In Which I Recruit Paul’s Readers To My PUA Death Cult (Paul Elam Debate, Part 1)

by Frost on November 1, 2011

First, a disclaimer.

I strongly recommend that Paul’s more sensitive and impressionable readers click away, and far away, from this post. I’m about to lure you into the secret cult of pick-up artistry, pussy-begging, and pedestalizing. If you resist, beware: I have shaming language, and I’m not afraid to use it. Continue reading, if you dare, but don’t be surprised if you black out and wake up next to a paid-in-full copy of my $599 DVD set.

Still here? I guess you’re feeling lucky. Good. Me too.

You can find links to the exchange that led to this debate here. But most of you are already familiar with the terms: Age and Guile Vs. Youth, Innocence, and bad graphic design, on the subject of Game and Men’s Rights.

Note that this is not a debate between Game and the MRM. At least, not for me. I am a fan of both. If Paul and I were to chat about family law, false rape accusations, anti-masculine biases in our media and pop culture, and the wisdom of marriage for 21st century Western men, I’m sure we would find much to agree upon.

The real question du jour, is thus: What is the relationship, if any, between Game and the MRM? I believe they make fine bedfellows. Paul however, seems intent on offering some token last-minute resistance, which I’d like to overcome.

Let’s start by asking: What is Game? The meaning of the word remains unclear, even among this small and incestuous corner of the blogosphere, so let’s lock down a specific definition:

Game is the study of how women respond to men’s behaviour.

I predict that many AVFM reader will take issue with such a broad definition. Game, to them, must include shiny clothes, effeminate mannerisms, hoop-jumping, and whatever other behaviours that they would like to associate with we ‘Gamers’.

But I ask: If you quarrel with this definition, why? Neither I, nor Roissy, Roosh, Dagonet, Assanova, Gmac, Danger and Play, Badger,  Private Man, or FFY are committed to any specific ‘school’ of Game. We’re just a community of men, sharing what we know about women and relationships. Whatever your mental stereotype of a ‘Gamer’ is, I guarantee that at least one of the men on that list doesn’t fit it. We learn from each other, we experiment for ourselves, and we use whatever helps us achieve our goals with women, discarding the rest. Precisely what those goals are varies across men – some are only interested in one night stands, some are seeking one good, trustworthy woman to make a wife out of, and most fall somewhere in the middle of those extremes.

The bottom line is that Game is a tool men can use to increase their success with women. No more, no less. If a man chooses to eschew sex for life, I admit he will have no use for Game. Otherwise, he would be a fool to dismiss the idea of thinking critically about his interactions with women.

There are two possible reasons why Paul and other MRAs might disapprove of Game.

1) You think that our specific teachings are flawed.

This is the basic point Paul is making in his original Chateau Bullshit post:

“O.K., so you want to get laid? Here’s how you do it. Smell clean, get in the proximity of women, and then ignore them. When they come to fuck you, and they will, shut up and let it happen.

Sorry, but there is little else to it. Women are wired to respond to men who walk with enough self-confidence and involvement in their own lives that they don’t need to invest any energy into bagging girls. They attract women naturally.”

In other words, there is no need for men to read Roissy et al. Having relationships with top-tier women is so easy that the only thing a man (any man!) must do is shower, and he will be irresistible.

Now, for all I know, Paul Elam really is such an insanely attractive man that he is honestly relating his personal experience to us in those words. Perhaps he really can consistently sleep with extremely high-quality women, merely by sidling up to them and radiating Paul-ness.

If so Paul, you’re a lucky dog. If you ever roll out a DVD set, seminar, or coaching sessions, I’ll be first in line.

But until then, I have to remind you: Your personal experience as an unstoppable force of sexual energy is not indicative of the challenges that mere ordinary men face, if they want to have the same good fortune you do. Don’t believe me? Head to a night club. Wait by the door and count the men as they leave, frustrated and alone. Or, create a fake female online dating profile. Watch as the messages from desperate, lonely men pour into your inbox.

