Looking for love? Try leaning in for a ... cheek swab.
A couple of genetic testing companies are promising to match couples based on the DNA testing, touting the benefits of biological compatibility.
The companies claim that a better biological match will mean better sex, less cheating, longer-lasting love and perhaps even healthier children…
The GenePartner Test is $99, and will be offered at the dating site sense2love.com when it relaunches next month.
The idea is that people tend to be attracted to those who have immune system genes that are dissimilar from their own.
Biologists say the HLA genes of the immune system — which are responsible for recognizing and marking foreign cells such as viruses so other parts of the immune system can attack them — also determine body odor "fingerprints." And people tend to be attracted to the natural body odors of those who have different HLA genes from their own.
In one study, Swiss biologist Claus Wedekind found that women who were not taking hormonal contraception preferred the natural scent of men whose immune systems were the most different from theirs.
But don't put too much faith in this, experts said.
Dr. Rocio Moran, medical director of the General Genetics Clinic at the Cleveland Clinic, called the idea "ridiculous," and said the science of attraction is too complex to look at only a few genes…
When a random sample of married people was studied, their immune systems were not that different, said Patrick Markey, associate professor of psychology at Villanova. And he notes that hundreds of studies have shown the importance of personality and physical appearance in choosing a mate…
Rachel Herz, author of "The Scent of Desire," who teaches olfaction and human behavior at Brown, believes the science is legit but thinks prospective matches should swap T-shirts and sniff.
"Above all physical factors — for example, how he looks — and social factors, how guys smell is more important than anything else," she said…
GenePartner did not respond to a request to speak to its customers…
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...
A4_Press_Release
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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
As a sequel to my essay, Requiem for a Nightmare, here is more evidence of how Reductionist philosophy really can harm a person's life and the health of society overall.
Yesterday, I discovered a wonderful article, Love in the Age of Neuroscience, written by Professors Mickey Craig and Jon Fennell of Hillsdale College. Their article - published in the Fall 2005 issue of The New Atlantis - explores the philosophical implications of Tom Wolfe's novel, I Am Charlotte Simmons.As we saw in my previous essay, Mr. Wolfe is fascinated by how Reductionist Science is quietly underming American values - with nary anyone bothering to notice. In his latest novel, Mr. Wolfe uses an elite college as the setting for his morality tale.
Professor Craig takes it from there...
As John Derbyshire wrote in National Review, I AmCharlotte Simmons is a reminder of the “darker side” of recent discoveries in the human sciences, especially in neuroscience and genetics. At stake is the “metaphysic” which provides sense and direction to our lives, including the complicated encounter between men and women. The novel invites us to ask: Is love possible in the age of neuroscience? Or have we unmasked human beings only to discover that love is an illusion?… [TW note: I've withessed that first-hand]
Charlotte’s experiences at the fictional Dupont University shed light on these questions, as the ambitious girl from backwater North Carolina is transformed by her sophisticated and salacious surroundings. Far from being the path to higher civilization and refinement of character, Dupont is a toxic impediment to the yearning for higher things, built on a dogmatic denial that higher civilization and refinement of character are even possible. Where, in a former age, the impressionable young student might have aspired to religious salvation or genuine wisdom, today’s typical college student lives more for entertainment, sensation, and release, all the while demanding and largely getting immediate gratification. The individual still seeks status and recognition. But the marks of distinction are all too often inebriation, “hooking up,” expertise at sarcasm (“sarc one,” “sarc two,” and “sarc three”), and insouciance toward matters intellectual and moral. As students learn about and fall into this new ethic, the university not only fails to stand in opposition, it accelerates the process. Dupont, that composite of Duke, Stanford, Yale, and the University of Michigan, corrupts the promising young Charlotte...
The teaching of Dupont University is precisely that the soul and the moral dimension of being are illusions. In the past, the university (at its best and in principle) sought to cultivate the human soul toward completion or excellence. The modern university, as Wolfe portrays it, denies that there are truthful distinctions between higher and lower; it teaches that the soul is not real, and that perfection of the soul is thus a thing of the past.
The setting of I Am Charlotte Simmons is truly “postmodern”—a world dominated by Nietzsche and neuroscience, a world which has jettisoned the moral imagination of the past. Not only is God dead, but so is reason, once understood as the characteristic that distinguishes man from the rest of nature. We now understand ourselves by studying the behavior of other animals, rather than understanding the behavior of other animals in light of human reason and human difference. We learn that it is embarrassing for any educated person to be considered religious or even moral. Darwin’s key insight that man is just another animal, now updated with the tools and discoveries of modern biology, has liberated us from two Kingdoms of Darkness. Post-faith and post-reason, we can now turn to neuroscience to understand the human condition, a path that leads to or simply ratifies the governing nihilism of the students, both the ambitious and apathetic alike.
