I am a deeply conservative. I am Catholic. I believe there is an objective right and wrong. I believe in the principles of "Game".
Though I had not heard of the term "Game" until a couple of years ago, I had come to the same conclusions, both through personal experience and through clinical practice. I stumbled onto the "Gaming Community" while trawling through the net. The best writers of the group articulated what I too thought, and had informally, on the net, developed a body of knowledge on the subject.
By nature I'm both a cynic and an empiricist. I cut through the bullshit. I believe in Game because it explains human nature and the other theories with the exception of one don't. Thomistic philosophy also asserts the existence of an human observable nature which is different for both men and women. Men and women are different, not because of programming or evolutionary biology or whatever other shit: Men and women are different in their core, their essence. Anyone who can synapse two neurones and who does not have pus in his eyes and shit in his ears can see this as self-evident truth. Feminism is a lie.
It is a lie that has caused immense suffering. Suffering to both men and women, and it is one of the reasons that I am gainfully employed. I dish out the anti-depressants for a psychotic world where both men and women sob to me about their loneliness and insecurities but are unprepared to change. Their culturally conditioned behaviour the cause of their problems.
No shit. A woman finds you unattractive because you don't I have a pair. I don't either. No Shit. Men find you unattractive because your a manipulative bitch and your constantly asserting your "rights" whenever any challenges you. I find you unattractive as well. Fuck, how hard is it to understand that men should act like men and women like women. But my two cents of advice gets drowned out in culture that the preaches the opposite. Our culture wants people to act unnaturally.
While Game has a good deal of truth to it, it also lives with the matrix of this culture. It's most articulate proponents are immersed in the matrix. Many of the lesser proponents are psychologically unbalanced and suffer from the man with a hammer syndrome. To the man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. They believe game can fix everything. It can't. Game's only utility is that it is an antidote to militant Feminism, otherwise it's pussy worship.
If you think about it, unrestrained game is actually feministic. Most of the gaming community measure their "Alphaness" by the amount of pussy that they can get. And as pussy has to be freely given, therefore a woman has to approve of her mate. Game is all about gaining pussy through female approval. It's making yourself pleasing to women.
If you want to live for that, that's fine by me. I've got other stuff to do.
Now don't get me wrong. The ability to attract women is a virtue that needs to be cultivated and it has many uses, but it's not the only virtue. A man has to live by others as well.
Game can't fix up corporate greed, military incompetence, divorce laws etc. I can't fix up low brow culture, American Idol or bad architecture. In fact, game untrammelled by other restraining forces will only amplify the problems. Hedonistic game directs the will to satisfaction of self above all else. It is the same philosophy that drives the corporate bankers, the muck raking journalists, sleazy politicians, pole dancers and slutty wives. It's the philosophy of the ugly people.
I have great respect for Roissy as the Game theorist if not the man. His knowledge and ability to express the intricacies of the female psyche are unsurpassed. I've met lots of super intelligent people in my life and he towers above most of them. Seriously, if you can see past the "decoration" and the "hedonism", there is profundity that you will not find in any psychological textbook. I would honestly give him a professorship. The problem is that his philosophy of life is destructive to Western Culture. He freely admits it. knowing how to attract women should not be a man's sole imperative in life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
the female psyche
You (and Roissy) lost it right there.
In the determination to come up with a general unified theory of women (or men), you've ignored the elephant in the room - the fact that humanity's variance in behaviour and characteristic is so wide that it's almost hopeless to make any meaningful generalities.
Roissy is constantly having to say something along the lines of "the facts (i.e. the GSS) may not fit, but this is what women are *really* like."
Sure, for perhaps 20%.
Then someone else comes along and says, no, *this* is what women are really like.
Sure, for perhaps another 20%.
Some days, I think even the meaningless generalities ("people want to be loved") may not apply to a majority... :-).
However, in the spirit of generalities, here's mine.
"The need for a meaningful narrative in human behaviour is so strong in men that they'll studiously ignore the obvious evidence to the contrary."
Of course, it really only applies to maybe 10-20% of men, but I'll ignore those men that aren't looking for a narrative :-).
