That’s not the “root of the teachings,” but simply an offshoot of the inoculation process that is required for Masculine Individuation to take place. Too much “Mommy’s Good Boy” leaves no room for the Man Mommy will need to defend her, the Family, and the Daughter-In-Law she is trying to choose for her son.
My GOD! Some junkwagon NLP toys, the uneducated person’s version of Jedi Mind Tricks? Give me the Dark Side, give me Darth Sidious, give me Men who know how to stand and fight, intelligently and effectively, against the Soft Evil of Pussification.
Fight Pussification, Brothers! Fight It!
“…sane and solid MEN with a backbone will not tolerate such antics from women, or anyone for that matter…”
Look at the eyes of the Beaten Dogs you see being dragged into Wal-Mart by the Thankless Damn Shrew he married in the name of “love,” and duty, pushed there by nagging from the women in his Family, as well as his jealous married male co-workers.
“One guy was only 36 and already had 11 kids by the same wife!”
This is 2012. Big white families are a thing of the past. Talk of ’emulating’ Mormons or Catholics or jackdaws is futile for lack of favorable mating conditions.
“Finding your Ostara, your Venus, is so much more important than hedonism. ”
Is there a word for this kind of talk? I don’t think gay covers it.
Uhh, no. Big white families still happen today, but they are not the norm.
I think that the word for that kind of talk is “white,” which Negros and their imitators now denigrate as “gay,” since the negro is now the arbiter of the masculine in the dregs of the Kali Yuga, which means that anything above the heads of negros (e.g., middle to higher civilization) is ipso facto “gay”: a rather insightful argument from The Other O’Meara.
By “thing of the past”, I obviously meant rare today.
Why are they rare?
– sexual liberation
– easy single motherhood
– birth control
– habitat loss
– urbanization / industrial agro
– social anxiety
– inability to save
– loss of faith
Serious business. Yet the way people speak of this matter around here, it sounds like the easiest thing in the world.
Didn’t Farnham O’Reilly exhaust this subject in his 500-part essay at Occidental Observer? I don’t know; it was too wordy to finish a single part, but I like what he purports to be doing. A friend of mine met him in real life and says he’s a straight character … but so far has found only a handful of couples to help out.
And that too is significant.
I think that the word for that kind of talk is “white,”
I’d bet my life the ancient Germans themselves would have laughed at someone talking that way.
My conception of marriage is much plainer. I think it ought to resemble a Communist barracks more than some idealized Nordic or Levantine affair. No matter what it’s going to have to be a two-income household, so the female can just give up her dream of being a full-time hausfrau. Shared household tasks. Plain dress. Plain food. Living mostly from homegrown sustenance. Above all, not being afraid of Wal-Mart. Not being afraid of boredom, as Heidegger counseled in some speech.
Religion isn’t really necessary if there can be a shared ideal. But of course ideals are mostly proxies for biology, and we aren’t coming to each other from the same genepool. So there will always be division.
It is possible to overcome it all and carry on, but as I see it, culture stands in the way. Queerly, everyone earnestly believes that holding to culture is the way “out”, what makes us worthwhile humans, yet if one learns anything from the study of history (which puts me to sleep for this reason), it’s that culture endlessly obtrudes itself in homo sap relations. Like you have Bardamu & Donovan obsessing over “being a man”, as though one is not already a man; the cult of self-help begun by corporate managers to render workers more effective units of production has completely overtaken our sense of worth as we’ve slipped into a tertiary sector economy where image is everything (if one is not in trades, i.e. most women).
Mark down there refers to Freya. That’s interesting. Freya was a goddess, sure, but that is its idealized reflex; as an etymon it persists in the English words “friend”, “free”, and German “Frau”. In Russia and Sanskrit it is priya, “beloved” and “woman”, respectively. The Germanic end is clearly very down-to-earth. So when I call talk of “Ostara” and “Venus” gay, I do not imitate the negro — you know I can do that — I’m mocking the impulse to abstract everyday things into idealized relations which serve real world task. It’s as though everyone’s afraid of just being plain, ordinary, functional. Think that could be another dash standing in the way of successful amour? Greg P. said it best: “Be bold & sociable.” This works wherever I go. Well, they split into those who dig it, and those whose brains are too rudimentary to handle the libidinal overload.
Anyway, this was fair redress of the previous essay, and I enjoyed it. The content here lately has been absorbing and I’ll probably be making a fiat$$ contribution soon.
