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 sex...it'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.