Tom, you have to realize that Roissy's conjectures regarding female psychology are focused on sexually attractive women in the prime of their youth and fertility.
Yes, there is a not insignificant subset of women who have a different way of being in the world, but we men are not much interested in the fatties, rejects, single-mothers, aging-beauties and the dubious "spiritual conversions" they employ to cope with their declining sexual market value, now are we?
Tom:
"The need for a meaningful narrative in human behaviour is so strong in men that they'll studiously ignore the obvious evidence to the contrary."
With all due respect Tom, you sound like you come from an arts and humanities department. I'm a clinician. I can't afford to ignore obvious evidence, if I do I get sued. Pretty simple. Therefore my profession encourages me to adopt a flexible mind which takes account all of the facts even if the conclusions are distasteful to my world. I can live with facts which disagree with my desires, it's no problem.
Secondly, Generalisations are not universalisations. Most normal people recongise that when one generalises, exceptions are permitted. So for example, when I say Australians like beer, it's a pretty safe bet that most of them do and that the occasional one doesn't(me).
Your assertion that there is so much variability in human behaviour that generalisations are meaningless is refuted by daily experience. Human beings have predictable tastes and preferences. Yeah sure, there is variability, But when you go to a site like Hot or Not, most people can agree on the ratings within a specific degree of variability. 1's don't get rated 10's. More importantly, if you had to put some money down, who would you bet on getting laid first in a bar: The fat guy or the athlete? Yeah, the fat guy might get laid, but the odds are on the athlete. Human behaviour is predictable.
Tupac.
Roissy's conjectures are pretty spot on even for women generally, not just those in their prime. Yes, they are outliers, but they are few and far between.
Slumlord, how come you don't comment anymore at Roissy's? Do you no longer read him?
More importantly, if you had to put some money down, who would you bet on getting laid first in a bar: The fat guy or the athlete?
You've encapsulated my whole point right there. What percentage of singles go to a bar to find a mate?
Sure, Roissy's views may have some accuracy with regards to a subgroup, but it's simply not that big a subgroup.
It's certainly not something I'd use to generalize about woman in general.
I can live with facts which disagree with my desires, it's no problem.
So can I. However, I demand more than anecdotal evidence, and the GSS doesn't back Roissy up.
I will admit the "I'm shallow and beautiful, and I only want shallow and beautiful, so therefore *everyone* is shallow" slightly annoys me when it starts to be taken seriously by those who should know enough to start looking at actual facts.
Yes, there is a not insignificant subset of women who have a different way of being in the world, but we men are not much interested in the fatties, rejects, single-mothers, aging-beauties and the dubious "spiritual conversions" they employ to cope with their declining sexual market value, now are we?
Oh for crying out loud. Only supermodel and "ugly people" live in your world? Let's look at reality instead of TV shows.
Here's a little experiment. Go into a neutral territory like a bakery or a bookstore. Watch for young women between 18-30 coming in. How many of them look like they are status-hungry hypergamists. Not many? How many of them are (I hate this term) 1's or 2's or 9's or 10's. Not too many either?
Now welcome to reality. It's a lot more boring, but it's actually real.
Tom:
I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree.
What percentage of singles go to a bar to find a mate?
What's that got to do with game? Many of the religious commentators on Roissy's blog have commented that his insights apply just as well in Religious environments. You're not one of those guys who needs a study to prove that women like taller men than themselves?
Tupac:
Slumlord, how come you don't comment anymore at Roissy's? Do you no longer read him?
Sorry for taking so long to get back but I had to work.
1) Yes, I still read Roissy because:
a)he writes very well.
b)he is very insightful.
c)and for the comments, though lately there is more noise than signal there.
I don't comment anymore there mainly because of this post.He's mean.
Putting the boot into the unfortunate is poor form. I know a lot of what he would call omega's through my work. They're human beings and feel pain furthermore they've usually done it very tough.
They're overjoyed with the tiny scraps of happiness they get. I'm not taking it away from them. See here.
By all means dish it out to the culpable but not to the unfortunate.