Fourmyle of Ceres,
You really kick ass sometimes.
“White folks are taking individualism to new extremes.”
German nationalists have made this an explicit part of their ideology — if you look at their media you’ll see the slogan: VOLKSGEMEINSCHAFT STATT INDIVIDUALISMUS.
Ironically, and very pertinently, the Antifa have a sweet one of their own: KEINE SEX MIT NAZIS!
That’s about as explicit as two opposed camps can be about the sublimated struggle for reproductive rights. Nationalists want safe kinder-friendly community; anti-nationalists are comfortable in society (Gesellschaft) as pampered déracinés. Ironically, again, it’s the latter who out-reproduce nationalists for being the majority, the norm.
Genetic vs. contractual relationships. Why the Taliban throw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, and why Kwa designed to “liberate” it from their tribal terror. Gesellschaft stomping out one of the last holdouts of natural Gemeinschaft … in the name of “freedom” (friya / frau zlzozlolz) … Freiheit = Volkstod.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVU97518ovw&feature=related
I mentioned this before on the previous posting about PUA’s, where is the evidence that this stuff works? Where is the evidence proving that ordinary men put these ideas into practice go onto achieve the results that are bragged about in their marketing testimonials.
There is of course no proof of the validity of game because it is a scam (and a culture cracking Jewish scam at that) but unfortunately the myth of ‘game’ is perpetuated because the majority that were fooled into it and remained in PUA lingo ‘Average Frustrated Chumps’ are probably too ashamed to come forward and admit their continuing personal problems in dealing with the fairer sex.
I’m not a “PUA” and I never studied any books or blogs on how to have game, but I did learn from friends and experience some of the basics of what the author of this article, Bruce Longfellow. would call “game.” Again, “most men, if not all, do this [use “game” techniques] to some extent.” You seem to be questioning some of the most basic concepts of attraction between the sexes, so I have to wonder at your age, sex, and success with women.
As a happily married man who had almost no confidence or game as a young teen, I can say that “game,” as the author describes it, most certainly works. Not only does it work, but it is a good thing for any man to have a moderate amount of. A LOT of it also applies to politics and how much influence you have over other people. It’s the basics of learning how to communicate well. It’s also a maturing process for most men.
Maybe you should ask yourself some more helpful questions, like “what can I learn from these people and their techniques to help me achieve my goals?”
I assure you that a woman much prefers a man who stands for something than finding out after she has married him that he is a liar, a toadie, a whiner and a coward and makes her even when pregnant make the stand for the family while he pretends he is a protector doing his job for the family. A woman and the children want to be proud of the head of the family, and not have to make excuses for his lack of figuring out just what he believes and stands for. The game may be fun, but if there is nothing of substance behind it, well even if the woman doesn’t see it, the kids sure do. Hence, all this lack for male children of strong role models. Most women and children will without a doubt, suffer lack of material goods for a strong ideal of the right thing to do. It is built into the white psyche. Just tell us and we are there with you.
“you seem to be questioning some of the most basic concepts of attraction between the sexes, so I have to wonder at your age, sex, and success with women.”
Greg P. I am not questioning certain basic concepts of attraction between the sexes. I am questioning whether the self appointed guru’s of ‘game’ can practice what they preach and perhaps more importantly whether their advice and coaching can reproduce their alleged ‘success’ in the ordinary man on the street.
I’m waiting for the scientific evidence, but instead I get the standard line that any doubting thomas would get from a cult when he points out the emperor has no clothes. ‘If you don’t get it then there must be something wrong with you as individual. You don’t understand you need to study more, have faith, beleive in it, work harder etc etc.’
That’s a REALLY good excuse not to talk to the opposite sex!!! We wouldn’t want to actually take a RISK or anything…I mean, that would require a certain amount of personal COURAGE. No, no, no. We don’t want any of THAT. The standard response from every socially awkward guy too scared to talk to women from now on should be:
Genius!!
No wonder so many WN think we’re doomed as a race. The hell with trying anything new regarding pro-white activism (we’d need scientific proof it worked before even attempting something new anyway), we’ve got people too scared to talk to women when they have nothing to lose and everything to gain on a personal level! If we can’t get white people to risk taking actions in their own PERSONAL interest, how do you ever think we’re going to get enough people to stop white genocide and secure the existence of our people and a future for white children?