The task of neuroscience is to understand human behavior as it really is, without illusions…Human beings think they have free will and that their choices have meaning. But this is one of the comforting myths of the past that neuroscience is proud to overcome. As Dr. Starling explains, this time with a thought experiment borrowed from a fellow neuroscientist:
Let’s say you pick up a rock and you throw it. And in mid-flight you give that rock consciousness and a rational mind. That little rock will think it has free will and will give you a highly rational account of why it has decided to take the route it’s taking.
In other words: Human beings are simply rocks. Neuroscientists are rocks who know they are rocks. Human beings are bodies in motion, bodies that falsely believe they have free will. But neuroscience, armed with tools like fMRIs and PET scans, promises a true description of human behavior, a final lifting of man’s religious and moral illusions. And that life without illusions may amount to nothing more than the joyless quest for joy or the soulless interactions of the soulless. The consequences of this shift in human self-understanding are enormous.
This dogma of soullessness is the sub-text for the entire novel. The administration, faculty, students, athletes, and fans are so immersed in this postmodern world that they cannot imagine anything else…
Aristotle teaches that every human being has a natural desire for happiness coupled with a natural lack of self-sufficiency, which results in natural partnerships (family, friends, fellow-citizens). These partnerships, when guided by moral and intellectual virtue, constitute true human happiness. But if the soul and free will are illusions, then friendship and love are illusions as well, or mere words based on illusions…
According to the principles of neuroscience…interaction, at least among humans, results in a competition guided by nothing beyond the desire for recognition, which seemingly overcomes the loneliness of the mere individual. The competition for recognition at Dupont manifests itself as an interminable battle of wits and sexual conquests…
This desire for recognition, shaped by the interplay between Charlotte’s desperate loneliness and desperate desire to belong, is central to the novel…She wants to be recognized. She is animated by amour propre. Her main concern seems to be what she thinks other people are thinking of her. While she says she wants the life of the mind, what she really wants is to be recognized as the best…
Even at the moment when Charlotte has attained what she seeks, she is still miserable. Despite her victory in the battle for recognition, she is still alone in the world, struggling to maintain the appearance of happiness for her crowd of onlookers…
If Wolfe’s description of Dupont accurately portrays the character of our elite universities, then the dissolution of the American way of life is nearly complete.Our ancient faith is no longer a vibrant and effective part of the education of future leaders.Our ability to perpetuate our culture and our constitutional soul will wither alongside our belief in the soul itself. As Lincoln understood, once it loses its ancient faith, the Republic cannot long endure. Perhaps our situation is not as dire as the metamorphosis of Charlotte Simmons makes it seem. But if the portrayal is right, only time will tell whether Wolfe’s diagnosis of our condition can help effect a recovery.
I read Tom Wolfe's book earlier this year, and I really loved it. Heck, I like almost any novel that gives serious attention to the power of ideas to shape and control our destiny (Atlas Shrugged is another example).
If you share my taste in books, I humbly recommend The Mustard Seed.
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.
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.
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.
Stop thinking of love, relationships, commitment and men as “goals.” Think of them as part of your overall development, and focus on developing yourself first...
When guys say all they look for are looks and sex, they’re wrong. Just dead wrong. They fall in love, and they fall hard. Most of the intelligent ones go deep, very deep...
Most men want to seem tough and macho to the world, but they crave someone whom they can be soft with, who will not reject them for having a maelstrom of emotions inside them, and who will stand by their side when things get tough.
Deep inside, whether or not we realize it, we are all just little boys and girls. We’re all trying to make sense of this messy life thing, putting on adult behaviors while the little kid is in us, wanting to really just have the freedom to play and laugh and love...We have this inner core of childishness which we must come to terms with. So love this inner child, and give yourself and the men in your life permission to play, to be ridiculous, to be free.
Lawrence Auster, What is Faith?:"If faith has a good definition, it can't just be 'belief in the absence of evidence.' There has to have been something real there that made us believe in the first place. The problem is that spiritual things are not simply 'there,' like a physical object. We apprehend things about them, each moment we apprehend something different, or we stop apprehending anything. But the point is that there is or has been an apprehension of a reality, and we don't see it all, yet we've seen enough of it that we believe in its truth and we stay loyal to that truth. Faith is a committed relationship with something we partly see, but don't completely see. Having seen enough of it to believe that it is true, we maintain that relationship, the orientation of our selves toward that thing." Read the whole post.
Restating the Case for Human Uniqueness: "Despite the dedication of a number of primatologists, the cognitive and linguistic abilities of the great apes have never surpassed those of a two-year-old child. This is because they clearly lack the precondition for becoming human: a human genetic make-up."
