The Sad Past and Sadder Future of Elliot Frost

On Friday, Ferdinand Bardamu posted a new essay at The Spearhead: Letter from an Omega. The letter - from a self-described "omega" named Elliot Frost - queries Ferdinand about the purpose of Game while expressing some concerns about it.

Elliot writes...

One of the things that I hate about game and the world view that comes with it, is the way it paints human beings as animals. Animals prodominantly controlled by base, primal urges that we can hardly even control. But as much as I hate it I really can’t argue with it, it just makes me hold humanity in lower esteem.

Ferdinand replies...

To a certain extent, you’re correct. The alpha/beta/omega hierarchy that is used to classify men is based solely on said man’s sexual attractiveness. You also rightly note that society at large does this as well. There’s a reason why the number one insult feminists and women use on anti-feminist writers like myself is “you can’t get laid,” just above “you have a small penis.”

I won’t lie and say that I don’t regard a man’s sexual attractiveness as an integral part of his character. One of the goals of all life is to reproduce and pass on your genes – if you don’t have the ability to do that, you have failed at existence. The fact that reproducing is much more difficult for men then for women, as judged by the fact that less then half of the former have successfully done so throughout human history, means that the ability to get with women (and by extension spread your seed) is a quality that other people respect…

All life, from protozoa to plants to puppies, is possessed of one primary goal – survival. I separate survival into two subcategories - corporeal survival and genetic survival. The former entails staying physically alive, and the latter consists of passing on your genes to the next generation; reproduction, in other words. The Mystery Method posited a similar premise, with survival and replication being the purpose of every living entity. Every living being wants to reproduce, and will do anything in its power to accomplish that goal. This includes human beings…

While I wouldn’t argue that we humans, being sapient, are identical to chimpanzees rutting in the trees, our sentience is a tower constructed on a foundation of animal drives and instincts. The low, base urges may not be out in the open, but they’re still there and are still holding up everything else. We cannot escape our nature, we can only work with it.

In the Comment Thread, I wrote in response...

This is an honest, articulate description of Game (and no, I’m not being sarcastic). But here’s the problem: By explaining some of the “inherent assumptions” of Game you reveals its flaws.

For example, you write (quite casually and confidently): “Every living being wants to reproduce, and will do anything in its power to accomplish that goal.”

Really? Read that sentence again. EVERY LIVING BEING will do ANYTHING IN ITS power to REPRODUCE.

Does that really describe yourself, Ferdinand? Does that describe anyone in this forum? It certainly doesn’t describe Elliott who describes several goals for his life – but never mentions reproduction as one of them.

Elliot is correct that the “worldview” of Game “paints human beings as animals.” And therein lies its fatal flaw.

Once you understand the truth that human beings are not mindless meat puppets manipulated by our selfish genes to survive and reproduce the appeal of Game dwindles to zero.

Game may – on some level – help a man get sex, but by harming his soul, it will ultimately lower – not bolster – his happiness.

I guess my arguments (and those of other people like "Jon," "Codebuster," and "Porkchop") didn't have much influence on Elliot. Near the end of the comment thread, he wrote...

I have no doubt that the explanations for male/female behavior game provides are true. I do hate it, believe me… My goal in trying to understand/study game is that I may rid myself, permanently, of all these wretched lies about women (which women encourage!) and cease being an emotional slave. If game can help me and other omegas achieve those humble outcomes, than game is worth its hype.

I wrote in response...

In my experience, the best way to stop being an “emotional slave” is to sever the knee-jerk response whereby a woman’s indifference to you causes “emotional slavery.” To do that, you must take ownership of your life, love yourself, and achieve a level of character that a worthy woman would be overjoyed to love.

There are no short-cuts in life. You have to do your homework. Life is a perpetual school, and unfortunately – to use Dave’s analogy – Game is a pill; a drug that may boost your self-esteem in the short-run but will leave you with a hangover tomorrow. And then – when the hangover passes – you’ll be back at Square One.

So why is Elliot going to fall for all this nonsense?

Advocatus Diaboli has the answer. He wrote...

Evolutionary psychology is a BS religion, not unlike randism and scientology. It tells the true believers that they are righteous and deserving.

If you feel that people are treating you poorly and there is no chance they will change, hurt them as you please.

I responded...

That’s a good point, Advocatus. I’ve long believed that the quest to feel superior to the great mass of humanity is a very common and dangerous drug that can come in many forms. “Game” (as practiced by the Roissysphere) is one of those forms.

Good luck to you, Elliot. You deserve more than you'll ever know.

