Monday, August 24, 2009

The Game over Game Continues



For the last few days, I've been exchanging emails with Fedinand Bardamu, a Game proponent (see here and here). Without further ado, here's my latest email...



Hi Ferdinand,


Thanks again for your response. I’m having fun, and I hope you are too. I will say, however, that I don’t think your last comment was very persuasive; in most cases you dived easily into tangents while refusing to address my concerns head-on. For example, on the topic of “reductionism,” you wrote, “Have you ever baked a cake or cooked any sort of recipe? Then you’ve engaged in a mild form of reductionism.” This is almost patronizing. You know (or at least should know) that Reductionism – as a cultural phenomenon – has nothing to do with baking a cake; it has everything to do with viewing human beings as nothing more than a random firing of neurons and chemicals, and that everything in human life can be explained through mechanical, material forces. I do not share this Reductionist viewpoint because it is lethal to human happiness and civilization. Oh, and it’s just plain wrong!


But I digress…Let me say again (if I haven’t already) that I sympathize with your frustration regarding the current state of male-female relations (I think you read my essay here). I’m even bold enough to say there’s a “quality gap” between the sexes (i.e, there are more “good men” available today than “good women”). This sucks for guys. No question. We are in 100% agreement on that. The question is: What to do?


If “Game” was limited to encouraging Beta males to be more self-confident around women and giving them “tools of the trade” on how to meet and date women, I would be totally fine with that. But “Game” goes BEYOND that. Think of the very term: “Game.” It deliberately insinuates that a man’s pursuit of women is just that: A “Game.” In this game, there are inevitably winners and losers. Right now, the women and alpha males are winning; so let’s try to win the “Game” by acting like Alpha Males.


And for what purpose? You say – speaking of yourself - “I do want to get married and start a family eventually.” A very normal desire. But how does Game help you achieve that desire? It doesn’t. Read the Amazon.com review of the famous Neil Strauss book, The Game: “After two years, Strauss ends up becoming almost as successful as Mystery, but he comes to an important realization. His techniques were actually off-putting to the woman he ended up falling in love with. And they never prepared him for actually having a relationship. After a while, he ran out of one-liners and had to have a real conversation.”


So if Game can’t help build a loving relationship with a woman, what is its purpose? It’s purpose is to help Gamers get laid. You basically admit this when you write, “Men need a way to sate their lusts. Game is the best way in my opinion to help them do this.”


Fine. Then just say that! Say “I need to get laid. I haven’t had sex in months (or years), I can’t keep relying upon masturbation, I won’t hire a prostitute, and I refuse to turn gay. That’s why I use ‘Game.’” Fine. I would (almost) accept that. I wouldn’t condone it, but I would accept it. What I don’t accept is cloaking Game up as a way to save Western Civilization. As a true Conservative, I find the idea that casual sex is needed to save civilization to be a tad askew, almost insulting.


Yes, yes, I know: Game is a “butcher’s knife.” But it’s not. For the reasons I said above. It rests on a philosophical presumption that women are uncivilized monkeys, and that the key to banging a monkey is to act like a monkey too. That is a sad way to view women. And it’s a sad way to see ourselves as men. And it’s so unnecessary.


I’m not a Christian, per se, but I’ve always had respect for the Christian concept that we live in a “fallen world.” In other words, the triumph of “the good” is not preordained in life; the triumph of the good requires intelligence, character, and determination. It can be a real struggle at times. But the Gamers have no interest in struggle. They expect everything to happen easily. They expect women to fall into their lap. It’s a form of laziness. It says, “I don’t have the patience to be ‘good’ for years with the hope that one day I’ll meet a ‘good woman…’ I’m too horny. So I’ll pretend being a ‘bad guy’ to meet a ‘bad woman’ today.”


This is a sad philosophy and it’s also wrong – because it’s precisely the “good women” who WILL TRULY love a “good man” and wait for him. Yes, they might be only 5-10% of the female population, but they’re out there. And they deserve better than what we’re giving them. Even more than that, WE deserve better than what we’re giving ourselves.