Denyse O'Leary is Having an "Origin of Life" Essay Contest: "Here is the problem I have always had with accidental origin of life: It amounts to spontaneous generation. However, banishing the doctrine of spontaneous generation played a key role in modern medicine’s success. If we assume that life forms (for medical purposes, we focus on pathogens) cannot start spontaneously, then they must have been introduced...If life can be spontaneously generated, why isn’t it happening now?"
In October, a new Ayn Rand book will come out:"Almost 30 years after her death, Ayn Rand remains one of the most polarizing icons to tumble out of one of history’s most polarizing centuries. Heller’s biography promises what might well be a first: an impartial portrait—not of a revolutionary supergenius or a cultish fraud, but of a complex woman, born in Russia, who went on to create a dubiously powerful American mythology."
Ayn Rand Self-Help:"Seligman divided his psychology students so some engaged in pleasurable activities (going to the movies, eating yummy ice cream) and the others did philanthropic activities (volunteering at a soup kitchen, reading to the blind). Guess what? The happiness afterglow of the fun was nada compared to the lasting happiness of doing altruistic acts. Meaning? Doing good for others will also make you feel good -- and, according to Seligman, your highest level of feel-good...I'm betting that even if Ayn Rand and I started off a conversation disagreeing on this topic of altruism, Ayn would nonetheless be open to hearing about these modern day research studies and theories."
Terry Goodkind: He's Got the Write Stuff: "Goodkind came relatively late to the writing game, having started as an artist. But, from the moment the first words he ever wrote ('It was an odd-looking vine.') were published, his Sword of Truth series was a smashing success -- more than 10 million books sold, repeatedly hitting the top spot on the New York Times' bestseller lists....Goodkind's books are infused with the philosophy in which he deeply believes -- the objectivism of Ayn Rand that holds individual rights as key to a society that works and that encourages individuals to pursue what makes them happy."
Game is just about gaining control of women in order to have sex, not to bring them into a virtuous lifestyle, much less to re-order civilization along conservative lines. Theoretically, Game could be a tactic used by a conservative man for conservative purposes, but since the basic premise of Game is that women are genetically programmed to be slutty, he would have to apply the tactics while totally ignoring their theoretical underpinnings.
Gamers think Evolution is all, so they cannot conceive of any way to engage in direct action that will change the way society is ordered. "We're just acknowledging reality," they say, instead of understanding that the direction in which Western civilization will go is currently up for grabs, and that societies change in response to the ideas that are acknowledged to be true. A true conservative would understand the power of ideas rather than claiming nothing can be done to change the Zeitgeist [...]
The claims about what women want are hopelessly over-generalized. All women want "bad boys" and other poor definitions of alpha males? I have observed a lot of women in my life. Some want overly rugged-looking men and some go for boyish looking men. Some go for the Marlboro Man Cowboy in jeans and a flannel shirt with boots, others for metrosexuals, and others for shaggy hippie types. Some put their emphasis on a man's looks, some on his money, while others go for an artistic or musical type with no money and not much prospect of making any money any time soon, and others go for the man in uniform with no concern for money. And on and on and on. The Game discussions I have read by following links from VFR have a ridiculously narrow view of what "all" women like [...]
Masculine excellence can be exhibited by men in many ways...Earn to speak in public and lead. Read and write and speak well. Be bold in the workplace. Learn to fix things. Develop excellence in some area other than your job. Don't project "I'm aimless and spending my time on TV and video games." Instead, think about the man you want to be, in terms of your character traits and abilities, and start striving to be that man. You will seem like a man exhibiting masculine drive and confidence and boldness, because you will be doing exactly that! You won't have to learn to pretend to have such traits.
JR: I'm fine with studying biology (I'm a science buff, myself), but from what I've been reading, it seems that a lot of guys are drawing the wrong conclusions from biology (as explained by "Game"), while neglecting some other very important facts about women that have very little connection to biology (the idea that EVERYTHING in life can be explained by biology is reductionist, and I am not a reductionist). I posted this on Ferdinand's website last night, but its worth repeating here. "When you say it like that, Game sounds very innocuous, even beneficial. But as conservatives, we know you can’t judge something by its intentions, you judge them by their RESULTS. I can’t speak for you, or every single person who comments here, but I’ve read enough of Game through Roissy, Ferdinand, and Mystery to know that Game does more harm than good." Why? See my post above.
If Game is to transform our society and save Western Civilization, it will have to be utilized by huge numbers of the "beta males" (as they define themselves) in order for a big impact to be made on family formation. But the success of Game depends on its being a secret, an act that the women do not realize is a charade. If the Game movement were to grow by a factor of 10 in coming years, surely magazines for young women would start running articles exposing it. I think it is also likely that Game succeeds partly by making the practitioner different from the norm, hence intriguing, mysterious, etc. But how can Game then become the norm for huge numbers of males?
It seems that the only possible success of Game can be to enable a minority of men to fly under the radar, using it while women are unsuspecting. Hence it cannot transform the whole society.
