Limits of "Game"

10 posts

Bronze Age Pervert

To be fair, the defenders of "game" like Roissy don't claim that it's a cure-all, and that it can get any guy a 9 on a regular basis, simply by talking your way into her. They do say that it can prevent long dry-spells, that it can slightly improve your chances with girl quality (let's say if you're a 5 or 6, then without game you may get 3 or 4's, but with game you'd get 6 or 7's and the occasional 8) and so on. I have no problem with this, it sounds reasonable. It's also reasonable to say that not having "game," i.e., being inept and acting like a needy little girl, etc., means you shoot yourself in the foot, at least most of the time (sometimes girls don't care; for very handsome men, they don't care...that's sort of my point here).

But my problem is with the claims they make about female nature. A lot of it is taken from F. Roger Devlin, and also from Schopenhauer, and I totally agree with both, but in Roissy and others many elements from the original are dropped, and other aspects are overemphasized. So it is true that women like power and by extension, it's also true that asserting the image of power, i.e., "psychosexual dominance," can be a turn-on for women. But this only goes so far. Roissy and etc. make a mistake when they claim women are not attracted to looks, or that game trumps looks:

This is wishful thinking, maybe not as much as white-knighters and other nature-denialists engage in, but it's still wishful thinking. It's putting too much faith in the spiritual nature of women to believe the idea women aren't actually into cheap rough sex with handsome, muscular young men, but that all this can be trumped by "psychosexual dominance," i.e., social word games and talking yourself into sex with them. At least from my own observations--but also from Schopenhauer, etc.--this is not true. Roissy will actually erase comments on his site that emphasize this element of female nature and justify it by calling it "feminist." I've seen many occasions when all it took was a man who fit that profile, and it was enough to get hot women wet and interested; and where by contrast witty men with "alpha" demeanor, while not doing poorly, didn't have anywhere near the success rate, and had to spend a lot more time talking, etc., than a guy who simply fit a coarse standard of sexual fitness; again this is mostly about what female nature is, I have no doubt that game can improve some aspects of success with women, but to go from this to saying that what women actually care about is "psychosexual dominance," as opposed to biological power, is false I think. It's at most a substitute, and not a very good one at that. I'm not completely sure about this, it's possible my mind is clouded by bronze age perversity and fantasies of orgies; please correct me if I'm getting it wrong.

Anyway, I'm basing this on many observations from real life, and from reading misogynist literature, but I also made a little experiment recently. I made a fake Okcupid profile with my Brazilian friend's pictures. He has biological power...he is muscular, tan, has tattoos, etc.; i advertised myself as MMA fighter. I advertised openly that I'm looking for casual sex, which is supposedly a big turn-off to women...especially on OKcupid which is not a sex site, and most women even filter out messages from men who list casual sex in what they're looking for. I did this so I could see how many middle-class nice girls who are supposedly not interested in this and are only turned on by "game" or (as they imagine) by romance or "dating," would respond. I put no effort to appear interesting or witty or play games: I wrote them very basic message: "hey...ure cute" ..that's it. So far out of 16 messages sent I have 4 writing me back in just 2 days, and they're all good-looking girls. One of them even had a filter to block messages from men looking for "casual sex." That's a 25% rate of response so far, and I went out of my way to show I'm only interested in fucking, on a site that's not geared to this at all. By contrast I've talked to a friend of mine with "game," and who probably fits the Roissy definition of someone with game (and he's not bad-looking at all either, he makes a lot of money, is a rock climber, etc.) and he gets like 1 in 20 replies at most although he has all the elements that Roissy et al recommend. "Game" may work when it rids of you certain bad habits, but as a means to understanding female nature it's a fraud I think, another soothing delusion about women. It is connected to the delusion they have that women have a lower sex drive: whereas, in ancient Greek literature and myth it is just naturally assumed that women are far more sexually desirous, that they are "fuck-crazy" and have an insatiable appetite. For an explanation of popular ancient Greek views on love and sex, read Bruce Thornton's Eros.