I do quite well for myself with women, better than 95% of men in my generation I’d wager, and I still have to do quite a bit more than shower, if I want to consistently sleep with the kind of women I want. Sad, I know.

Maybe I’ll never convince Paul that most men have to work for our food, since he apparently does not. But those of you in our live studio audience have seen reality, and you know which of Paul or I has a firmer grasp on it. The ‘cult’ of Game does not have all the answers for you, but we can at least offer you better than “go take a shower.”

Of course, not everyone is interested in self-improvement. Which brings us to our next possible objection:

2) You object to the general idea of improving your relationships with women

All this talk about ‘just take a shower’  being the sum total of advice a man needs with regard to women, is a bit silly. I don’t think Paul actually believes that the legions of young men who are not meeting women, not getting laid, and not having fulfilling relationships with women, just need a bucket of warm soapy water to achieve their wildest penthouse-letters-esque fantasies.

Deep down, Paul realizes that consistently sleeping with attractive women is something that almost all men want to do, and only a small number of men actually do. If it were easy, you’d all be out doing it right now.

One of the human brain’s favourite hobbies is self-deception. If we can’t have something, we rationalize that we didn’t want it anyways. We avoid starting an exercise program, so we can eliminate the risk of failing. We don’t talk to that pretty girl, so we can tell ourselves later that maybe we could have slept with her, if only we’d tried.

It’s easy to make excuses to avoid going after the things we want in life, and easier still when someone else offers to make the excuses for us. Personally, I’m wary of any belief system that seems to give me an easy way to justify taking the easy road. Especially when that belief system makes multiple demonstratably false and often contradictory assumptions:

– Game is demeaning to you, as a man!

– Game is worthless and unnecessary! Just take a shower!

– Game is all about jumping through hoops, eating shit, and acting like a pussy!

– Gamers are frauds!

– There is no overlap between Game and MRA! Gamers are wholly unconcerned with the MRM!

If necessary, I will thoroughly debunk the first four claims in the comments of this post. Here on the main stage though, to give Paul some ammunition for round #2, I will close by making a few points with regard to the last:

– The people you call “Gamers” are simply those who understand socio-biology and gender politics, and have chosen to use that understanding to improve their personal lives

– Game is the Men’s Rights Movement’s most powerful weapon in the battle against feminism

– Roissy has done more to empower 21st century men than A Voice For Men by an order of magnitude. Show a little respect.

{ 101 comments… read them below or add one }

Harry November 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm

*…o.k, you don’t believe game works. I’d call this a stalemate. I don’t think I could change your mind on this matter and you are entitled to your own opinion….*

Whether game works or not was a side issue. The point under discussion all along was whether it was degrading EVEN if it works.

Interestingly, you JUST before conceded that game cannot work because women have awesome intuition.

But no matter, that was never really the issue.

*……There are plenty who can speak for the virtue of game and how it has changed their lives for the better….*

It might have helped them by getting them to approach, but it hurts them infinitely more by crippling their confidence and making them utterly degrade themselves.

And that has always been the discussion – not *does game work*? But rather *is game degrading EVEN if it works*?

It is.

All the best.

Peter Phoenix November 3, 2011 at 7:02 am

*…Which is why game comes off as pathetic and does not work….*

Ok, you don’t believe game works. I’d call this a stalemate. I don’t think I could change your mind on this matter and you are entitled to your own opinion.

There are plenty who can speak for the virtue of game and how it has changed their lives for the better.

All the best.

Peter Phoenix November 3, 2011 at 2:44 am

*….2) Making her (maybe) notice that others (not me, surrounding people) think she is a social retard by overreacting to a normal approach….*

In that moment, it is just you and her interacting. Any people watching will quickly forget what happened and move on with her day. They have better things to do. Her friends will not judge her for being bitchy, because it has already happened a hundred times before. She’ll find ways to rationalize you ending your interaction with her.

*…talk to women, but you just talk to them like you would a man….*

Why would you talk to a woman like you do a man?? They are not the same.

*….If you are using game you are not approaching in an honest, straightforward manner. You are contradicting yourself….*

Do you think all Game is about telling silly little routines, wearing tophats and negging?