The premise of Game is that we, as Betas, are just not good enough to find happiness and a satisfying relationship; we must therefore become Alphas, the very thing we loathe. And for what purpose? Sex. A total degradation of character for a few minutes of pleasure? Count me out.


Yes, yes, I hear you: “I just don’t get game.” But I think I do, Ferdinand. Indeed, I’m almost tempted to say I understand it better than you. And that’s why I reject it.


-Todd


NOTE: The photo above is of "Joe D.," a contestant on the Reality TV show The Pick-Up Artist.




51 comments:

The_Editrix said...

Interesting! I am following the Roissy-discussion somewhat cursorily at several blogs. I am not a native English speaker and from what I read I anticipated that "game" is what one hunts, kills and consumes. The thought that the Roissy "game" might be something of a "play" (i.e. something lighthearted) never occured to me until I read this blog entry.

Markus said...

Todd,

Linked to you from Lawrence Auster's sight, and just wanted to say: GREAT POST! I can't see Ferdinand having anything further to counter, because as you say, "Game" can only be justified (not condoned) if the ultimate goal getting laid, rather than having a committed relationship leading to marriage to someone you actually respect as a fellow human being (i.e., something more than an outlet for your own desires).

I appreciate your respect for Christianity. As a committed Christian, I'd like to encourage you further in this direction. And on the particular topic under discussion, I'd point out that the New Testament writings on the relations between the sexes is most brilliantly laid out by the supposedly misogynist Apostle Paul. This celibate man wrote about marriage that was, if not revolutionary, quite different from the major views of the time. He depicted monogamous marriage as a sexually-fulfilling and mutually-beneficial relationship that requires self sacrifice on both peoples' part, but he did so without an ounce of sentimentality or the "pretty lies" (to use Roissy's term) that so characterize our society today. On the one hand, men and women are of equal worth in the sight of God -- there is no superior/inferior relationship; however, the two do not have the same roles. They are complimentary. Paul recognized the principle of male headship (i.e., leadership) and female submission, but while most modern women are repelled by this, they'd do well to note that it's a far more exalted view of human and gender relations than the whole concept of domination that is at the root of Roissyism.

Oh, and there are no Alpha and Beta males in the Christian worldview. Those who wielded authority in a local church setting are to be characterized by meekness, gentleness, patience, etc. They are not to display quickness of temper or physical violence. And yet, they are authoritative by virtue of spiritual strength that would eventually be made known to others -- through completely non-coercive means.

Men acting like Alpha bad boys would be put under discipline. On the other hand, men acting like sissified Betas would be exhorted to act like men and take leadership in the marital sphere.

My point in all this is that Christianity represents an excellent way out of the whole Alpha-Beta mindset, and in to truly healthy relations among the sexes.

Not that this is in and of itself a reason to become a Christian, but just something to consider.

Best,

Markus

Rum said...

Almost all of the long term fans/commenters on Roissys blog have argued against "Reductionism" myself included. That should clue you in as to how constantly bringing up reductionism or its opposite is the wrong way to criticise Roissys insights. It has already been factored in (or out) by most adult observers of the subject.

Todd White said...

Rum: Thanks for your comment, but I disagree. The philosophy behind Game - and especially the Roissyite version of Game - is definitely rooted in Reductionism. I honestly don't see how it could be interpreted any differently. If you oppose Reductionism and support Game, then I encourage you to check your premises.

Todd White said...

Thanks, Editrix. When I started researching "Game" a few days ago, it occurred to me that part of the reason I was having a negative reaction to it was rooted in the word "Game" itself. In other words, it was possible I was unfairly allowing the term "Game" to bias me against it; that Game was fairly innocuous from a philosophical premise. But I came to see that "Game" is genuinely seen as a "Game" by those who practice it. They don't realize, of course, that just by playing Game, they are losing it.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't say that you don't "get" game, I'd say you don't "get" reality. Talking about your chastity as a virtue will get you laughed out of the room in most places. These men and the women they pursue have grown up from day one in secular, "sex-positive" society. Many of them, the "alphas" and women especially, are completely emotionally detached from sex by the time they are actually capable of thinking for themselves. And believe me, they all put tremendous pressure on each other to conform. On an individual level, adopting a puritanical mindset would mean a life of exclusion and humiliation for people in these communities. You're looking at this too narrowly if you think that it's just about "getting laid".