As far as practical matters go, I'm not sure, because there are older men who claim to do well with women and to keep them faithful through "game" and taming techniques. I'm skeptical that women can remain faithful, even the ones who appear to be; the resourcefulness they have in cheating is really remarkable, and they can lie about it without a conscience. I believe one can't really be sure even in the cases where they appear most faithful or in love. But supposing they can, I think actually that "game" can make long-term relations better, but that for easy sex being young, muscular, handsome, etc., is far more important to women, and that they are willing to cheat with such men even when otherwise engaged in a long-term relationship with a guy that has "game." Again, I'm trying to understand female nature here, not as such what gets's also possible that a hipster or intellectual or such, like Roissy, can have amazing success with women and bed girls right and left with "game," but I'm talking about averages and about the general orientation of female desires as such. When Roissy and the "game" defenders deny that, I think they are, against intentions, covering up a very dark aspect of women. The reason for this is simple...if I'm right, and if the ancient Greeks are right regarding the absolutely insatiable ravenous desire of women, then the only real cure is an assertion of patriarchy, by violence. This is something "game" advocates don't encourage, though they may be sympathetic to it.

Niccolo and Donkey
Niccolo and Donkey
I try to be strongly against this. It gets harder with time.

I tend to agree with Il Bapo on this. No one will convince me that a high verbal intelligence person like diapers-wearing, meth-inhaling human obesest walrus Jake Featherweight can get more girls than a feminist, emo ripped brazilian mulatto. This is simple fucking arithmetics.

Good post. Once you boil away all the obvious but impolite observations of female nature from 'game' -- observations which are hardly surprising, e.g. that women are attracted to dominance and charisma, that women can cheat, etc -- you're left with what is essentially a self-help philosophy marketed to sexual undesirables. As with most self-help, there's a great deal of wishful thinking. We're supposed to believe that with game, any guy can fuck supermodels, even if he's a crater-faced hambeast who plays Xbox in his parents' basement for a living. Then there is the reality that these game authors are making money off of these lonely saps and so, out of concern for their pocketbooks, they have to promise that game 'works', that it doesn't matter what nature gave you, that the fatum of biology has no bearing on your success with women. It's bullshit, of course. As with running, weightlifting, or studying for the SAT, training can only take you so far; your genetic potential to succeed in these areas is more or less fixed. That's not to say that game can't improve your chances, but it won't achieve the turnaround successes touted by Roissy and his ilk. In the end this is just another instance of nature denialism.

I'd also like to point out that I agree with BAP that women don't have lower sex drives. They are simply choosier, A. because eggs are biologically more valuable than sperm, a point Roissy himself makes, B. because women produce oxytocin (a chemical responsible for emotional bonding) in much higher amounts than men after sex meaning women invest more after sex, and C. because getting pregnant by an unfit partner is a huge drag, in both personal and evolutionary terms. To some degree I think women have a less autonomous sex drive than men -- that is, they need an attractive man around to turn them on, whereas guys go around more or less turned on by default -- but this is obviously different from saying that they have a low sex drive. Women are probably hornier for the right man then men are for the right woman, it's just that the circumstances of attraction are different.
Bob Dylan Roof
nuclear launch detected

If I recall correctly Roissy is some 40+ year old childless bachelor who works as a entry level bureaucrat in DC. The guy is a loser.

Team Zissou

I didn't read that entry. Maybe a more correct statement would be that looks can't make up for a lack of Game.

Beautiful Ganymede

I stopped reading Roissy's blog when he began saying that "game" trumps looks (that, and when he mindlessly began attacking libertarians. Like what was that about, especially considering that his philosophy of nihilistic hedonism closely accords with some forms of libertarian political thinking?). I mean, I could see that "game" may help some really shy and desperate guys get a foot in the door when it comes to dealing with the opposite sex. But that game trumps looks? Who is this guy trying to kid? He sounds more like an itinerant nineteenth century snake oil salesman who uses hyperbole to cover up the obviously contemptible nature of the product he wishes to market, which is essentially what every seduction guru is. Listen, game can't trump looks. Not only does it preposterously suggest that women possess no sex drive, and are essentially sexually frigid and anorgasmic beings, but it also smacks of the blank slate denialism Roissy always passionately rails against on his blog. If I take some acne-covered fat ass and send him to a Roissy-style seduction boot camp for a year or two and then give him free money to go out every night to pick up HB9's and 10's, well guess what? He's not coming back with anything, except his right hand and maybe a black eye for stepping on some alpha male's turf. At best, he might manage to pick up some fat ass (let's say an HB3? a 2 perhaps?), even larger and more repulsive than he is, but with all that free cash, why not just go pay a whore instead?