The Neverending Game

After ignoring the Game debate for a few weeks, I re-entered it with full fury today.

I started off at Chuck Ross' blog, where he posted an essay, A Weasel Word Tale...

I asked Chuck, "What does Game have to offer men and women who want a deeper emotional/spiritual connection?"

He wrote back...

Todd, you always assume that every facet of a male/female relationship has to have some emotional/spiritual connection. These can be fostered by Game in that healthy physical attraction has spillover effects into the other realms even though Game doesn't necessarily have direct spiritual/emotional ties.

I responded...

Chuck: Basically this is your answer: Focus on the physical stuff and eventually the emotional/spiritual stuff will work itself out later. Sigh. I don't think I'm being unfair when I say that's not a compelling answer at all.

To date, Chuck hasn't replied. If he does, I'll update this post.

After my exchange with Chuck, things started to get amusing.

Novaseeker (a pro-Game blogger) wrote...

I agree that [emotional availability] is important, but for many men it is a chore and an effort and is done solely to please the woman, really."

I responded...

I don't know whether you intended it or not, but you're actually backing me up in my argument against Keoni Galt and Slwener. Keoni wrote about men: "The more he tries to supplicate her upset emotional state, the MORE unhappy she gets. And Slwener: "The OBVIOUS answer to this problem is that a man needs to step up his Game - which will, in turn, refocus him on his wife." If women find emotional availability "pleasing" (as Nova declares), then by definition, Slwerner and Keoni are wrong, and their advice is counterproductive.

Then I moved onto Ferdinand's blog, In Mala Fide, where he posted an essay, How to 'Use Your Penis to Show Her Who is the Boss.'


I got the discussion started...

I don’t want to rehash an old argument (we covered a lot of ground last month), but when I see the Game community breathlessly pass around essays titled How to ‘Use Your Penis to Show Her Who is the Boss,’ I have to stand by my earlier position that Game is not a “butcher’s knife that can be used many different ways;” it’s a chauvinistic pseudo-religion.

If y’all are interesting in meeting and marrying good women, those women – by definition – are not going to want a man who “uses his penis to show her whose boss.” Yes, there are some women who are into that kind of stuff, but not the good ones. And we want the good ones, right?

When Tarl replied, "Good women still want you to be the boss in the bedroom," I answered back...

You’re missing the point. Jack Lover’s essay is using a pornographic term to advance an overarching relationship philosophy of dubious utility. He writes: “You need to mentally overpower and dominate her. I believe that in order for woman to reach sexual satisfaction, she needs to be mentally dominated.”

This is the heart of the issue.

Nobody bothered to respond to me.

From there, I began a correspondence with "Obsidian."


To him, I stated...

You wrote: “Game is merely a tool. It is up to the individual as to how he will use it.” If that’s true, fine. But then why is the first question that new Gamers are asked is: “How many women have you had sex with?” Yes, I understand the important link between sex and “knowing a woman” (especially for younger people). But the question itself is still revealing. You wrote, “Those with little experience” in sex “need to listen to those who have more experience.” Again, the question for me, is flawed.

Why is the number of women you’ve slept with (2, 5, 15, 50, whatever) so critical? And what would a man who HAD slept with 50 women be able to teach…except…well…how to sleep with 50 women?!” What could such a man teach a younger guy about relationships, including marriage? Obviously, nothing. And that’s the point.

That’s why I keep saying that Game – once you gently scratch the surface – is really about sex. A lot of sex. With a lot of women. Game has nothing (or very little) to offer the man who wants to find happiness in a loving, committed relationship with a woman. And since that’s the overwhelming majority of men, we have a problem.

To "Vino," I wrote...

Vino: I disagree with a lot of what you said, but I give you credit (I guess) for confining Game to the parameter of sex. I don’t have a major problem with men using Game for sex (whether it’s having more sex or becoming better at sex). Just be honest about it. My problem comes when guys use Game as an all-encompassing theory of how men should treat women, how men should treat their girlfriend/wife, and even (in their grander movements) how men can save Western civilization itself. That’s when my BS button starts going off.

Obsidian replied...

"Yes, you’re 100% correct-Game is about Sex. But not quite in the way you make it seem."

That made me smile. I wrote...

I give you credit for acknowledging that Game is almost entirely about sex (and yes, I know you said that Game also applies to other realms, but the fact that 95% of your post was about sex reinforces my initial point).

In addition, I will say that I certainly agree with you that sexual enjoyment is a major component of any healthy relationship, and it is certainly advisable for every man to strive to be the best lover he can be.

I’m not a prude, ya know ;)

So what's the bottom line? Basically everything I wrote about Game last month (which was a lot) still stands today. On August 25, I wrote...

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.

Today's blog debate validates my conclusion. And that's why I will continue to oppose Game.


Finally, I'll share one post from Welmer's essay, How Did This Sudden Awareness Emerge?


I wrote...

I’ll throw one idea against the wall and see if it sticks…

The “Game movement” is a manifestation of the breakdown of elite authority and trust in America’s defining institutions (government, mass media, organized religion, universities, Wall Street, etc.)

I once called the year 2006 “The Year of Shattered Illusions” because there were so many news events that undermined faith in our leaders and crippled hope in our future. You date the emergence of “men’s liberation” to “2 years ago.” That aligns with my theory that 2006/2007 was a critical point in time.

And now, in 2009, those trends are accelerating. With Obama in charge, those of us who are conservative/libertarian are becoming more radicalized, less willing to work within established institutions, and more eager to find our own path.

If what I’m suggesting has any degree of truth, the Game/Men’s Movement has major room for growth. And it might grow quite rapidly.

-TW