Do you think that I try to be someone I’m not in order to get laid? Women are extremely intuitive and can tell quite quickly when you’re being fake.

*…Confidence means doing your own thing whether others like it or not….*

Um……

con·fi·dence – The feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something

In part, Game is a roadmap to improving your social abilities. Within my values, I desired to be more social with people (a noble goal?) so I sought information on how to do so. Game provided the most viable option.

*….Once men grasp that there is nothing to work on, that they should talk to girls like they talk to their male buddies, they will be freed from a limiting belief….*

Talking to girls is nothing like talking to guys. If it was this easy all men would be getting laid. Talking to girls takes practice. Just like public speaking. You get better at it over time with experience. Game is a roadmap to guide that practice.

Harry November 3, 2011 at 3:40 am

*…..In that moment, it is just you and her interacting. Any people watching will quickly forget what happened and move on with her day. They have better things to do. Her friends will not judge her for being bitchy, because it has already happened a hundred times before. She’ll find ways to rationalize you ending your interaction with her….*

Possibly. It is still better than the alternative of rewarding her.

*…..Why would you talk to a woman like you do a man?? They are not the same….*

They are not the same as men, but they have the same relation to you until you have a romantic relationship with them. Even then, the only difference is sexual and romantic intimacy. There is no *special* way to talk to them. You talk to them like a man, and if it becomes romantic, you add a romantic dimension.

Either way, if by *learning to talk to women* you mean *learning to talk to them in a way that makes them like you*, then you are stunted by a limiting belief.

*…..Do you think all Game is about telling silly little routines, wearing tophats and negging?…*

Nope.

*……Do you think that I try to be someone I’m not in order to get laid? Women are extremely intuitive and can tell quite quickly when you’re being fake….*

If you are not, then you are not doing *game*. I agree women are intuitive about that. So are men. Which is why game comes off as pathetic and does not work.

*…..on·fi·dence – The feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something…*

Indeed. Confidence in YOURSELF means that you rely on your own judgement of value, rather than the judgement of others regarding you. Which means doing your own thing whether others like it or not.

You have illustrated this point quite well.

*….In part, Game is a roadmap to improving your social abilities….*

If by *improve* you mean learning to make others like you, then I disagree this is an improvement. It is at the expense of self-respect.

*…..Within my values, I desired to be more social with people (a noble goal?)….*

Neither noble nor not. I am also an intensely social person. Its a pleasure.

*…….so I sought information on how to do so. Game provided the most viable option….*

You started from the false premise that there is a special way to do so. Simply be social. If you mean by *information on how to do so*, *information on how to be liked*, then that is a goal not compatible with self-respect.

donlak November 2, 2011 at 10:07 pm

You must have a different opinion of bitchiness than I do. A bitch tells you to f off, tuns your back on you if you try and talk to her, wont allow an interaction get past hello. Genuinly acts like a cunt. Some girls shit test like this, but when a girl does this it just invokes a cocky grin on me… why do I need to retreat? THAT’s spineless, I’m in my spcace, not hers… but you don’t think so because you think walking away has any effect on her, when it doesn’t, you’re just another dude that’s come up to were with the same intent. Tell me? How would you act if you have been hit on 100’s times a day, I have been hit on quite a bit in my life, sometimes it gets annoying. How do YOU expect them to be? Should they be gratious and courteous to every single douchebag that comes at them? Should you as possibly the 100th guy to approach her deserve a courteous reaction? Have you witnessed the crap girls go through in a day?

Just because you lack the understanding and empathy from where women are coming from doesn’t justify your opinion. Should a girl act bitchy to a man that’s approaching her politely? No, but would you if you were constantly being bugged all day? At some point you’d get used to how to get rid of people you don’t want, and I will tell you, I’ve done the same thing to fat chicks approaching me, because I wanted to end the conversation quickly. I acted bitchy. A shit test leaves something open for you to circumvent, it’s still an opening, being bitchy is shutting you down right away with no chance.