Look, the system is messed up right now but that’s NO EXCUSE to give up and wait for the rules to be fair and to your liking again. Screw PUA writings, just listen to what every damn guy and girl has been telling you for the past X amount of years! It’s the basics man, not rocket science!
-Be confident in yourself and what you say.
-Smile.
-Wear clothes that compliment you (e.g. if you have blue eyes, maybe blue looks good on you; don’t over-dress or wear clothes that don’t fit you).
-Shower. Use deodorant. Don’t put too much cologne on (just a little, if at all).
-Pick up on non-verbals to gauge how you’re doing.
-Don’t get discouraged in the face of rejection, that’s part of life (e.g. job interviews). Know it’s her loss.
-Be bold and sociable.
-Ask her questions and let her talk about herself (i.e. be generous with the topics of conversation, don’t be self-absorbed).
-If she laughs at your jokes, that’s a good sign.
-And for Christ’s sake, don’t call her 10,000 times and act desperate! Relax and play it cool.
I’ve never read a PUA book in my life. I didn’t even know what PUA stood for until after I was married (I only found out this year). I’ve never read a single dating book or anything on how to “get” women. I’m sure some of it is good and a lot of it is pretty lame and hedonistic.
The only way you are going to find out what works with women is to go out and get some experience of your own. If you’re too chicken shit to talk to women, don’t be surprised when you end up alone or with a sub-par wife.
If you’re too blind to see how things work around you and too cowardly to try practicing the basics every guy has advised about for years, then please, refrain from saying anything at all. Nobody wants to hear you whine about “scientific evidence” when it comes to what works with women. All you’re really saying is you’re too scared to take the risk of talking to a woman and that’s far, far more shameful than talking to a woman and getting rejected.
To paraphrase the mentalist, an understanding of evolutionary psychology will explain this.
The problem is what women what for a short term mate is not what they want in a long term mate. Check out these two articles.
http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/good%20genes%20hypothesis.pdf
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/haseltonmiller.pdf?spnCategory=529&spnDomain=17&spnContent=23&spnContent=28&spnID=26606
Lets go to page 158 of the first article, and see what traits are attractive in the short term where all the pick ups happen: muscularity, arrogance, and confrontativeness, whereas in the long term it is being warm and faithful. The bad boy vs the nice guy. Also the second article goes into how creative intelligence is more desirable in the short term as opposed to wealth. Think of the musician. Combine these two, and I am thinking the Byronic Hero.
Why is this whole pick up phenomenon happening? Because our mommies have raised us to be good little boys who please women, and have no “edge”, and our fathers have not interacted with us at all, giving us no masculine role model. This is the past for the average white male.
It’s true what what women want for a short term mate is not what they want for a long term mate, but this is really a gap that cannot be bridged? There’s a blog called Married Man Sex Life (www.marriedmansexlife.com), written by a man named Athol Kay (with an assist from his wife of 16 years) that attempts to do just this. Kay applies game theory from the Manosphere, evolutionary psychology, and a few related ideas to marriage and comes up with a synthesis that might interest CC readers and WNs in general.
His main insight is that Alpha and Beta are collections of traits that are different but not mutually exclusive – just about every man has some one of both of these. It’s not that Alpha = good and Beta = bad (as the PUA types typically claim), it’s that they perform different functions. The Alpha qualities are necessary for a woman to be attracted to and admire a man, but the Beta qualities provide a sense of comfort and security that are necessary to sustain an LTR. If we look at things this way, we get four quadrants that look like this:
High Alpha, Low Beta = Alpha (Bad Boy)
Low Alpha, High Beta = Beta (Nice Guy)
Low Alpha, Low Beta = Omega (Loser)
High Alpha, High Beta = Gamma(Married Game)
In order to keep the sort of marriage most men and women would want to have, the answer is to move towards the Gamma quadrant. Most men need to add (or retain) Alpha qualities because modern American culture holds up more Beta as the answer to all issues between men and women. The gamers advice is often useful in this respect. However, the Beta qualities are not only useful to maintaining an to maintaining an LTR – they are essential. Kay calls the result “Nice Guy with a Hard Edge”, which is generally a pretty good thing to be. This was probably the norm in the past, but we’ve lost sight of it in the modern era.