Besides, if only 5-10% of the women are marriageable, that's going to leave a ton of men out in the cold. To the extent that they can use game to acquire and maintain some semblance of a relationship, produce some children, and imbue those children with traditional values, their efforts are helping conservatism in the long run even if you find their methods distasteful.

AC said...

Is that picture from the Halloween special?

Todd White said...

Ha. I don't know, A.C. Maybe.

Todd White said...

Thanks for your comment, Anonymous: A few points. First, you say I’m recommending “a life of exclusion and humiliation.” That’s a bit extreme, don’t you think? When I was in high school, college, and out of college, I observed and (to a lesser degree) participated in “The Scene” (although I didn’t use “Game” tools. I didn’t know they existed). In any case, I didn’t find that life fulfilling. I dropped out. And since I dropped out, I find life to be more emotionally satisfying, and I certainly have as many friends as I ever did. I’m also engaged. So in that sense, you’re just plain wrong. You also wrote: “To the extent that they can use game to acquire and maintain some semblance of a relationship, produce some children, and imbue those children with traditional values, their efforts are helping conservatism in the long run.” Again, I disagree. To quote STVD: “The Beta Revolution ultimately fails because it converts a class of productive men potentially satisfied with a traditional family existence into a cohort of productive men who shirk the duties of stability and reproduction. The Beta Revolution will depress the reproduction of betas by inviting them into a world of sexual gratification and excess. Thus, the beta foundation of society will reproduce even less and the proposed solution fails.” See his full post here: http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/08/beta-revolution-will-fail.html

Todd White said...

Thanks, Markus. You make a lot of great points. I agree with you that “men and women are of equal worth in the sight of God -- there is no superior/inferior relationship.” And from the way you describe it, it does sound like modern Christianity can be useful in restoring a proper balance between the sexes. However, as I stated (and you noted) I am not a Christian officially. While I respect modern American Christianity, I believe that – at least for young people like myself who were raised in a secular culture – it is not the best path to enlightenment and happiness. If you’re interested, see my post: “Why I Am Not a Christian (At Least Not Yet): http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-i-am-not-christian-or-at-least-not.html

Anonymous said...

Your anecdotal experience is not evidence that I'm "just plain wrong".

And you're being arbitrarily binary on this. Game does not mean "act like Roissy". Roissy is just one man's interpretation and use of these methods. If a man goes out and buys "Guns & Ammo", then goes on a killing spree, does one condemn "Guns & Ammo"? Does the fact that one person used firearms to kill innocent people mean that firearms cannot be used to hunt animals, or for self-defense?

As for your analysis of the name, it's rather silly. One who is good on the basketball court is said to have "game". One who is good at accounting has game. And one who is good with women has game. It's not something Roissy or anyone else made up to describe seduction, but it does have its origins in sports.

Todd White said...

Anonymous: With all due respect, I think I've addressed these points to my own satisfaction. Please re-read my essay.

Anonymous said...

I have read your essay and your postings on VFR, and it's pretty clear that you and Auster have no idea what "Game" is, and no desire to find out.

The fact that you think nobodies like Roissy or Ferdinand Bardamu are somehow representative of or important to "Game" is proof positive.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I don't know where you got that photo, but it's fake.

Todd White said...

Anonymous: You wrote, "It's pretty clear that you and Auster have no idea what 'Game' is, and no desire to find out." On the contrary, Dear Sir, I understand it all too well. I encourage you to re-check your premises.

Anonymous said...

How much "Game" literature have you read, to have such a thorough understanding of it?

Todd White said...

I've read a few blogs like Roissy's and Ferdinand's over the last few days. And I've had some discussions with people like yourself. Oh, and I watched a few episodes of The Pick-Up-Artist. That's pretty much it. What am I missing? Do you recommend something?