I don’t think you really understand women at all, to be honest, of course, we all want them to behave in a certain manner, but trust me, walking away from them when they give you one shit test, isn’t gonna change them.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 10:44 pm

*….ome girls shit test like this, but when a girl does this it just invokes a cocky grin on me…*

If you do the cocky grin in order to SHOW her that you are unaffected by her, that is pretty pathetic. Why do you need to PROVE anything to her?

*…….why do I need to retreat? THAT’s spineless, I’m in my spcace, not hers….*

You do not have to retreat. You have to break off the interaction.

*……but you don’t think so because you think walking away has any effect on her, when it doesn’t, you’re just another dude that’s come up to were with the same intent…..*

When I say *walk away* I simply mean break off the interaction. Stop engaging her. I do not mean literally walk away. For all I care you can stay in that space. Thats fine.

*…..Tell me? How would you act if you have been hit on 100′s times a day, I have been hit on quite a bit in my life, sometimes it gets annoying. How do YOU expect them to be? Should they be gratious and courteous to every single douchebag that comes at them? Should you as possibly the 100th guy to approach her deserve a courteous reaction? Have you witnessed the crap girls go through in a day?…*

Why is her predicament more important than my predicament? As a man, I am the one doing the approaching. She gets approached by 100 guys per day? Well *I* (the man) have to approach 100 girls per day.

Sure, its annoying to be approached by 100 guys. Its also annoying to have to always be the one approaching.

The male predicament is much more challenging – we have to take all the risk of approaching, what does she do? Sit there passively and be approached.

BOTH sexes should be sensitive to the predicament of the other. Girls should realize that guys have the burden of doing all the approaching, and as long as they are polite they should be polite in return.

Guys should realize that girls get approached a lot, and so should approach in a polite, non-pushy way.

By showing sympathy for the female predicament but not the male, you put women ABOVE men. Why do you do that?

BOTH sexes have unique burdens and challenges. NEITHER is justified being bitchy to the other.

Further, none of that speaks to the question of what I must do for MY self-respect. If someone disrespects me, I do not stick around to *prove* to them I am *cool*. Needing to prove to others I am *cool* is not compatible with self-respect.

If they made a judgement of me and rejected me, I do not try to change their minds. That is supplication.

In MANY situations where girls are bitchy, however, there are NO mitigating factors.

Either way, if some disrespects me, I do not continue to engage them to *prove* to them I am worthy of their respect. WHATEVER her reason for disrespecting me.

*…..Should they be gratious and courteous to every single douchebag that comes at them?…*

No. The should be polite to the polite men who approach them and bitchy to the douchebags.

*….. Should you as possibly the 100th guy to approach her deserve a courteous reaction? …*

Yes, if I am polite. ESPECIALLY in bars and clubs where she should expect to be approached. If the burden is on the man to do all the approaching, the burden is on the woman to politely reject.

*…… At some point you’d get used to how to get rid of people you don’t want, and I will tell you, I’ve done the same thing to fat chicks approaching me, because I wanted to end the conversation quickly. I acted bitchy…..*

If she approached you politely and you were a bitchy, then that was pretty mean of you. If the fat chick stuck around, that was degrading for her.

*… A shit test leaves something open for you to circumvent, it’s still an opening, being bitchy is shutting you down right away with no chance….*

If someone puts an obstacle in the path of me getting to know to them, it is not my job to overcome their obstacles. That is not self-respecting.

*…..I don’t think you really understand women at all, to be honest….*

Why are you making excuses for women treating you in a shitty way? Why is you being sensitive to her predicament more important than her being sensitive to your predicament?

*…..but trust me, walking away from them when they give you one shit test, isn’t gonna change them….*

I do not wish to change them. I wish to act in accordance with my self-respect.

Peter Phoenix November 3, 2011 at 1:24 am

*….It is about letting others see she is a social retard…..*
vs.
*…I do not wish to change them. I wish to act in accordance with my self-respect….*
You seem concerned that ending the interaction with a girl will somehow humiliate her socially. You do not wish to change them yourself with words, but hope that you not talking to them will somehow serve them a lesson by removing your attention as a stimulus in order to correct behaviour. Honestly, they don’t really care. They get approached by guys just like you all the time.

