Thursday, September 10, 2009

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

10 comments:

Chuck said...

wow Todd, you're so brave to take on all the Gamers.

"Basically this is your answer: Focus on the physical stuff and eventually the emotional/spiritual stuff will work itself out later."

A person is best served by balancing his emotional, physical, and spiritual state (whatever spirituality he buys into). The assumption of Gamers is that Western men have sacrificed their physical natures for the sake of the other two. We've feminized ourselves and tried to act a certain way to appease women, and this has had the effect of hurting us in other realms.

So "Game" is a way to make up that deficit - to become a complete man.

I ran into a guy I know last night who has been reading my blog. He found my blog through roissy. I asked him if he used Game on his girlfriend of 4 years (I've long thought they have the most healthy relationship of anyone i know); he said "hell yes, this shit works."

todd, you can argue in circles all you want, but the fact remains that Game in a relationship *works*. it's working for me in my relationship. it's working for dave in hawaii. it's working for slwlerner. its working for my friend from last night. everyone i know who uses the techniques called "Game" have shown substantial positive effects in their relationships. and we'll assume that makes for happier relationships.


so anyway todd, not to get too personal, but why don't you give us a peek into your relationship. perhaps you use something akin to Game and don't know it or want to call it that.

Todd White said...

Chuck,

I'm open to the possibility that you and your friends have "happy relationships." Happiness - at least on a rudimentary level - isn't that rare. A dog is happy if you throw him a bone.

This is especially true in the context of a relationship. Relationships are SUPPOSED to make you happy. That's their point. If you weren't happy, you would get out of the relationship.

What I'm advocating for is a HIGHER FORM of happiness. A deeper one. A more spiritually and emotionally fulfilling one.

You wrote - in response to my question - "A person is best served by balancing his emotional, physical, and spiritual state (whatever spirituality he buys into)."

Good. Yes, that is true.

Yesterday - on your website - I stated, "A 'Real Man' has an emotional and spiritual component," and those components need to be fulfilled. How do we achieve that?

I keep asking. I've asked it about 10 times on 2 or 3 pro-Game websites.

Only Slwener has bothered to answer me. He wrote, "the OBVIOUS answer to this problem is that a man needs to step up his Game."

Sigh. And you accuse ME of having circular logic?

Chuck said...

Todd:

"What I'm advocating for is a HIGHER FORM of happiness. A deeper one. A more spiritually and emotionally fulfilling one."

lots of men are just trying to fill the bottom portions of their hierarchy of needs pyramid. they have to do that before we talk about these higher forms of happiness.

but if we take a given man who is in a happy relationship, how does he achieve this upper stratosphere you talk about? i don't have exact answers for this as there are several paths. either way, "higher happiness" and "Game" aren't mutually exclusive. if Game is practiced from an insincere place, it would be hard for that relationship to truly transcend. but if it's based on principles; if a man acts like a man and does things that remind his partner that he's number one and of value, the relationship has a better chance of transcending.

a woman who has no physical attraction or only occasional respect for her man will not engage in this higher form of relationship that you're talking about.

Todd White said...

Chuck, you wrote: "'Higher happiness' and 'Game' aren't mutually exclusive."

Because of the way most men interpret and use Game, I fear that - for the most part - they ARE, in fact, mutually exclusive.

I can't remember how much we have discussed "Reductionism," but the premise behind "Game" is Reductionist. And therein lies its harm. It treats people as objects. Animals. It treats biological instincts as "the given," which cannot be overcome through reason or morality. It denies the possibility of transcendence (which begs the question, how does a Reductionist achieve a "balance of his emotional, physical, and SPIRITUAL needs," as you advocated, when Reductionism rules out the possibility of spirituality).

A few quotes from Roissy...

"We are here on this earth to serve one purpose — the propagation of our genes. Everything we do is either designed to push us toward that goal or is a byproduct of that purpose."

And...

"Our genes only care about one thing: What is the winning reproductive strategy? Today, that winning strategy is seduction, sex, and splitting, leaving the kid to be raised by an unwitting chump."

Do you agree with Roissy? I'd be curious to know.

In any case, as I said above, a Reductionist philosophy (which gives birth to "Game") will not get any man to that "higher level of happiness." That level needs to be filled by emotional and spiritual depth, which Reductionism/Game by its very nature denies.

Posts on Reductionism:

http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/09/reason-reductionism-and-christianity.html


http://mustardseednovel.blogspot.com/2009/08/useful-idiots-link-between-game-and-vi.html

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Todd White said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Todd White said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike T said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Todd White said...
This comment has been removed by the author.