Sorry I'm going to stand up for them.
A lot of people did not distinguish themselves in that post.
Then there was the whole Lady Raine episode. She deserved to be put in her place, but his method was both unskilled and the whole spectacle resembled a bar fight between two ho's. What's worse he blinked.
Shit, when he started out he had style, but now he's sliding down the pole. It's a shame because I quite liked him initially
It's my little protest. He'll live without me.
What percentage of singles go to a bar to find a mate?
What's that got to do with game?
It was in direct response about who had the best chance of getting lucky in a bar.
I don't dispute that in Roissy's little world, his ideas on women's preferences might have some kernel of truth.
The problem is that people are taking these observations as pertaining to the world at large.
Honestly, do you see your wife, your mother, your sisters, your female colleagues, your female friends as obsessed about sex, appearance, and grabbing high status males?
Roissy has to be the most successful example of projection (I don't care about anything but sex and status, therefore *nobody* cares about anything but sex and status) I've ever seen!
And now his see it starting to infect people who should *definitely* know better.
Honestly, I find it only slightly less horrifying than I would watching a "Jews control the world" meme starting to creep outside of its pit.
Both are about as accurate (yes, there exist hypergamist women and rich/powerful Jews, but in the greater scheme of things it's a load of tripe), and rely mostly on bitter, cynical men who want a narrative that matches their unhappiness.
And both can cause a lot of damage to those who get swept along for the ride.
"Putting the boot into the unfortunate is poor form. I know a lot of what he would call omega's through my work. They're human beings and feel pain furthermore they've usually done it very tough.
They're overjoyed with the tiny scraps of happiness they get. I'm not taking it away from them."
You are a good man with a good heart. If only there would be more out there. Fundamentally, goodness has become unpopular in this world.
"It is the same philosophy that drives the corporate bankers, the muck raking journalists, sleazy politicians, pole dancers and slutty wives."
While I do not agree with all of your post, I agree with a great deal of it. This part especially.
Slumlord:
Point taken. While I am not averse to kicking arse in order to cement my position, I do consider it unsportsmanlike to kick a man when he's down. I'm with you on that.
By the way --
I'm still waiting on that beer."
Hope:
Thank you and thanks for dropping by.
Tom:
Roissy's definition of alpha is not my definition of alpha. In the ancient Roman world he would have been thought a fag.
I'm not unhappy with my life, I have no bitterness towards women and they, like men, are for the most, decent human beings. I like women.... a lot. I married a truly exceptional woman.
But you've got to look past Roissy's writing style to see what he is saying: Women are carnal creatures and they have carnal desires and that a man has to relate to her "carnality" if he wants to keep her happy. Virtue in a man may earn a woman's respect but not her love.
To paraphrase my wife, if you can't imagine yourself wanting to kiss him then there is nothing there; even if you are friends.
The Australian Government provides me with statistics of how many patients I see per year, drugs I prescribe, etc. In my years of practice I've had over 140,000 consultations, > 50% of those being with women. You get to know human nature well. My clinical experience is much bigger than many social surveys. Sure, I may be seeing a skewed sample, but I'm calling it as I see it. After a while certain impressions form. Roissy's pretty much on the mark.
Roissy hasn't formed my opinions, he has articulated them; he writes much better than I.
Your first contention, that there is no such thing as a female pscyhe, is a repudiation of the idea of "a nature". This is profoundly Anti-Christian as Christianity asserts that men and women have different natures and that these can be discerned. Your proposition that variability precludes such discernment is I'm afraid a feminist idea, an idea where men and women don't have any pre-determined natures and that it's all social programming.
On the other hand I get the impression that you object to the Roissyesque idea of female nature. I agree that sometimes he goes over the top but once again what he states and what I have observed(and experienced) is pretty much on the mark. I disagree that women are primarily motivated by sexual urges but they are a secondary motivating factor.
Back in my dating days I deliberately hid the fact that I was a doctor, you'd be surprised just how many women who 5 minutes previously would not have given me the time of day, suddenly became all flirty and nice once the cat was let out of the bag. (They were unceremoniously given the brush off). I lived the idea of hypergamy.