If we take evolutionary psychology as the starting point, both the “alpha” and “beta” qualities have been selected for. We humans are not a purely lekking species like the peacock, so it is not only “alpha” qualities that are desired. The pick up artists are right in that “alpha” qualities are sought after in the club, because that is a lek for humans. That could be the reason why one PUA advocates a strategy he calls “peacocking”. Because of the rise of feminism, and increased female autonomy, most women follow their instincts for the man that makes them “tingle down there”, which is not the beta. Also, because of the rise of feminism males are being raised to not have those alpha values, “mommies want a sweet boy”. These are the conditions that caused the rise of PUA.
Personally, I have more respect for the model that Jack Donovan espouses in the way of men. If you have certain masculine virtues, you will be “alpha.” But, that has to start at a young age and takes a while to develop. Whereas according to Roissy, PUA is the most efficient, in that the least of effort will get you the most amount of sex. Lets be fair, can that 25 year old man who was raised on feminist shibboleths his entire life about how bad male competitiveness and dominance are, become the warrior that Jack Donovan has described in the way of men. Probably not, so he adapts an easier strategy. And to be fair again, he feels that he has been part of an ideological con game.
Not to go too much on a tangent, but I wonder if this is an area where there is a Pagan/Christian divide. I have wondered if pagans idealize a type of masculinity that is embodied in an ideal like a warrior-poet. To go back to the articles in my original response, the person of creative intelligence, muscularity, and dominance, whereas the Christian has more of this altruistic / pro-social ideal.
This could explain differences like drug usage. The pagan sees an occasional use of a hallucinogen as fine. Marijuana was sacred to Freya, and Fly Agaric was sacred to Odin. According to evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller, the person could take a hallucinogen to show mental fitness, the person can still handle reality with the hallucinogen in their system. Whereas the Christian does not want anything to break down social order, they have a much more bourgeois personality, which James O’ Meara has coined an excellent word to describe the excess of this, “miserableism”. “Hey you kids, get off of my lawn.”
‘If a man is described colloquially as “having game,” it means he is able to build and—in the case of long-term relationships—maintain sexual attraction with women. He embodies or exhibits interpersonal traits a vast majority of women are attracted to, largely because they signal genetic fitness. Such a man may be a misogynist, a womanizer, or fancy himself a pickup artist, but none of these is necessarily the case.’
This is perfectly written. But studying game is definitely a bridge to all forms of self-improvement for men. I had never been even slightly interested in self-help. But I got into it and improved my whole life financially and socially from this starting point. Not having a girlfriend can really drive you to take action.
” That clarification alone would have saved much of the confusion and ill-will Ava Moretti’s recent piece generated.”
Not at all. What would have avoided confusion: a male not using a female pen-name, or if genuine, at least not opening with an advertisement of availability.
That, it really truly ought to go without saying, is not the way to a männerbund’s sympathy. I mean would he/she walk into a bar filled with men and start discussing his/her pseudo-love life? so why come here and do it?
Oh I remember, for the purpose of shaming us over Game.
But the picture isn’t clear with recourse only to ev-psych; game theory provides very simple answers:
– “Ava” whining about Game > free rider problem [female resents males receiving “free” sexual access, i.e. not serving “her” genetic interests]
– Readership rising in body to shut “her” up (unsuccessfully!) > prisoner’s dilemma [males and female(s) “defecting” from each other for lack of transparent common interests]
– Internet [no one is REALLY competing/serving their genetic interests, but employing a wealth of cultural proxies to vent various frustrations, central to which is reproductive anxiety]
… and that’s that.
Well, I believe it’s Greg, but it might be a woman. All I can say anymore is that “a solid woman with a backbone” sounds a lot like a squat harridan with too much edge in her voice to be lovable. Nietzsche advises us to avoid those in whom the will to blame is strong. All the more in woman.
No, I did not write that piece. I don’t reveal the identities of authors who write under pen names. No serious person would write for us if I did. But I can say that Ava Moretti is a woman, and a highly attractive one at that.
I’m sure this isn’t an original idea, but I think the problem is that in adopting the pick-up artist techniques and using them regularly one will become the kind of person who does those sorts of things. What kind of person is that? Well, its the kind women “really” want. This isn’t good for men or women. Far better for men to seek the approval of other men, to become what they admire.
I don’t believe it is accurate to say that the PUA/Alpha male is what women “really” want at all. It may be what women unimproved by culture want. Women, too, can become what they admire, namely, someone who really wants what women “say” they want. They say they want it because our culture puts some, currently only marginal, pressure on them to refine these desires for the sake of the community. Was it Voltaire that said that “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue?”