Daily Wrap-Up

Going, Going...Galt: "Many people briefly go through an 'Ayn Rand phase' where they devour Anthem, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and dream of being a heroic architect standing athwart mediocrity. But government expansion in 2009 has touched off a remarkable revival of interest in Rand, spurring endless speculation that her philosophy of self-interest and free-market economics will come back in vogue. Writers point to a spate of Rand-themed releases, including two new biographies, uncountable articles, talk-show bits, merchandise, even a videogame. Here's a history…"


John Derbyshire Hearts Roissy: "I'm by no means the first to admit it, but I find the Roissy in DC blog hilarious and totally addictive. He's one of us, for sure (secular, Right); and his stone reductionism appeals to me enough to override the nagging feeling that I'm probably a bit of a herb myself, or was when it mattered."


John Derbyshire on the Death of Intellectual Protestantism: "So far as the great mass of American Protestants are concerned, theology is a dead letter. They are either “tribal Protestants,” going to church because their parents did, or because their neighbors do, or else they are Left Behind fundamentalists of the Huckabee persuasion, fundamentally anti-intellectual and indifferent to theology, or to any kind of intellectual inquiry...Intellectual Protestantism probably survives in a few seminaries somewhere, but nobody cares."


Chuck Ross Analyzes the "Vibe" on Different Blogs: "Todd White's site reminds me of the house of this Mormon kid I used to be best friends with. You go over there and his mom is always baking ginger bread cookies. They want to keep up the auspices of Pleasantville, but deep down, they just want to convert you. Those Mormons (and Todd White) are tenacious."


The U.S. Budget Deficit in International Context: "A few weeks ago, the International Monetary Fund released a report analyzing the fiscal situation of the world’s largest economies. As I discuss at greater length in a piece over at e21, the IMF finds that the United States is not alone in facing daunting fiscal challenges. For example, the IMF predicts that the United States will have the fifth highest structural primary budget deficit in 2010."

"Just Follow Your Penis and Balls!"

The pro-Game blogger Ferdinand Bardamu has a lovely new post up today, Women Don’t Get to Define Female Beauty. And it closes with these charming words of wisdom...

Ladies, if you think it’s unfair that we get to determine what we find attractive in you, keep in mind that it’s also unfair that you get to determine what you find attractive in us. We can’t help our dicks any more then you can help your pussies. This is the Age of Flesh, where the desires of the loins rule all. I don’t make the rules, I just point them out.

"We can't help our dicks!" cry the Gamers. So why fight it?!

Cue the soundtrack to The Wizard of Oz, and instead of singing "Just Follow the Yellow Brick Road," sing the phrase "Just Follow Your Penis and Balls!"




"Just Follow Your Penis and Balls!"

Come on, it's catchy. Besides, you won't have to waste any more time on Game websites, because whenever you need advice, you can just hum to yourself, "Just Follow Your Penis and Balls! Just Follow Your Penis and Balls!..."

Weekend Wrap-Up

Dr. Cornelius Hunter conducts a fascinating interview about the failure of Darwin's predictions. Dr. Hunter has written several books, including Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism, and Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science. I haven't read any of those books, but they look very interesting.


Physicists Calculate Number of Universes in the Multiverse. Pray tell, where is the evidence of this "Multiverse?" Gosh, if Intelligent Design ain't science, what the heck is this stuff?


A Darwin/I.D. Debate: Who Won?: Luke "The Common Sense Atheist" watches a debate between Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and biologist Francisco Ayala about the viability of Intelligent Design. Who won, according to Luke? Craig! Listen here.


A Compilation of Francis Collins Crap: “People increasingly ask me about Francis Collins’s opposition of ID and what to make of it. The short answer is, 'Though a Christian, Collins is a thorough-going Darwinist, implacably opposes ID, asserts that it has been discredited scientifically, yet gives little evidence of understanding ID’s main arguments and refuses to engage proponents of ID in public discourse.' For the longer answer, see the following replies to Collins by ID proponents…”


Intelligence Squared Hosts a Debate over Catholicism. The debate motion was: “The Catholic church is a force for good in the world.” The audience voted before the debate began: 678 people were in favor of the church, 1102 were against it. But after the debate, they voted again. What happened? A massive 410 people changed their mind from supporting the Catholic Church to being against it. H/T: Luke.


9/11 All Over Again: "Nidal Hasan gave numerous indications to numerous individuals of his hostility and lack of loyalty to the United States, and even of his support for terrorism against the United States, but, like Col. Terry Lee whose TV interview I linked the other day, while they would disagree with him and criticize him (this was the 'harassment' of which he complained), none of them did anything about it…And so Nidal was remained ensconced in the U.S. Army, where he was at liberty to carry out a mass murder of unarmed soldiers who had been waiting for medical exams."


Nidal Malik Hasan & Jason Rodrigeuz: Two More Examples Of How Game Can Save Lives: Yes, that's the actual headline from Obsidian's new essay. And I love the last line: "Game just may be the Last Best Hope for the World." Wow!


I also updated my essay, A Game Debate with Obsidian.