A woman is an emotional, rational and sexual animal. You've got to appeal to her on all the levels. I think a lot of Christian types particularly have concentrated on the first two elements and have ignored the third.
Tupac:
I'm still waiting on that beer.
Next time I'm in the U.S.
Oh by the way Tom. Have you read any of Dalyrmple? I much prefer him to Roissy. He's trawled the same sewers I have and he writes better than I do as well.
This piece is for your reading pleasure.
I'm not unhappy with my life,
Sorry, I was not clear. I was referring not to you, but to the large class of Roissy readers that embrace his philosophy that that love is essentially a myth. That women want a man only for his status and sexual prowess, etc., etc. And that being honest, open and loving in a relationship will kill it.
This position is widely celebrated by many men there as an explanation as to why they are so unsuccessful at attracting women.
Women are carnal creatures
Agreed that sex is an important part of *most* relationships. However, Roissy is a lot more specific than that. His claim is more or less that all women have the same sexuality, which is essentially attraction to "alpha"-ness, as he defines alpha (which he "generously" allows that beta's can successfully emulate).
Your first contention, that there is no such thing as a female pscyhe, is a repudiation of the idea of "a nature".
As someone who has seen that vast sprawl of human nature, I'll ask you: Exactly what generalizations would you be comfortable in making about women (or men) that would fit, say 95% of *all* women that you know, both professionally and personally?
I ask this seriously, because I can't think of many above "we need to eat and sleep and we want to be loved by another."
We may be arguing semantics here, but when I hear "the" female psyche, or "the" male psyche, it usually means a bunch of generalities that apply at best to 25% of the women or men I know.
I don't consider this a feminist belief, simply one of observation. Every time I have made a generalization about human nature, I end up finding scores of counter-examples and having to backtrack.
I suspect it's the bloody-minded scientist in me that insists on proof rather than what "feels right".
I disagree that women are primarily motivated by sexual urges but they are a secondary motivating factor.
I don't dispute the existence of male or female sexuality and its importance. I do dispute that male or female sexuality is one track. Personally, I've seen ethical, intellectual, and social compatibility be a far greater determinate of sexual attraction than sheer animal magnetism, which I'm certain Roissy would deny is possible.
Thanks for the pointer to the Dalyrmple article. It's an interesting, if horrifying, piece. I'm not certain I agree with his thesis about the sexual revolution leading to domestic violence, but his explanation for the origins of domestic violence certainly *feel* right.
but to the large class of Roissy readers that embrace his philosophy that that love is essentially a myth. That women want a man only for his status and sexual prowess, etc., etc.
I think you've misread him and don't understand game.
For love to exist, there has got to be some sexual attraction. Alpha men know how to incite sexual attraction in a woman. You see this is the whole "nice guy problem", a girl sees this type of guy as a friend and not as a mate because there is no sexual attraction. The beta male is asexual to other women.
As for love, Roissy & Co. don't deny its existence.
That women want a man only for his status and sexual prowess, etc., etc. And that being honest, open and loving in a relationship will kill it.
Firstly women want it all: honesty, openness and sexual prowess. However what women want and what they need are two different things. Honesty and openness is what you have with your friends, sex with your lover. If a man is going to satisfy a woman properly he is going to have to hit all of the buttons.
Remember to the sensitive new age guy, all in touch with his feelings? What happened to him?
Here is a prime example of a man catering to a woman's demands and ending up being sexually unattractive to his mate.(Her brain and her nature are in conflict, I hope to deal with this in a later post)
The more a man uses a feminine approach in a relationship the less sexually attractive he will be to his mate.
In the pump and dump culture that Roissy embraces, it is the women who let him have sex with them. I'm sorry, but no matter how distasteful it is, women control the sexual market place and it is they who chose: men can only entice. The point here is, that now, the quality of female judgment is appalling and many women--not all--act on sexual attraction and not on good judgment.
As for what attracts women, that is a subject worthy of a book length response. But here are a few.
Women want a taller man.