Todd White said...

You may have already seen it, but I wrote a pretty comprehensive piece on Game here: http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/08/sex-love-and-marriage-in-modern-society.html

Anonymous said...

Here's a link to "Rules of the Game" by Strauss on Amazon. You can read the first few pages as well as a short interview with Strauss.

Here's the last line of the interview:
"If you master the game, then you also must master your own fears and insecurities. And overcoming these destructive traits can only help you have healthier relationships. That said, the downside to learning the game and then falling in love is that you have to be strong, because there are a lot more options than there once were. So for readers who are having trouble: the secret to monogamy is realizing that the fantasy of being with someone else is usually better than the reality. You can't do better than love."

I read the first few chapters in a bookstore, and I explicitly remember that within the first dozen or so pages it said something like this: "The primary purpose of game is not to engage in an endless series of meaningless sexual encounters. The purpose of game is so that when the right girl comes along, you're confident and secure enough to interest her and keep her interested."

Anyway, for you to read Roissy and think that you have a thorough understanding of game would be like someone sitting in on a few sermons from Jeremiah Wright and thinking that they understand Christianity. I'm not an expert on game myself but I know enough to say that Roissy is not an influential member of the "Game" community, nor is he representative of your typical game "student" (and yes, he is much closer to "student" than "master" or "teacher). And it also seems to me that many of the things you and Auster are arguing against are things that virtually no one has ever claimed - for example, to quote Auster, "the Gamers’ pretensions that Game can save society—that it is the ONLY way to save society". I found it similarly annoying that in Auster's bizarre "victory speech", he claimed OneSTDV's position (that the so-called "Beta Revolution" would not succeed) was somehow a reversal and evidence that Game Has Been Defeated!, when OneSTDV, Roissy, and pretty much all of their commenters have been mocking the entire notion of a "Beta Revolution" for quite some time.

If I feel up to it later, I might also point out some places in your argument and "victory speech" against Bardamu where you mischaracterize what he's said and/or state that he believes something that is directly opposite of what he's said.

Anyway, the whole tone of this debate has been "Roissy is disgusting, therefore game must be evil" and at a certain point it seems to have turned into a proxy for Auster's long-standing feud with Dennis Mangan over Darwinism.

I should add that it's always bad form to declare one's own victory in an argument, especially on one's own website.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I'm aware that my comment was directed at both you and Auster. I'm planning to amend it and send it to him later.

Todd White said...

Anonymous: Let me just say that I never - not once - declared victory in this matter. Having said that, I do think that (at least for my purposes) the overarching question from which I began my research ("Is Game useful for the individual and society?") is very closely to being resolved in the negative (although I do enjoy the discussion with you and other folks and I will continue it for that reason). But I digress...Like in many times in life, we have a problem of language...You, I, and a lot of folks here are using the same word ("Game") to refer to many different things. The way you described "Game" in your post seemed fairly innocuous, even beneficial. As I mentioned in my essay, I am 100% in favor of helping men bolster their self-confidence around women, and teaching them "tools of the trade" to meet and date women. Perhaps that was Straus' purpose when he wrote his book. I don't know; I didn't read it. What I do know about "Game" is through my Internet research and discussions with other folks over the last few days - and they are talking about a form of "Game" in which women are casually perceived as animals, men are encouraged to be alpha dogs or perish, and the idea of true love between a man and a woman based on MUTUAL respect is a considered a passe illusion. I don't know where you stand on THIS form of Game, but this is the form of Game that has drawn my attention and my sword.

Anonymous said...

The "language problem" is that you keep criticizing Roissy under the guise of criticizing "Game". You've admitted that you know almost nothing about game outside of Roissy's tiny corner of it, yet you consider to act as if Roissy is representative of what game is all about.

I wouldn't be very justified if I said "Christians are a bunch of psychotic, anti-American, Marxist, anti-White racists!" and then clarified "Oh, I only meant a subgroup of Christians like Reverent Jeremiah Wright. There might be other Christians out there that aren't like him, but he's the only one I know."