Daily Wrap-Up

*The picture above is from the Dec. 2009 issue of Reason magazine. She’s back, alright.


*Reason.tv has launched “Radicals for Capitalism,” a new series of videos celebrating Ayn Rand’s continuing influence.


*Trailers for Bioshock 2 are out


*Concert for Darwin to mark 150th anniversary of Origin of Species: "Vancouver-based rap lit artist Baba Brinkman will perform. His 'Rap Guide to Evolution' won the coveted Scotsman Fringe First Award in Edinburgh, Scotland’s Fringe Festival." Can’t wait!


*A useful website: Survey of Failed Evolutionary Predictions

*Also, pro-Game blogger Ferdinand Bardamu jumps the shark (again) at The Spearhead. One guy tells Ferdinand: “I don’t think there is anything wrong with illogical ranting on blogs. It can be entertaining, that’s for sure. But when you rant illogically, and present it as sound sociopolitical analysis, you’re no better than the gynocracy getting their estrogen on in freshman women’s studies class.” Ouch. I also take a few digs.

A "Game" Debate with Obsidian

Today, the pro-Game blogger Obsidian invited me to a debate about Game and related subjects. I accepted, of course. And here is my first post...

Obsidian: In this post, I’ll try to summarize my position on Game succinctly (knowing in advance that the short length of the post won’t make it very persuasive). Even so, maybe it can serve as the basis for a deeper dialogue.

Let me begin by expressing a few things that I’m pretty sure we can agree on.

1) While “feminism” (i.e., the women’s movement) may have served a useful function in the past (suffrage, anti-discrimination policies, etc.), today it is a counterproductive force that hurts men and women on an individual level and harms society at large. We should oppose radical feminism.

2) Because of feminism and other ideologies, men are facing an “identity crisis.” The qualities that defined men for thousands of years are labeled as either “wrong” or “irrelevant.” We – as men – need to define what it means to be a man (instead of delegating that role to feminists and others who don’t have our best interests at heart).

3) The dating/sexual landscape is wrapped in confusion. The goals are still the same (having sex, marriage, and children), but the way to go about achieving them (and how to establish priorities between them) is unknown to most folks. For example, most women want to have a sprawling sex life until the age of 28 or so, have a successful career, a strong alpha male husband (who also meets her emotional/spiritual needs), and eventually raise 2.5 kids. Obviously, this is a recipe for failure and depression. The need to re-establish logic and common sense to the dating/sexual landscape is urgent.

4) For men, in particular, sex is an important “higher need” which is a vital ingredient in his self-esteem. Any program which encourages men to remain celibate until marriage is doomed to failure. For that reason alone, social conservatives are almost irrelevant to this discussion.

But does this mean we need “Game?” No. Let me give 3 criticisms of “Game” (and please note that I don’t mean “Game” as in “tools to pick up chicks;” I mean “Game” as an overarching life philosophy which seems to be the modus operandi of the online Game community.

1) The foundation of Game (as described by Roissy, Ferdinand, The Fifth Horseman, and others too numerous to count) is “evolutionary psychology.” “Evo psych” is basically the ideology of E.O. Wilson, Robert Wright, and many others which states – and I’m paraphrasing here – that men and women – despite many years of living in “civilization” – are still – on a mental/moral level – chimps living in the savannahs of Africa. We have not “evolved.” The goal of men is to impregnate as many women as possible and the goal of women is to secure an “alpha male” with the “resources” to care for her offspring. What’s my complaint? While there is some truth to Evo Pysch, much of it is false, and even the stuff that IS true has a habit of being misunderstood and abused (as we’ve seen many times in the Game community). To deny the “human” aspect to human life (or to relegate it into the dungeon) is grossly counterproductive. There is a critical role for things like shared interests, shared values, emotional depth, a spiritual connection, etc. These are the true building blocks of a successful relationship.

2) By adopting the “Evo Psych” philosophy, Game encourages men to see themselves (and women) as “animals” and thus, it is much easier to hold women in contempt and to justify using them to gratify our sexual needs and then disposing of them quickly. Needless to say, such a view of women is darkening, and prevents men from expressing the love and commitment necessary for a healthy, happy relationship.

3) The online Game community has chosen to adopt Roissy as not only a member of their movement, but also a leader of it. I find this mind-boggling because Roissy is a hedonist and a nihilist who finds pleasure in the grossest things in life. The fact that Gamers “deify” Roissy (to use your words) shows that Game is a chauvinistic pseudo-religion, in my humble opinion. Any attempt to turn Game into a positive force for men should include – as a first step – a very easy assignment which is to ostracize Roissy from the community and to say “Roissy’s nihilism and genuine contempt for women is not something we can, or will, support.”

Back to you, Sir…

Obsidian's response is here. I'll reply later today.


***UPDATE, NOV. 6, 2009***

And here's my latest...