Women want a confident man.
Woman want a man that can assert himself.
Women want a man who has masculine sexuality.
Women want a successful man, not a failure.(note I did not say rich)
Women despise sexual neediness.
Women despise weakness.
Women want an attractive man.
What sort of proof do you want? Look around you.
Now what they settle with may be different to what they want. But if the psycho-sexual needs of the woman are not catered for she will be frustrated in the relationship and given today's permissive divorce culture SHE WILL DIVORCE.
Not all women are primarily motivated by sexual attraction but without it you don't have a romantic relationship: No matter how open and nice. You can be open and nice to a woman but you have to do it in a masculine way. Game teaches you how to do it.
Would you have a romantic relationship with a woman you did not find sexually attractive?
Personally, I've seen ethical, intellectual, and social compatibility be a far greater determinate of sexual attraction than sheer animal magnetism, which I'm certain Roissy would deny is possible.
I'm certain that these are the foundations of a lasting relationship, but to perfect that relationship you've gotta cultivate the factors that promote the "animal magnetism"
Roissy is a hedonist. He uses "game" to pursue his hedonism, Game is a tool he uses to achieve his ends. Game is not Hedonism. Don't confuse Roissy's imperatives with his means.
As I've noted many times, the essential problem with Game is that the men who really need it are those least able to apply it. To use Game, one has to be at least reasonably outgoing and witty, and able to pick up on other peoples' feelings and expressions. The sort of introverted, antisocial nerds who have the least luck with women seldom are outgoing or witty or able to pick up on feelings and expressions, indeed they're often the complete opposite. Unless they have very good acting skills their attempts at using Game are doomed to failure.
Peter
Peter:
You are right to a certain degree, that's why the beta's will always be with us.
But I do think that with practice, a man will develop some of the skills. As Roosh says, you've gotta swallow your pride and accept that you're going to be rejected a lot before you start finding success.
A faint heart never the fair maiden won.
Honesty and openness is what you have with your friends, sex with your lover.
How odd, among my group of university friends, pretty much 100% of the relationships (all hitting the 20 year anniversaries) started out as friendships that grew into love.
You're right - sexual attraction has to be there, but rugged good looks were not the trigger for such attraction (or none of my friends would have had any relationships at all :-))
Would you have a romantic relationship with a woman you did not find sexually attractive?
No. But then I find my wife very sexually attractive because of her compassion, intellectual incisiveness, and moral steadfastness.
Might not be the same for all, but I tend to agree with the old saw: the brain is the largest sex organ :-).
So, no, I don't disagree with you on the importance of sexual attraction, I do disagree with you on what women find attractive - or more accurately, that what women (or men) find attractive can be generalized in any meaningful way.
You provide a list, and it's right in a sort of wishy-washy way. The shortest man I know was the first to get married to his long time sweet-heart, assertiveness, along with "masculine sexuality" is not any of the males in our group strong point (we're computer geeks).
Sure,
Whoops, I cut myself off.
Anyway, I am certain your list probably rates the top n things women find attractive, but the list could go on and on and on.
Anyway, you say I misread Roissy, but here's quote from a recent post. (And Ugh, I feel dirty just reading his site again)
"Then you need to toughen up and stop treating women as something other than the smelly, tawdry, mudcaked, vagina following, venal animals they are."
You can say Roissy has some valid points, but that's like saying Mussolini has some points about arranging commuting schedules.
Any valid point he might possibly have is utterly buried by his vile philosophy, and more to the point, When Roissy gets press around the blogs, what gets promulgated is not the subtleties of Game, but a vile misogyny that gets happily taken up by the bitter males.
Honestly, I really don't understand. Why on Earth anyone would want to have a relationship with someone who was only interested in people who didn't appear interested in her?
That sounds like someone who is still emotionally 14 years old, and I can't think of a better definiton of hell than a relationship with an immature 14 year old.
Now Game might well improve one's chances of one-night stands, but it sounds like exactly the wrong way to find someone who will spend a lifetime as your lover, your confidant and your best friend.