Todd White said...

Anonymous: You're very quick to attack me but you don't address my earlier post in which I tried to distinguish between different philosophies of "Game."

Rum said...

A standard definition of "game" is that it is all about giving women what they really want from a man as opposed to what they say they want. In other words, it is what makes hot sex happen as opposed to "Lets just be friends."
Cannot you see why this is an unequal struggle? Being anti-game means that you get to watch the women you respect, admire, and want to marry eagerly ride some other kind of guy as if you were not even there. How do you sell that scenario to heterosexual guys?
From this perspective, what future can there be for anti-game?

Todd White said...

Rum: I don't see how a program whose purpose is to "make hot sex happen" can lead to a loving, happy relationship. The mindset of the first prevents the second from happening.

Todd White said...

Also, Rum, I'm sure Game has a very bright future, indeed. It's the bastard child of a century-long abandonment of reason and morality in the West. Right now, we are living off the fumes of a previous Christian/Enlightenment culture. We face perpetual decline until a critical mass of people launch a Intellectual Renaissance. The next 15 years will be crucial in deciding our fate.

Rum said...

Todd said, "I don't see how a program to make hot sex happen could lead to a happy, loving relationship."
And you are Austers version of a debate-ending anti-game. Bullshit.
You and Auster have committed the sin of hubris. You don't know what you don't know but still you try to intimidate your counterparts with pious sounding bluffs...
Your little quote cannot be improved upon as a declaration of terminal cluelessness about heterosexual relations. I feel it is my duty to future generations to give your quote as wide a distribution as possible to alert guys as to just how bad the advice the Semi-Christian SoComs give about women.
You are going to be famous, dude.

Todd White said...

Rum: You misquoted me - whether on purpose or by accident, I don't know. I wrote, "I don't see how a program whose purpose is to 'make hot sex happen' can lead to a loving, happy relationship." You left out word "purpose," which is critical.

Anonymous said...

"You're very quick to attack me but you don't address my earlier post in which I tried to distinguish between different philosophies of "Game.""

Apparently you didn't try hard enough to distinguish them to the point that you could make a distinction between the man trying become capable of a long-term relationship and the man who was trying to screw as many females as possible.

Rum said...

Point taken. Actual word choices deserve accurate quotes. On the other hand, there is no salvaging the notion that hot sex is out of alignment with righteous male-female bonding. It is beyond wrong. It is so wrong it is truly evil because it would wreck the souls of any who heeded it.

Todd White said...

Anonymous: I understand the difference. Trust me.

Todd White said...

Rum: You wrote, "There is no salvaging the notion that hot sex is out of alignment with righteous male-female bonding. It is beyond wrong." When did I deny that sex was important for the success of a romantic relationship? Y'all are making false assumptions about me. I encourage you to let my words speak for themselves.

Anonymous said...

Todd,

You really have no idea what Game is. You create strawmen upon strawmen until you find something you can condemn.

You are grossly uninformed. Plus, you are not qualified to discuss female psychology, as you know nothing about it. It is laughable to claim that you do.

Roissy has written many times about how Game can strengthen marriages, something you conventiently ignore because it does not fit your strawmen. Losers like Markus do the same.

Be a man (and an intellectual) and admit that Roissy has written about how Game can increase happiness within monogamous marriages.

Etsijä said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Etsijä said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Todd White said...

Thanks for your comment, Etsija. I appreciate you sharing your experiences and insights with me. I think you misunderstand me, however. I feel confident stating that my position on women and relationships is more intellectually coherent than just regurgitating what my mother told me when I was growing up. So I’ll refrain from taking your advice to “kill the mother inside me” (at least for now). As to your comments about the percentage of women who are “good women”…I never claimed the number was based in scientific research (how would one quantify “good women?”)…it was a guess…a guess I feel comfortable with…if you think only “0.00166 of women are sufficiently advanced to really appreciate good men” then we’re all doomed and we might as well head to the mountains now…obviously, I don’t share your pessimism…Also, I don’t think Roissy is accurately describing ALL women…some women?...of course…but his real insights toward women – which are quite few – won’t help us in attracting that good 5-10%. If you haven’t already done so, check out my latest essays on this topic.