I’m going to clip the highlights of your essay, and respond to them one-by-one. Please see below.

OBS: “No Man gets to define what an Alpha Male is-Females define that. The only choice we have is to whether we wish to be that for her or not.”

TW: This strikes me as a questionable assertion. If Men are the leaders of society – as Game claims – then men should have the ability to influence what women view as “desirable” or “undesirable.” For example, in Indian society, the Brahmin (the religious caste) are the elite of society, whereas in a commercial republic, like the United States, wealthy businessmen represent the elite. The decision to choose religion over wealth or vice versa was a decision made by men in each culture, would you agree? At the very least, I would say that waving our hands and saying “we can’t help ourselves; the women are in control” is very “unGame-like.” I would wager that Men can be a major factor in improving the situation – maybe up to 50% of the solution. Maybe even more.

OBS: Please see my Open Letter to the Ladies of “Girl Game”…

TW: I will in a little bit. Scout’s honor. But let me address your other points first.

OBS: “Specifically tell me what EP got right, then tell me what it got wrong? I need specific examples, because I can then relate that directly to what you say is wrong about Game, OK?”

TW: E.P. strikes me as a useful (but not proven) paradigm for understanding how our ancestors lived millions of years ago. As it pertains to the year 2009, E.P. can give us some genuine insights as to what human “instincts” are. And – for those among us who are – to put it unkindly – “dumb and primitive”- it can also give us some useful insights as to understanding their behavior (basically, a lot of sex and violence).

For the rest of us, though – I’m referring to civilized folks – E.P. strikes me as at least 80% worthless, and if Gamers are using it as the foundation for understanding romantic relationships, then it becomes 100% worthless. Why? Because we are not animals; we are human beings. We have logic. We have values. We have morality. And all of those things shape our motivations and behavior. To believe – as E.P. does – that the secret desire of all men is to sleep around and impregnate as many women as possible – is absurd. I can’t think of any man I know who lives that way. Most men I know want to get married and have 2-3 kids with one woman. And the evidence backs me: Birth rates have declined over the last 40 years or so – not just in the West, but throughout the world. E.P. can’t explain that.

OBS [on my assertion that Gamers deny the importance of emotional/spiritual connections]: “I don’t recall any writer on Game saying otherwise, Todd-and if you have, please provide the direct quote.”

TW: In early September, I asked Chuck Ross, “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.”

Chuck did not reply. For more, see my essay, The Neverending Game.

OBS: “I’ve openly and vociferously disagreed with Roissy on a whole host of issues and points, from his views of Race to his views of what constitutes Feminine Beauty, you name it. Having said that, I also give him a heck of a lot of credit not only for making Game principles accessible to the Common Man, but for also giving a much needed commentary on some of the very things you mention at the outset of your post here.”

TW: I think it’s interesting you brought up the issue of race because it seems to me that most members of the Game community have an attitude toward rare relations that seems to be…how can I put this nicely?… “primitive.” Note their love for Steve Sailer and “Human Bio-Diversity.” And what is the basis of Sailer’s race views? Evolutionary psychology. And what is the foundation of Game? Evolutionary psychology. Put it all together, and it seems to me that anyone who cares about racial justice should be highly dubious of Evolutionary Psychology, and thus Game itself.

Also, if you have “vociferously disagreed with Roissy,” I applaud you for doing that. As far as I know, you’re the only member of the Game community who’s done that.

OBS: “Moreover and in fairness to R, he’s said on more than one occasion that one need not be an Atheistic Hedonist in order to reap the benefits of Game.”

TW: I can imagine Roissy saying something like that, but that doesn’t change the fact that Roissyism is the logical destination for Game as a life philosophy.

As I wrote on Aug. 26: “Once you accept that evolutionary psychology and biology are the only ways to meet women and have women fill your physical needs, its only a hop, skip, and a jump to the proud nihilism and boastful hedonism of Roissy. Is it possible that Roissy might be the only Gamer who truly understands Game?”

OBS: If not Game, then…what? Your detailed, and field-tested response?

TW: Instead of adopting a system (such as Game) in which we allow other people (in this case, loose women) to change who we are for questionable goals (casual sex), we should find happiness from within. No man should judge his worth by how much “gina tingling” he elicits in the opposite sex. That is a recipe for anxiety at best or despair at worst.

The alternative to Game is to take ownership of your life. Everything you need to build a happy and successful life is inside you – inside your mind. The power to think – and by that, I mean the power to think rationally – is the power to grow, and to be everything you wish to be. A rational man is a competent man…and a competent man is a confident man…. and a confident man is a happy man. A man with those qualities (competent, confident, and happy) is extremely desirable to other women (or at least those women who are worthy of his love). And that man can give an incredible amount of love because he is complete on the inside. There are no guarantees in life, but I’m confident that nearly every man who applied my principles would find more love and happiness than he would through Game. I can say that from experience.