*…They should be polite to the polite men who approach them and bitchy to the douchebags….*

Do you have pre-defined expectations of this being how women should act?
Girls will choose douchebags over polite guys hand over foot. Girls don’t like douchebags that much, but they have confidence and are self-assured. Polite guys are more likely to be supplicating pushovers (but not always). Girls don’t have time to listen to the approach of every single guy (they get hundreds), so they have to screen quickly for attractive traits. Sad truth.

*…Yes, if I am polite. ESPECIALLY in bars and clubs where she should expect to be approached. If the burden is on the man to do all the approaching, the burden is on the woman to politely reject….*

The funny thing about the burden of approaching for men, is that we get to approach all the girls we would like to have sex with. For women, they have to ward off the unwanted advances of creepy, un-attractive, sleazy and impolite men. By the time you get around to talking to them, they have already had their share of shit for the night, and a girl that would normally indulge your polite approach during the day, will not be interested in talking to you in a nightclub.

And honestly, I approach women in the same honest, straightforward manner that you do. I just use game to improve that approach. Is it wrong to seek advice on how to approach women?

What confuses me the most is your Game = Sacrifice of All Self-Respect mentality. I don’t feel like I’ve sacrificed any of my personal values for game. Game has made me more confident, social, dominant and charismatic.
Most guys don’t know how to talk to women, so they ask for help. Finding your values and building self-respect can be part of that. But most want to work on the talking to girls part too.

Harry November 3, 2011 at 2:03 am

*….ou seem concerned that ending the interaction with a girl will somehow humiliate her socially. You do not wish to change them yourself with words, but hope that you not talking to them will somehow serve them a lesson by removing your attention as a stimulus in order to correct behaviour. Honestly, they don’t really care. They get approached by guys just like you all the time….*

Not quite what I am saying. I am saying that if I approach her in a normal, polite fashion, and she is bitchy, she will come off as an overreacting social retard. I am further saying that if she is bitchy and I persist, I am validating her sense of her own fabulousness.

I get that she does not care if she ends up with me or not. I am not suggesting I am punishing her by depriving her of the chance of hooking up with me.

I am 1) Merely avoiding rewarding her by making her think she is so fabulous guys will run after her even if she is bitchy to them, and 2) Making her (maybe) notice that others (not me, surrounding people) think she is a social retard by overreacting to a normal approach.

You dont think this will *work*? Maybe it will, maybe it will not. But it is vastly superior to the alternative of positively rewarding her by learning to give her what she wants.

And since non-feminist countries and the pre-feminist West had to deal with bitch shields much less, there is strong evidence that guys simply not putting up with it DOES work, over time.

However, my primary concern is not with what *works*. It is with what is necessary for my self-respect.

*……Do you have pre-defined expectations of this being how women should act?
Girls will choose douchebags over polite guys hand over foot. Girls don’t like douchebags that much, but they have confidence and are self-assured……*

Someone argued that I should be sympathetic to female bitch shields because they get approached by hundreds of *douchebags* a day and this irritates them. Now you are telling me these approaches are desirable? The entire point of the other commenter I was responding to was that such approaches are undesirable so women have a right to be annoyed.

I was responding to THAT.

*…..Polite guys are more likely to be supplicating pushovers (but not always)….*

As you correctly note, there is no necessary connection between politeness and being a pushover. But that is beside the point. The point is that I was responding to someone who said that I should be sympathetic to female bitch shields because they get approached by hundreds of douchebags a day and this irritates them .

*….Girls don’t have time to listen to the approach of every single guy (they get hundreds), so they have to screen quickly for attractive traits. Sad truth…..*

*……The funny thing about the burden of approaching for men, is that we get to approach all the girls we would like to have sex with. For women, they have to ward off the unwanted advances of creepy, un-attractive, sleazy and impolite men. By the time you get around to talking to them, they have already had their share of shit for the night, and a girl that would normally indulge your polite approach during the day, will not be interested in talking to you in a nightclub…..*

True. But men have to take all the risk of rejections. Women have to deal with creepy guys who approach them. As I said, BOTH sexes have their burdens. The burden of women is no greater than that of men.