Todd White said...

Anonymous: Your whining that I don't understand Game is getting old. Either debate me on the merits of Game or keep quiet.

Etsijä said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Todd White said...

Etsijä: I chuckled at your backhanded compliment, “You have formed a coherent set of rationalizations around those core beliefs.” Dude, I don’t have rationalizations (nor do I have “projections”); I have opinions based on what I’ve learned and experienced in life. So let’s quit the psychoanalysis, shall we?

I feel like I’ve been neutral throughout this conservation. I don’t put women on a pedestal. I’m a realist. I have no illusions about women, just like I have no illusions about men. The quality of women has declined in the last half-century, to be sure, but it hasn’t declined to a level in which we – as men – should feel the need to morally degrade ourselves to get our rocks off every now and then. There’s enough good women out there to maintain our integrity and exercise patience. See the comments of “Hope” (a woman) to my latest blog entry, “Game Wrap-Up 8/26/09.”

you know who said...

Anonymous:
Roissy has written many times about how Game can strengthen marriages, something you conventiently ignore because it does not fit your strawmen.

Game is only necessary when you're married to someone who demands it (in other words, get ready to dump your personality and become Cocky/Arrogant PUA Clone #52341). So choose someone who doesn't need to be gamed.

roissy's vision of game applied to marriage/long term relationships is a nightmare. It's just a power struggle where the man's purpose is to dominate and manipulate the woman using any means necessary. And for what? For an ego trip. So you can feel like a "man" for being in control of a woman. The complete lack of sincerity, honesty, affection and love is enough to make you puke.

Todd White said...

You Know Who: You said, Game "is just a power struggle where the man's purpose is to dominate and manipulate the woman using any means necessary." I can't remember who wrote it - regrettably, I forgot to post it - but someone (it might have been Auster) observed: Game trains a man to see all of his social interactions - not just his interactions with wommen - as one of dominance or submission, and thus, he must always work to become the dominant one. And to that, he mused (and I'm paraphrasing): "Isn't it morally degrading (not to mention emotionally taxing) to see every interaction with a human being over the course of a day as one in which you must establish your dominance over them before they establish their dominance over you?" It's sado-masochism as a life philosophy.

Alkibiades said...

I'm curious Todd. You mention Style who falls in love and leaves the game. Have you followed up on where he is now? Do you know the end result of the relationship he was in at the end of his book?

Todd White said...

Is this a trick question ;)

Honestly, I have no idea.

Alkibiades said...

Lisa Leveridge dumped him for another guy a few months after his book was published. Strauss went back into the pick up community and has a pick up webpage.

The end of Neil Strauss' book always seemed a bit incongruent to me. As if he'd thrown it in there to make himself look better to people outside the community. Just my opinion.

Todd White said...

Hmmm, that's genuinely interesting. Thanks, Alkibiades.

I'm not sure to what extent you think this information invalidates my viewpoint, but if you do, let me read again from the Amazon review of Strauss' book.

“After two years, Strauss ends up becoming almost as successful as Mystery, but he comes to an important realization. His techniques were actually off-putting to the woman he ended up falling in love with. And they never prepared him for actually having a relationship. After a while, he ran out of one-liners and had to have a real conversation.”

Interestingly, while it says that Strauss realizes on an intellectual level that Game wouldn't work for marriage, he apparently never bothers to LEARN how to CREATE a happy marriage. To put it another way: There is no "Game program" for the vast majority of men who want to get married and have a family (and not just date hot chicks).

If you look at it that way, we shouldn't be shocked that Strauss ended up getting divorced and is now advertising himself as a PUA guru (PUA gurus make a lot more money than fact-checkers, I presume).

Back to you, Sir...

Talleyrand said...

How do you define a good relationship?

What is your realistic view on women?

Do you honestly believe that only10-15% of women are "good"? What makes them good? I read through the post and the comments, and I don't have clarity on these issues.