**UPDATE, DEC. 9, 2009**

As Obsidian requested, I read through his essay, An Open Letter to Girl Game, and what I found most interesting about it was its numerous attempts to justify Game through evolution: "the truths of evolutionary psychology," "extensive evolutionary hardwiring," "evolutionarily speaking," "passing on a genetic legacy," etc.

Do Women Want a "Dominant" Man?

Yesterday, Ferdinand Bardamu hosted an open thread on the subject, Dominance and Women.

He quotes HughRistiks of Feminist Critics, who writes…

For an actual relationship partner, I do NOT want someone to rule over. I’m very individualistic and I admire women who are, also. I want a woman who is her own person…

I don’t consider a relationship characterized as me “ruling over” a woman in general as either necessary or desirable. I do grant that due to the nature of some women’s desires, a relationship of equality might not be possible with them, but I don’t know how typical that tendency is…

I’m suspicious of expectations that men “rule” over women, whether they come from religious sources, or from women themselves, and I wonder whether such expectations are really in men’s best interests.

This is what I wrote in response…

This is an interesting topic, and I hope a few women will stop by and share their opinion. I haven’t researched this issue enough to have a definitive opinion, but I’ll offer a few thoughts…

Whether because of biology or culture (or both), it does seem that the vast majority of women (even in a “modern” society like America) prefer their men to “take the lead” in their relationship, as opposed to having “true equality” in the way that feminists have advocated for generations.

Having said that, I don’t see much evidence that most women (at least those women worth spending time with) want to be “dominated.” "Dominated" is a pretty strong word. “Take the lead” is more subtle, and dare I say, accurate. To the extent that Gamers advocate that women should be (and want to be) “dominated,” that strikes me as poor advice – especially when we consider one last point I’d like to make.

The whole point of living in society is to overcome our base urges on behalf of a greater good, so even if women want to be “dominated” on a biological level (which I’m not convinced of), it doesn’t necessarily follow that we – as men – should encourage this instinct, and adjust our lifestyles to accomodate it – anymore than we might encourage a child to urinate in public because that’s its “instinct.”

The good life is about overcoming “instincts.”

The discussion continues from there.

Also, Hope - a woman whose judgment I usually trust - weighs in here.

One of her quotes that I like...

Great men have real class. They are good-natured and treat others with respect. They hold the door open for strangers, give an attentive ear to friends, and act politely toward people working in the service industry. Likewise, masculine men adore feminine women who are classy, kind-at-heart, who treat others with respect, and who act graciously towards those with disabilities or who are less fortunate.

A man who is truly dominant is comfortable to be magnanimous. He has a nobility of spirit, taking on masculine and sexy qualities of protectiveness and romantic flair. He is confident and secure in his knowledge of his self-worth. A woman who wants to attract such a man should be dignified and behave in a ladylike manner herself, embracing her femininity and infusing her every action with nurturing kindness and sweetness.

Dominance is seen as a trait necessary to leadership. In the next post, I will discuss what constitutes a good and a bad leader.

I look forward to it.

"Douchebags Are People Too"

In honor of Roissy's charming new essay, Ugly People Made Me an Atheist (yes, he's serious), I thought I'd post this amusing video: Douchebags are People Too [NSFW].

We Are Douchebags - watch more funny videos

Open Post on Game

Per Eumaios' fine suggestion, I am creating an open post on Game, where anyone can weigh in with their thoughts and feelings and (most likely) insults.

A few days ago, Welmer's article, How Game Secured America's Independence, created an aftershock in the Summer of '09 Game controversy. In light of that, I've been spending a good chunk of time at Ferdinand Bardamu's blog exchanging ideas with Eumaios, The Fifth Horseman, and a few others about what Game is, why it's counter-productive, and what better alternatives exist.

Today, my opinion of Game remains the same as it did on Aug. 25, when I wrote...

“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.”

When Chuck Ross asked me, “What are the alternatives?” I replied...

The alternative is to take ownership of your life. Everything you need to build a happy and successful life is inside you – inside your mind. The power to think – and by that, I mean the power to think rationally – is the power to grow, and to be everything you wish to be. A rational man is a competent man…and a competent man is a confident man…and a confident man is a happy man. A man with that package (competent, confident, and happy) is extremely desirable to other women (or at least those women who are worthy of his love). And he can give that love to a woman because he is complete on the inside. There are no guarantees in life, but I’m confident that nearly every man who applied those principles would find more love and happiness than he would through Game. I can say that from experience.

Eumaios responded, “I think you should be arguing that what we call ‘Game’ should really be called something else. Then help us coin a name for it.”

To that, I answered...