I have no problem with women not being interested in me, I have a problem in them being bitchy to me when I approach them politely.

I have no problem with girls screening, even quickly, as I have said. I have a problem with girls rejecting men in a bitchy fashion. I have been to plenty of countries where most girls are polite in their rejections so long as YOU approach them politely.

Further, my main point is not about why girls do what they do, but about whether it is self-respecting to keep talking to a girl who has just disrespected me. It is not.

*……and honestly, I approach women in the same honest, straightforward manner that you do. I just use game to improve that approach…..*

If you are using game you are not approaching in an honest, straightforward manner. You are contradicting yourself.

*……Is it wrong to seek advice on how to approach women?…*

Not at all. It is merely wrong to seek advice on how to select your behavior based on its appeal to women rather than on it representing your values. I myself offer advice on how to approach women – do so without the intention of *making* them like you. Approach merely to *find* those that already like you.

*……What confuses me the most is your Game = Sacrifice of All Self-Respect mentality. I don’t feel like I’ve sacrificed any of my personal values for game. Game has made me more confident, social, dominant and charismatic…..*

Game tells you to tailor your behavior to what others like. Confidence means doing your own thing whether others like it or not.

By DEFINITION, game cannot have made you more *confident*. Game might have made you *feel good* in ways you cannot explain – say by making you feel you are improving even though you are not – but it has not made you more *confident*, when the very definition of confidence is incompatible with trying to be liked (game).

Its a definition-level contradiction.

If you came from a place of extremely low confidence, game might have made you approach tons of people and feel more comfortable around people in general as a result, but only measured against the extremely low level of confidence you had before.

In other words, game has a confidence raising message – go talk to people and you will eventually be more comfortable around them – mixed in with a low confidence central message – try to be liked.

Once you have extracted all the benefit you can from the confidence raising message, you will begin to be affected by the 95% that is the low confidence message, and your progress will be stunted.

Thats why many say game is 95% crap with 5% good. The 5% good is merely the message to go and talk to girls.

Obvious, it is possible to get that 5% good – the message that you need to talk to people to get comfortable around them – without game.

*……..Most guys don’t know how to talk to women, so they ask for help…..*

The problem is most guys assume there is a *special* way to talk to women. It is this false assumption that is the source of their belief that they dont know how to talk to women. Once they understand that there is no special way to talk to women, but you just talk to them like you would a man, they grow in confidence with women exponentially.

*…..Finding your values and building self-respect can be part of that…*

Finding your values is relevant to talking to girls only in the sense that you should hide them to be liked by girls. Otherwise having values is not about getting women. It is its own reward.

*…..But most want to work on the talking to girls part too….*

Once men grasp that there is nothing to *work* on, that they should talk to girls like they talk to their male buddies, they will be freed from a *limiting belief*.

donlak November 2, 2011 at 9:04 pm

she’s not gonna be concerned with shooting you down, or having you walk away, have you approached women before? fail at rebuttal dude. She’s at zero sum, there’s gonna be 10 more guys that approach her after you. But rationalize away if you want.

You crafted those comments? I thought you just copy and pasted them. you haven’t said anything different. No matter what I say, it’s always not wanting to play by the girls rules, you just don’t get that it takes two to tango bub. And being a bitch is not a shit test, it’s her being a bitch, no one here would tell you to stick around if a girl is acting like a bitch. I don’t. But shit tests are social feelers, guys shit test too, guys tease me as well as girls, they say things against my values, I don’t walk away from them when they do, because they’re opinions of me have little weight to how I view myself. again, like I said before, I think you are projecting something you beleive, which is different from what we tell, teach, and explain.

But it’s not like you’ll listen. I respect that you have your views, the only thing i was saying before, which I’m happy you stopped, is that our values are different, and that you aren’t calling people here spineless anymore. So I respect your views, I really do, but they aren’t my views.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 9:33 pm

*……she’s not gonna be concerned with shooting you down, or having you walk away…*

Let us assume you are 100% correct. Let us assume I utterly concede your point.