"What is to be done?" That was the question Vladimir Lenin asked in 1902. On the subject of sex and love in modern society, allow me to make a few suggestions.
As part of the discussion to Roissy's essay, Jealousy, "Vladimir" (not Lenin, I presume), asked me:
In your post, you write: “There are better alternatives to Game.” I’m curious what exactly you have in mind when you talk about these “alternatives.” I honestly have trouble imagining what it could be except either something clueless, or something that boils down to the practical application of some aspects of game that are frequently discussed in forums like this one.
This is what I wrote back...
Vladimir: You are correct that I have spent too much time exposing the flaws of Game and not enough time articulating a positive alternative. Hopefully, this post can move the conversation in a new and better direction. So what do I advocate? That’s the million-dollar question. Well, that’s hard to explain in a single blog comment, but here’s a few thoughts to get the discussion started:
First, I’m not sure how familiar you are with Objectivism, but I’m probably about 90% an Objectivist, so Ayn Rand’s philosophy in which men (and women) are encouraged to see themselves (and – if necessary – REcreate themselves) as rational, self-interested, self-confident beings with integrity has major applications for dating, marriage, and romance. As a person gradually adopts and applies Objectivism, their self-confidence increases become they realize how truly capable they are to master life (after all, everything they need to master life is inside their head – their rational mind).
As their self-confidence increases, their happiness increases, and they are more likely to attract a worthy mate (and not such a one-night stand in a bar).
But while I am 90% an Objectivist, most Objectivists wouldn’t accept me as such because I’m also a person of faith, and that extra dimension of faith bolsters the rational, moral Objectivist foundation.
For more, I’d recommend 2 of my essays: First, “The Philosophy of Heather Manning” which is really MY philosophy. Next is “Sex and Love in Modern Society.”Scroll to the bottom where I ask: “What is my advice to hopeless romantics?’ That provides a few more specifics about what I believe in terms of how men should behave, especially when it comes to pursuing women.
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.
What Roissy has done is take the demented conditions of modern, hyper sexually liberated society and treat them as though they were natural. What bothers me is not Roissy himself, but the fact that so many conservatives find truth and value in him. They claim they can separate the ugly and false from the true and useful. I don't believe it. People who sign onto Roissy, who recommend his thoughts to others, are helping spread vile nihilism.
The discussion surrounding "game" is not just about extramarital sex: it contains an unseemly degree of self-pity, spite, and the ludicrous conceit that sleeping around has something to do with saving western civilization. It is as if some of these people want to stretch or break rules while having others hold their hands and tell them it's ok while they do. The first thing these guys need to learn is that MEN don't behave this way.
Novaseeker: You wrote, "Game is rather empirical – people use it because it works." Works? In what sense? In terms of having more dates with women? Sure, that makes sense. In terms of having more casual sex? Oh, certainly. In terms of increasing a man's happiness?...Err...Look, that's what I care about. The happiness of men. I honestly do not believe that Game can increase a man's happiness because it rests on a philosophic assumption that men and women are animals and that the best way to have a relationship is to treat her like an animal too. The best relationships are those in which both the man and woman are unified by shared values and interests and treat each other with utmost respect as transcendent individuals I can almost people laughing at me when I say that, but it's true. I'm a witness to it.
Whiskey: Your points are well-taken, but I'm not interested in "negging" my wife or pretending there's a chance I'll cheat on her with another woman. There's better ways to keep romance and love alive.
Novaseeker: I posted this on my own blog, but it's worth posting here, as well.
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. 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 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.
Novaseeker, you wrote: "My own interest in Game is not in that vein. I realize it can be used in that vein. I do not believe that simply because it can be used in that vein, that it is therefore useless. Guns, for example, can be used to kill people, yet most conservatives don't seem to think guns are useless for other purposes." My concern with Game is based on the fact that many men seem to be using it to kill people (metaphorically speaking).
Novaseeker said...
My concern with Game is based in the fact that many men seem to be using it to kill people (metaphorically speaking).
Then we should ban guns, pornography, alcohol and so on. Game is a neutral tool. It can be used for mischief or for benefit. Like many other things.
Todd White said...
Novaseeker: Is there any chance you and your friends can reply to what I WROTE, instead of projecting onto me? When did I say we should ban Game? My position is that there are better alternatives to Game. This religion of Game - and yes, I'm starting to think it's a religion based on the impassioned way some people are talking about it - is, in most cases, not helpful to men or women.
One STDV: Whether on purpose or not, you raise an interesting issue. You casually state, "many betas would be fully satisfied with 3-5 sexual partners/year (a reasonable sum for an average Gamer). Game gives betas the tools to avoid marriage and reproduction." In my discussion with Gamers, they insist to me that Game is NOT about getting laid. But it sounds like it is. What value does Game have for men who want a successful, happy marriage?