Hmm, an interesting challenge. I actually like the term “Game” to describe the chauvinistic pseudo-religion that is advocated by Roissy and propagated by his allies with posts like “How to Use Your Penis to Show Her Who is the Boss.” The word “Game” itself sound manipulative and frivilous, which is precisely what that mindset entails. However, I’ve always said that to the extent that what is popularly called “Game” encourages men to learn what “makes women ‘tick’ inside” (and to use that knowledge to boost their relationship success) I am in favor of that.

Perhaps it is THAT knowledge which needs a new name. I’ll suggest “Strategic Romance” or the “Relationship Arts.”

The Fifth Horseman (TFH) then tried to convert me to Game indirectly...

Let’s take a step back : How much do you believe in evolution as a driver of behavioral psychology, as opposed to societally mandated values?

That made me smile. I answered...

That’s an excellent question, my friend, and I’m glad you asked it. My answer is: “Not much.” Most of what is supposedly true in ‘Evo-Psych’ is false. And the stuff that IS true has a habit of being misunderstood and abused.

Oh one note: The “good parts of Game” have been around a lot longer than the word “Game” itself. The original essay which started this whole tempest (Welmer’s piece on Ben Franklin) proves that “strategic romance” (for lack of a better term) has been around a lot longer than the Roissy school of relationships.

As I said above, to the extent, that this online Game community wants to be a positive force for men, it should distance itself from Roissy (and those like him), which – sadly – is probably impossible since Roissy is considered a hero in these parts.

TFH replied...

You seem to think Roissy is advocating something entirely different from "strategic romance."

To that, I answered...

Yes, I do. If Roissy is advocating the same thing as “strategic romance” than the word itself is corrupted and meaningless. There has to be boundaries on what “strategic romance” would recommend to men; Roissy’s lifestyle – by definition – would have to be outside that boundary...

The mere fact that the Game movement considers Roissy to be a hero gives me enough knowledge to make the judgment that the pluses of Game are outweighed by the negatives.

And with that, I open this post to everyone else...

Note: A full compilation of my articles on Game can be found here.

Which One of These Articles is NOT a Parody?

How Game Secured American Independence

How Thomas Jefferson Used Game to Write the Declaration of Independence

How Einstein Used Game to Create the Theory of Relativity

How Joan of Arc Used "Girl Game" to Defeat the British at Patay


The answer can be found at Ferdinand Bardamu's website.

H/T: Lawrence Auster

Does the "Balloon Boy" Family Read Roissy's Website??

The saga of "Balloon Boy" continues to get weirder and weirder.

Via Towerload.com comes this charming headline: 'Balloon Boy' and Brother Celebrate Stoning a 'Faggot' in Rap Video.

From the article...

As you likely know already, the Heene family balloon escapade has been proven to be a complete hoax, and criminal charges are now likely to be pressed against Richard Heene.

In the media dig for more details on this bizarre family, a video has recently surfaced (actually it's been around a while, gathering nearly half a million views) featuring the three Heene kids performing a rap against "Pussification" which the video defines as "The modern day teachings of human beings living a superficial lifestyle of consumerism, obesity, and over protectiveness for themselves and their children (put them in a corner for 'Time Out') in an effort gain as many supporters as possible to believe that they are better than everyone else around them. The females are typically referred to as 'Soccer moms' while the males are referred to as 'Pussies'."

The video also features the same sort of anti-gay lyrics you might find in a Buju Banton video:

"I look up in the tree. What do I see? I see a faggot trying to pee (?) on me. I pick up a rock. Threw it at his cock." The rest is unintelligible, but it has something to do with sending the faggot to a doctor where he is taken care of."

Gosh, I'm shocked - shocked - by all this talk about "pussified" men and the danger of "soccer moms." Who woulda thunk Richard Heene (such a normal human being) and his boys would have so much in common with the Game community?

H/T: Andrew Sullivan

Sexual Ethics

In her insightful essay, Sexual Ethics, Hope wrote the following...

Sex is fraught with moral implications. There are significant ethical underpinnings, intricate complications and tremendous psychic impacts to sex. Yet few modern ethicists and philosophers can agree on what constitutes ethical sex. Conservative religions have a carte blanche ban on premarital sex, and in an increasing secular world which often delays marriage, there exists scant guidance for how to behave when it comes to sex…

In-depth understanding of human biology, psychology and evolutionary forces has given people even more excuse to engage in casual sex. Some now openly advocate that “men should sleep around because they can sire multiple offspring with multiple women.” In this new world view, humans are seen as robots and automatons, programmed by great evolutionary forces to perform certain actions…

Few see anything wrong with this situation except to bemoan that they are not able to take full advantage of the sexual free-for-all. They learn “game” and try to get in on the action, to try to get that feeling of high off another person. The men and women who are engaging in casual sex are answering to the siren calls of their baser natures, blindly, like children…