The question of how she responds is not relevant to the question of what I must do for my self-respect.

If someone acts like a bitch to me, and I respond by changing my behavior to prove to them I am *worthy* of them, I have forfeited my self-respect.

Not everything is measured in its impact on OTHERS.

*…..And being a bitch is not a shit test, it’s her being a bitch, no one here would tell you to stick around if a girl is acting like a bitch. ….*

Define a shit test if it is not a girl saying or implying, through action or words, something insulting or belittling about you. I thought according to gamers the POINT of a shit test was for the girl to see how you respond to something belittling, so she can see you are a *real man*. Correct me if I am wrong.

*…..But shit tests are social feelers, guys shit test too, guys tease me as well as girls….*

A social feeler does not justify bitchiness. Polite teasing is not a shit test.

*…… they say things against my values, I don’t walk away from them when they do,…*

Neither do I, nor do I advise others to.

*……because they’re opinions of me have little weight to how I view myself. …*

Excellent, thats the attitude you want to have. Its also why I do not automatically walk away when someone says something against my values. I DO walk away when someone is insulting or belittling to me, though.

*….I respect that you have your views, the only thing i was saying before, which I’m happy you stopped, is that our values are different, and that you aren’t calling people here spineless anymore. So I respect your views, I really do, but they aren’t my views….*

I respect YOU as a fellow human being, but I do not respect your views at all, from what I have seen of them. I have not called ANYONE her spineless. I have called BEHAVIORS that people have suggested spineless.

And I STILL call them spineless. Because they are.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 8:42 pm

*…..I get it, but you aren’t punishing anyone who doesn’t want something, by not giving them what they don’t want….*

True. That is why I propose punishing women by denying them 2 things they want; social validation, and the validation that comes from continued male attention.

The punishment consistsof other people noticing her social retardation when she responds in a bitchy manner to a man who approaches her in a normal manner.

I further said that a woman feels more validated by a man who continues to pursue her even after she has been a bitch to him (because she is just so fabulous), and that if a man refuses to continue to pursue her he denies her this validation.

Nowhere did I say the punishment consist of denying her your presence.

Please read what and craft your response based on what I said.

*…..ike telling a child he can’t have a cookie when he didnt want it in the first place….*

I made clear it is not about denying her the cookie she does not want (you). It is about denying her the cookie she does want.

It is about letting others see she is a social retard. And it is about denying her the validation she would get out of a man pursuing her even after she has been a bitch to him, cementing her belief in her utter fabulousness.

Please read what and craft your response based on what I said

*…….remember we’re going off you approaching a girl, you’ve already made that investment……*

If I approach with *game* then I have indeed made an investment and would feel foolish if I got rejected.

If I approach merely to SEE if she likes without trying to MAKE her like me, I have made absolutely zero investment in her, and a rejection does not make feel foolish.

*…. then you throw it away because she said something stupid, like girls aren’t allowed to say something stupid…..*

Not because she says something stupid. Because she was a BITCH to me. Girls are allowed to say as many stupid things as they like.

Please read what and craft your response based on what I said

*…… think you regard women as some sort of creature that should be perfect… their not, their human… *

Never said or implied that.

*…..get off your pretentious high horse and cut a chick a break, you might find you like a few of them….*

I like lots of girls. Even some of the stupid ones ;)

*……you don’t want to have an open mind, you don’t want to debate….*

Hmmm, kind of thought debating was what I was doing for the past 83 comments.

*…….. you don’t want to open the possibility you may be only seeing part of the truth, to do that might mean your beliefs were limiting you…..*

Hmmmm, crafting patient and reasoned responses for the last 83 comments shows I am quite willing to pursue truth. Is it possible YOU are not willing to see the truth? Something to reflect upon.