If 90% of men are decent productive providers (I will avoid the term Beta) isn't that going to be a problem having six good men fighting over every one good woman?

Todd White said...

Tal: "How do you define a good relationship?"

TW: I'm tempted to answer "that's up to the man and woman to decide." But that sounds like a cop-out, so I'll offer an explanation...For me, at least, I would say, it's a relationship in which 1) both partners are happy, 2) both partners are committed to each other, and 3) both partners have the freedom and desire to grow intellectually and spiritually.

Tal: "What is your realistic view on women?"

TW: As you and other Gamers have pointed out (correctly), the conventional SoCon viewpoint that women are morally superior to men, and that men are the source of all of society's problems is terribly misguided. I do not believe that women are better than men (or vice versa, for that matter).

Tal: "Do you honestly believe that only 10-15% of women are 'good' [actually, I think wrote 5-10%]? What makes them good? I read through the post and the comments, and I don't have clarity on these issues."

TW: That's a fair criticism. I *have* been unclear. And the reason for my lack of clarity is that I'm still in the process of working out my judgment on these issues. The 5-10% number is just a guess. It could be more; it might even be less. I would define a "good woman" as one who could meet the qualifications for a relationship that I stated above. She would need to have good character, a sound mind, a strong sense of loyalty, and a sensitivity to the needs of others (namely, her boyfriend/husband). Needless to say, most women have the character of a dog turd, the mind of a shower curtain ring, the loyalty of Benedict Arnold, and the sensitivity of a door slamming on your scrotum. Yes, I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect, but you get my point.

Tal: "If 90% of men are decent productive providers (I will avoid the term Beta) isn't that going to be a problem having six good men fighting over every one good woman?"

TW: Nope, because the number of "good men" is nowhere near 90%. It's probably closer to the 5-10% range I used for women. However, we still do have a problem, though. As I've mentioned in a few of my essays (and I think you agree with me), there is a "quality gap" between the sexes that didn't exist in previous generations. I'm not in a position to psychoanalyze people, but needless to say, it's common for most women to aspire to marry a man who is "better than them" (by the standards of society), while men prefer equality, or even a woman who is "worse" than them (very few would want a woman who was "better" than them). The problem is: Unlike all of history, today we are in a position of true economic equality between the sexes (and in many fields, women are superior to men). In the meantime, the cultural expectations of men and women have not adjusted accordingly. So yes, this is a problem. But it's not as bad as "6 good men fighting over 1 good women," as you suggest.

Jennifer said...

Todd: I have read many Game blogs. And what I've learned is that they largely contradict each other, try to slam the label of game on natural masucline behavior, can't agree on whether it's natural or learned, ALL blur the lines of morality at one point, and are basically just what you said. In other words, you're right on everything.

Todd White said...

Hi Jennifer. Thanks for the feedback. I agree with your analysis of the game blogs. After awhile they grow pretty tiresome, so once you have a good understanding of what they're about - and what's inside the people behind them (and it sounds like you do) - I wouldn't waste a lot of time on them. They have an ideology - and a pretty lousy one at that - and they won't stray from that ideology by a single inch. They'll never say - when questioned on anything - "That's an interesting point" or "that may be a case when something other than Game might be the best strategy." They are clever but close-minded and thus, after awhile, dull and tiresome. The good news is "game" peaked a few years ago, and to whatever extent a critical mass of men followed "Game" they've probably left it by now due to the poor results it yielded and are ready to learn and follow something better. Thanks again for your comment. It sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders. And not a lot of people can say that these days.

Jennifer said...

Thank you :) I finally tired of it myself, after all the contradictions and impossibility of keeping different definitions solid. And no one liked that; I got the "you live in your own world" and even the classic "you don't know women!" several times, lol.

Todd White said...

JENNIFER: I got the "you live in your own world" and even the classic "you don't know women!" several times, lol.

TW: Ha. Which translates to "you don't know yourself." That would be a good tagline for Game theory: "You don't know yourself." Actually, they would probably think that's deep and powerful, so never-mind :)