So, no, I don't disagree with you on the importance of sexual attraction, I do disagree with you on what women find attractive - or more accurately, that what women (or men) find attractive can be generalized in any meaningful way.
Women aren't only motivated by sexual attraction but it is a powerful motivant. I also imagine that you also know friends who loved a girl but got nothing back from her despite their friendship. No love grew out of those relationships. I'm afraid we really have reached an impasse when it comes to the generalisation issue.
Secondly, yes I agree with you that the brain is the biggest sexual organ.
You can say Roissy has some valid points, but that's like saying Mussolini has some points about arranging commuting schedules.
You're committing an intellectual error there. Mussolini may have had some valid points about timetabling even though he was a repulsive individual. Feminists commit the same type of error when they deny the validity of everything a man says simply because he is a man. The facts given are independent of the morality of the giver. I give a fair hearing to everyone, even my enemies, and ask myself is what they are say true or not? The fact that I don't personally like a man does not mean I ignore him when he yells "fire". Ignoring people what people say just because you don't like them is a sign of a closed mind.
I think Roissy is a morally flawed human being, his hyperbolic writing style does border on the nauseating but he still has some valid points. There are a lot of raisins mixed in with the turds at Roissy's. The intelligent observer's job is to sift through it.
Why on Earth anyone would want to have a relationship with someone who was only interested in people who didn't appear interested in her?
I ask as myself the same question repeatedly. Still I have seen enough of human nature to recognise that it is quite a common occurrence.
You are right also that it does display a degree of emotional immaturity and lack of self control, but these flaws are in such superabundance in women that they are the norm.
Not all woman are like this, and more importantly, they are the ones to find and marry.
Look if you find Roissy repulsive, try these guys out.
The man who is Thursday.
Hawaiian Libertarian
In Mala Fide.
Cheers.
You're committing an intellectual error there. Mussolini may have had some valid points about timetabling even though he was a repulsive individual.
Actually, that was the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make. Mussolini *did* make the trains run on time (for a while, anyway).
Implied was the fact that even if the individual had some isolated item in which they had something useful to say, you don't use them as a source, because by doing so, your reputation helps build their credibility for *everything* they stand for.
The fact that Tyler Cowan (a well known econo-blogger) has quoted Roissy, even though Tyler find Roissy contemptible, has given Roissy's misogyny enormous credibility among the presumably more intellectual readers. After all, if Roissy was *that* bad, Tyler wouldn't quote him.
What I don't understand is why so many choose to add their implicit endorsement to his "philosophy" by quoting him instead of the many others (as you've kindly pointed out) who espouse the same useful bits of information without the tripe that Roissy adds to it.
If I was doing a study of the 1920's banking systems, I couldn't quote Hitler (if he had anything factual to say) to support the idea of Jewish influence in the banking community without making some readers wonder if I was trying to implicitly excuse his later policies. And they'd be right. (Okay, I suppose profound ignorance of human nature would also qualify as an excuse).
Obviously Roissy's no Hitler, but then again, Roissy's philosophy is far more attractive to slightly embittered young men who might well be prone to adopting Roissy's "women are loathsome tramps" way of thinking.
Personally, I think Roissy is a pretty obvious sadist (he's not just a sociopath who ignores the pain he causes - just see how often he revels in the emotional pain he causes, often deliberately) with an enormous ego.
I have to admit I'm thankful that the demands of his ego that require that he be irresistible to women outweigh his desire to hurt them. Otherwise I think we'd be reading about him in the paper rather than on his blog.
but these flaws are in such superabundance in women that they are the norm.
Okay, I may have a slightly rosy colored view of the world, but 'the norm'? Are you certain that you aren't suffering from the policeman's ailment - the belief that 90% of the world is criminal because that's all you ever have exposure to in professional life?
Do you find the same superabundance in the women that you know outside of your professional practice?
Tom, sorry for taking so long to reply.
Are you certain that you aren't suffering from the policeman's ailment - the belief that 90% of the world is criminal because that's all you ever have exposure to in professional life?
No. I'm acutely aware of this phenomena, I try to believe the best in human beings, but they continue to disappoint.
