Welcome to the Jungle

In Game and Modern Romance, Lawrence Auster reflects on Mark P.'s assessment of where we are in the debate (which you can read here).

These were my thoughts:

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around Mark’s P.’s email. I think almost everyone who has been a part of this discussion over the last few days understands that more choices exist than just 1) “Game” and 2) “Being alone.” The question is: To what extent does Game live up its promise of being 1) a way to help men in their personal relationships with women, and 2) a way to help conservatives rebuild American culture?

Up until last week, I knew nothing of “Game.” I began my research with an open mind. Having completed my research, I feel comfortable stating that Game is not the answer because it fosters an attitude in which men objectify women, casual sex is excused or even encouraged, and as it pertains to married couples, it doesn't facilitate the emotional, spiritual connection that is the key to true happiness. Of course, knowledge is power, and it is worth knowing what makes women “tick” inside. But that’s independent of Game, which has – for whatever reason – morphed into a chauvinistic pseudo-religion among the men who preach its gospel. The bottom line is: There are better alternatives to Game.

I don't have a clever marketing term for my viewpoint, but basically, I believe that men should be confident and happy with themselves, and that eventually (maybe not instantly) that confidence and happiness will attract the right mate.

Yes, I understand that might not be what people want to hear. After all, as Mark P. points out, there are many men who are alone right now. Good men. Men who deserve happiness and fulfillment with a woman. Men who deserve families. And I sympathize with all of them. I’ve been in that situation. But Game is not the answer. The idea that one must choose between “Game” and “Being alone” is a false one.

[END]