They shed their clothes and open themselves physically but still wall themselves in emotionally. They give this gift of trust and spiritual release to someone they do not really know or trust. They refuse to allow themselves to bond from sex due to fear and jadedness. They may be materially satisfied, but they suffer from spiritual poverty…

Sex is a reverent thing, a sacred thing, something to be treated carefully and with respect. It can be a powerful spiritual experience if both people are able to experience a great depth of emotion through their physical expression of love…

Game is about provoking the initial lustful feelings, e.g. negging, being mysterious, and seeming cocky and arrogant. What strengthens real love? Not negging, but support. Not being mysterious, but being open. Not being cocky, but the humility to admit to wrongdoings… Human relations will never be perfect, and expecting perfection from flawed human beings is unrealistic. Behaving ethically in sex will not create utopias, but it is a step towards greater spiritual and moral growth.

I responded…

Hope: Once again, you are injecting some much-needed wisdom into a very important discussion. The Game/PUA community sees sex as a purely physical activity. They ignore the emotional and spiritual needs of both women AND men. And that's a shame. They will never experience the peak of sexuality because they will never have a partner with whom they can connect with physically, emotionally, AND spiritually.

Of course, on some level, I'm sympathetic to their mindset. Our culture has done a horrible job of preparing young people to think rationally about sexual matters.

The hedonistic ethic of consumerism plus the puritan ethic of Christian fundamentalism have distorted the minds of millions of people. We must reclaim sex as a spiritual experience (although separate from the dogmas of organized religion) in order to create a healthy sexual culture in the 21st century.

When it comes to sexual ethics, I took a stab at a solution in The Mustard Seed.

Quote of the Day

“A recurring problem I’ve taken note of in the Roissysphere is this compulsive need to universalize every single fucking principle holy lord in heaven oh my god. I understand the annoyance and contention with a generation indoctrinated by blind equalism, but the inverse is just as bad. There needs to be more individual consideration of issues, up to and including the idea that game isn’t always effective or for everyone. It is NOT necessary to overextend every scenario in which normative gender roles leads to a prosperous society, and a corruption of the natural order results in some wholly nihilistic endgame.” - Sofia, Opting Out of the Game

Quote of the Day

Q: What should a real man’s approach to sex be if not what guys like Roissy say?

A: Whole books could be written detailing the shortcomings in the Roissy In DC approach to sex, dating and gender relations, so I’ll just choose a particularly glaring flaw in his worldview — one that casts the anonymous man who writes the blog as a tragic figure. One aspect of Roissy’s worldview is his disdain for women — they are for him shallow, contemptible creatures that men are justified into manipulating into sex. It is difficult to think of a misogynist as sociopathic in the blogosphere.

Even so, Roissy judges the worth of men according to how many women they can attract. For example, he glorifies the alpha male constantly, and defines that category thusly: “The alpha male is defined by the hotness of the women he can attract, the strength of their attraction for him, and the number of them who find him attractive.”

I’d say that a real man should avoid a) relying on the approval of others for his self-worth, b) making something he disdains the object of his desire, and c) a romantic life wherein he never gets to experience the best kind of sex — the kind where your partner is someone you love, lust and respect. That isn’t to say that all three are necessary for enjoyable sex, but a man who knows what’s good for him aspires to that trinity, and if he finds it, he is lucky indeed. - Conor Friedersdorf

Note: The picture above is of "Fung," Douchebag Extraordinaire.

Quote of the Day

From yesterday's comment thread at Seasons of Tumult and Discord...

Grim: Several women I know voted for Bill Clinton, GWB, and BHO because they found them sexy. Not because their policies would be good for the country, but for raw sexual attraction...Women are easily swayed by the powerful sexy man. Hitler and Mussolini’s biggest supporters were women, not men.


Todd White: You’re saying HITLER was sexy? Oh boy. Anyhoo, Hitler and Mussolini’s soldiers were 100% men.


Grim: It may seem crazy now but Hitler had chicks gina tingling for him all over the damn place. Most big men do.


Todd White: Oh boy! Someone’s been reading too much Roissy! But seriously, just out of curiosity, under your “gina tingling theory of human development,” do you explain Jesus’ popularity through gina tingling too? If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, did a gina tingle cause it?

And now for the actual quote...

Talleyrand: Looking at the way Mary washed Jesus’ feet and Martha cooked for him, I would say there was attraction for him. Aloof and unattainable are all alpha characteristics. Risk taking (his behavior ultimately gets him punished and killed while the Beta Peter lies to save himself) a disdain for convention and the social dominanace he has over his circle of friends all clearly indicates that Jesus was alpha and someone women would find attractive.

To that, I could only say...

I think this comment thread has certainly reached the “unintentional comedy” phase.

Personally, I find it sad that in your philosophy everything comes down to “gina tingling” and (I presume) “penis tingling.” Even Jesus is not spared your reductionist psychoanalysis.