Do you find the same superabundance in the women that you know outside of your professional practice?
Yes.
The fact that Tyler Cowan (a well known econo-blogger) has quoted Roissy, even though Tyler find Roissy contemptible, has given Roissy's misogyny enormous credibility among the presumably more intellectual readers. After all, if Roissy was *that* bad, Tyler wouldn't quote him.
Disagreeable people should be debated and not ignored. Sometimes they speak the truth. The task of the listener is to listen critically. My references to Roissy always come with boxed warnings. The American military thinkers were able to learn form Nazi's military theory without absorbing their ideology.
Yes
Wow. I'm beginning to think that me, my neighbours, and my friends are *incredibly* lucky.
Disagreeable people should be debated and not ignored.
I sort of agree. But two things: my objection is that Roissy mostly gets quoted as "he has a point" or "he speaks a truth", although often couched within "his philosophy is contemptible".
Unfortunately, I think in many people's minds, the explicit endorsement of some of his beliefs slides into an implicit (in the minds of the readers) endorsement of the rest of his beliefs.
It's unfortunate human nature, but I think it behooves blog owners to be aware of the results of their posts.
It's why we don't talk about how evil person X was nice to their wife and small animals. We understand this transforms into "X wasn't so bad".
The task of the listener is to listen critically.
Agreed, but when I see Roissy's philosophy (not his observations about game, but the whole package) being embraced all over (mostly by commenters rather than posters), I worry that his philosophy is too psychologically attractive to a not-so-small segment of embittered males.
Obviously this is not good for the people around those males, but worse, I think Roissy's philosophy is deeply personally destructive to anyone who's *not* a sociopath.
The American military thinkers were able to learn form Nazi's military theory without absorbing their ideology.
Agreed, but I don't think Nazism had anything attractive to those generals. I'd be a lot more leery about touting the 'non-abominable' aspect of Nazism to disenfranchised skin-heads.
As an aside, I think the thing that most bothers me about 'Game' is the implicit assumption that your partner/spouse can never be your best friend. There's always that distance because you can never be fully open.
As well, respect is, in my opinion, an *absolute* requirement for a successful marriage. (Ive' never seen a marriage truly survive for more than a few years (a few have survived in name only) when I detected a lack of respect in one partner for another.
'Game's' fundamental assumptions prevent that respect. Can one really respect someone that you have to essentially game into wanting you?
Thus to me, 'Game' seems designed to put people into relationships that seem almost designed to fail.
Sorry, but what I have seen work is exactly the opposite - real friendships based on common interested and mutual respect that over months or years blossom into love.
Of course many of the gamers seem only to be interested in 'hot babes' in makeup and sexy clothing rather than enduring common interests, so maybe there's no possibility of them ever finding a real relationship anyway.
Still, I think a sizable number who could find real love get pulled along for the ride, and thus unwittingly doom their chances of happiness forever. That's why I despise 'game'.
Unfortunately, I think in many people's minds, the explicit endorsement of some of his beliefs slides into an implicit (in the minds of the readers) endorsement of the rest of his beliefs.
I don't mean to be rude but this is a phenomena that seems a real Anglo-culture trait. If the messenger says something you don't like you dismiss the message. European thinkers tend to be more nuanced about these sort of things, being able to seperate the shit from the clay.
Roissy is being embraced by a lot of guys because a lot guys are seriously flawed individuals. They're not interested in love, just sex and Roissy's is a man after his own heart.
A lot of guys aren't interested in any sort of meaningful relationship with a woman, all they are interested in is sex. A lot of men are frustrated hedonists, Roissy is a fellow traveler who has found the way to live the life he wants. Everyone want's to know.
Roissy is a hedonist who has game, While Dave from Hawaii is a Christian who has game. Game is not about manipulating women, game is about understanding women. Men who understand women can manipulate them if they so chose to But does a man manipulate his wife by dressing well and not being fat, something gamesters will tell you all women like?
Game is not the manipulation of women, game is the knowledge of women, knowledge which you can use to deepen love and friendship.
Post a Comment