The PUA approach creates a sort of short-circuit in a process that is designed to put pressure on men and women to improve.
This definition of “game” and the definition of “game” given by smart writers like Micheal Bell deviates from how “game” seems to be defined on “gamer” sites like Heartiste, where for most of the audience it is very much about notch count and little else. There is nothing to object to in this definition of game, or in Michael Bell’s concept of game. Their definitions are not the norm in the gamer community. What they define as game I would define as ordinary efforts at continuous self-improvement that everybody ought be doing anyway.
For more related to this subject, I’d recommend that everyone read Jack Donovan’s excellent piece on this subject at Alternative Right (www.alternativeright.com) entitled “Everyone A Harlot” published a few days ago. He does say that “I see what many call game as a kind of gateway masculinity” and that “Game is essentially assertiveness training for a generation of young men who spent most of their lives playing “mother may I?””, which is much of what this article claims. Sex is about the only male pursuit not demonized by the mainstream culture, so it’s not surprising that game will have an attraction for young men raised on a diet of feminism.
The broader point Donovan makes is that reducing manhood to simply being attractive to women and seeing how many of them you can seduce is ultimately a distortion and debasement of real masculinity. The historical reason that alpha men have always been so attractive to women is that they are the most successful at being men – not that they spent countless hours refining routines and techniques to get into women’s pants. As Donovan puts it:
“In healthy patriarchies, men push themselves to earn the respect and admiration of other men. They work to prove their strength, courage and competence to each other. Men pride themselves on their reputation for mastery of their bodies, their actions, and their environment. They want to be known for what they can do, not just how well or who they can screw. And they sure as hell don’t waste their time trying to figure out what they can do to bedazzle bimbos.”
Attractiveness to women is a byproduct of being a successful man – it is not the meaning of masculinity. Game may be useful as a gateway to masculinity, but one needs to pass through that gateway and realize that pussy is not the meaning of life.
I have read some of these writers, such as the “Heartiste” one. It was disgusting seeing him publish a “scorecard” of attractiveness for women that basically amounted to a list of his personal sex fetishes. Must we hear it? The sense with these guys is: Jaded.
I have been at once fascinated by their penetration of the female psyche and appalled by their moral decadence and mortal addiction to the male sexual hemorrhage sans either the fruit of marriage or children. My impression is that they have figured out how to manipulate the female mind, but only to indulge themselves. Well, I guess that’s the power of the male sex drive! It enables a man to penetrate just about anything. The “Game” writers are attaining something, too, by deconstructing the nature-gotten “goddesshood” of the young woman and exposing some of her character faults. But they cheapen her too much. And unless the knowledge is used by a marriage-minded man, all are losers.
I see sex as the Seal of Marriage and what gives it weight. Not something you do on a date, but something you reserve for marriage. I remember how moving it was to see Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle at the end of the BBC’s “Pride and Prejudice.” It only came after their marriage ceremony in the church. In the ceremony inside the heady Cathedral, the Anglican priest intoned the White Christian ideal that marriage was not to be founded on mere carnality. Then as their carriage struck off to the delighted calls of the people, the two sitting in the driver’s seat together moved toward each other for kiss. The way the two actors handled it it was tenative, clumsy, unconfident, risking. The actors successfully conveyed that this is the first time they had kissed. I have to say it made me weep.
The result of the “game” men’s teachings is the cheapening of sex and the sidelining of marriage and family for fruitless carnal pleasure of the male and the forestalling of male maturity. And the woman doesn’t get the womanly development she wants in life, either.
It was sad to read the article by Ava Moretti (hearing what these men are like to date). One thing I notice is that women aren’t adequately outraged and appalled by this mordant bird dog state of the male. It takes men to provide moral standards in this area. Perhaps woman is somehow essentially corruptible after all. The things I read from the “Game” writers strongly suggest this to be the case. Oh, what they seem willing to do!
Her window of supernatural attractiveness is brief. The fathers and mothers of our saner centuries knew this. Thus they shepherded both men and women toward a sensible marriage where higher appreciations could grow. There in marriage as they both matured he came to value her friendship, wifely service, and motherhood as much or more than the raw sex appeal of her youth. This in turn gave her security with him. Both grew up and became real men and real women. (Only fatherhood really makes a man grow up.)
I do think that only other men who acquire genuine moral standards for themselves can give the proper negative feedback to these “game” depredators of women, and are probably the only ones inclined to stoutly do so.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.