I honestly have to wonder what life experiences you’ve had to allow you to believe such weird things.

Weekly Wrap-Up

Game is the Red Pill: A clip from my comment: "If you ground a relationship on the Game/Red Pill philosophy, I don't think it can work in the long-run...A better approach is to recognize the truth that men SHOULD be confident, courageous, etc (which has been around a lot longer than Game), but without all this 'feeble seed' mumbo jumbo which negates the possibility of sincere love between 2 people - regardless of their status in society."


Oh, that reminds me: I've taken down all of the pro-Game sites on my Blog List (with the exception of In Mala Fide). I'm basically done with this issue. A person can only wallow in the darkness for so long; at first, it's mildly intriguing; you're curious and you want to explore. But after a while, it starts to wear you down emotionally. Then you shrug your shoulders and declare: "OK, let's move on."


Dr. Michael Egnor on the Dawkins-Armstrong Debate: "The debate with New Atheism is a debate about the rationality of belief in God, and the basis for that rational belief is built on several millennia of profound philosophical insight. The effective theist answer to New Atheist casuistry is not to point out that we feel awe and a sense of mystery and that the object of that awe must be God; the theist answer to New Atheists is that God’s existence is logically demonstrable, and that His existence is the indispensable basis for reason, science, and morality."


How NOT to Argue for God's existence: Jim Manzi begs the Darwinists to allow him to have a slim, tiny hope that God somewhere, somehow exists.


Darwin Too Controversial for Hollywood? "What good is Hollywood's liberal bias if film distributors won't carry a film about Charles Darwin?" Wait, I'm confused. Liberals see Charles Darwin as an ally? Who's gonna tell the Darwinian Conservatives!


An animal only Darwin could love: Snake With Foot Found in China. I wonder if he's related to this guy?


A mystery to chew on: Life Existed in the Oceans 200 Million Years Before Oxygen Appeared on Earth.


Another mystery: Israeli Scientists Discover "Center of Consciousness" in Brain.


Neurolaw on the Stand: A fine introduction to an emerging controversy.

Lost in a World Without Courtship

I'd like to make a few critiques of Michael Gerson's article, Lost in a World Without Courtship (Washington Post, Sep. 16, 2009)...

The facts of life for 20-somethings are challenging…It doesn't seem realistic to expect most men and women to delay sex until marriage at 26 or 28. Such virtue is both admirable and possible -- but it can hardly be a general social expectation. So religious institutions, for example, often avoid this thorny topic, content to live with silence, hypocrisy and active singles groups.

Yes, and notice that Gerson doesn't make any recommendations, either. That's fine, of course. It's a tricky subject. But it can't be avoided much longer. I took a stab at a solution in The Mustard Seed.

The age of first marriage is important to marital survival and happiness. Teen marriage is generally a bad idea, with much higher rates of divorce. Romeo and Juliet were, in fact, young fools. Later marriage has been one of the reasons for declining national divorce rates. But this does not mean the later the better. Divorce rates trend downward until leveling off in the early 20s. But people who marry after 27 tend to have less happy marriages -- perhaps because partners are set in their ways or have unrealistically high standards. The marital sweet spot seems to be in the early to mid-20s.

Yes, this is sound logic. I made a similar observation here.

High school romances which turn into marriage are extremely vulnerable to divorce. In these types of relationships, both women and men are likely to feel - 7,10, 12 years later - that they didn't "play the field" enough and that "better opportunities" are out there. Somewhere.

With very few exceptions, I think people should wait until at least the age of 24 to get married. And you should be married at least 2 years before having children.

There's no rush. And since most couples these days only want 1-2 kids, you can't even use the fertility argument, anymore.

My advice to young people: Be smart. And be prudent. Always let your mind guide your heart, and not the other way around.

Finally, Gerson makes a sly dig at "Game."

Having a series of low-commitment relationships does not bode well for later marital commitment. Some of this expresses preexisting traits -- people who already have a "nontraditional" view of commitment are less likely to be committed in marriage. But there is also evidence, according to Wilcox, that multiple failed relationships can "poison one's view of the opposite sex." Serial cohabitation trains people for divorce. In contrast, cohabitation by engaged couples seems to have no adverse effect on eventual marriage.

I've tried to avoid psychoanalyzing my opponents in the Game debate, but I've long believed that most of them (perhaps 80% or more) suffered from continuous rejection at a young age (teens/early twenties), felt a growing contempt for women, and then turned to "Game" as a way to intellectually justify their contempt for women while morally justifying their new lifestyle of casual sex.

Sadly, as Gerson points out, "having a series of low-commitment relationships does not bode well for later marital commitment." Then again, a lot of these guys don't want a marital commitment.

Sigh. What a loss for the ladies!!