*…..It’s like talking to religous people…. they can always come up with some circular logic to ‘prove’ they’re right….*

Your responses to me were based on failing to read what I said. It is hardly I with the circular logic.

donlak November 2, 2011 at 8:19 pm

no, I knew would use your circular logic, it’s a very human trait, you don’t want to lose an argument, I get it, but you aren’t punishing anyone who doesn’t want something, by not giving them what they don’t want.

like telling a child he can’t have a cookie when he didnt want it in the first place, it’s not punishment, remember we’re going off you approaching a girl, you’ve already made that investment, then you throw it away because she said something stupid, like girls aren’t allowed to say something stupid.

I think you regard women as some sort of creature that should be perfect… their not, their human… get off your pretentious high horse and cut a chick a break, you might find you like a few of them.

but I know you won’t, you don’t want to have an open mind, you don’t want to debate, you don’t want to open the possibility you may be only seeing part of the truth, to do that might mean your beliefs were limiting you.

It’s like talking to religous people…. they can always come up with some circular logic to ‘prove’ they’re right.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 5:08 pm

*…..it’s more like showing her her shit tests don’t affect you….*

That you need to show her anything shows that you have self-esteem problem.

I do not live in terms of how other think of me.

donlak November 2, 2011 at 3:28 pm

you seem to be hinging your argument on the ‘passing’ her shit test phrase – it’s more like showing her her shit tests don’t affect you.

donlak November 2, 2011 at 3:25 pm

it boils down to this, girls want to be led, men should lead, this is how she’s determining if shes with a leader or a followerer. It’s not inherently a bad thing, you screen girls (I would hope anyways) so does she. She’s not asserting her will to control you or proclaim her power over you, she’s saying, lead me and dominate me please. this is perhaps the fundamental difference between yours and my views.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 5:07 pm

*…..It’s not inherently a bad thing, you screen girls (I would hope anyways) so does she. ….*

I never said I have a problem with girls screening. I have a problem with her being a BITCH. In many other countries girls reject guys with sensitivity and politeness.

*….t boils down to this, girls want to be led, men should lead, this is how she’s determining if shes with a leader or a followerer…..she’s saying, lead me and dominate me please….*

I honestly dont give a shit what she wants.

If she is bitchy to me, she is not getting anything from me.

Its not my job to figure out what she wants from me and give it to her. Thats pathetic.

*….this is perhaps the fundamental difference between yours and my views….*

No, the difference is that you agree to play by HER rules. I dont.

donlak November 2, 2011 at 3:18 pm

no, if you haven’t become something of value to her, you walking away isn’t punishment at all. She would have to want you for that. what you are doing is called saving face. punishing her is circumventing her shit tests and over riding her programming, getting her to act how you want her to act, rather then walking away at the first sign of trouble. she won’t change, girls need to be trained, and the only way to punish them is to have something she wants and refuse to give her if she keeps acting up. by walking away, you give up responsibility and the chance to train her properly on how to act.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 5:03 pm

*….no, if you haven’t become something of value to her, you walking away isn’t punishment at all. …*

It is if you structured your approach so that her reaction makes her look stupid to others, and she notices it.

Either way, its better than rewarding her.

*….he would have to want you for that…*

Nope, as I just showed. The punishment is not in depriving her of my presence. It is in her looking stupid for being a bitch and having poor social skills.

*……..punishing her is circumventing her shit tests and over riding her programming,…..*

By *proving* to her that you are the sort of man she likes. How is this a punishment?

How have you overridden her programming? Her *programming*, according to you, is to be a bitch to guys until they can *prove* they are *worthy* of her.

By *overcoming* the bitch test you have complied with her programming.

*……getting her to act how you want her to act….*

By giving in to HER terms.

*……rather then walking away at the first sign of trouble….*

The alternative is to stay and give the person starting the trouble what they want. Or are you suggesting we beat up the trouble-maker?

*……she won’t change…*

She might if guys approached without enthusiasm and her bitchy reaction looked socially foolish. She certainly wont change if every time she does it the guy rewards her by *proving* to her he is *worthy* of her.

Whether she changes or not it is demanded by my self-respect.

*….girls need to be trained, and the only way to punish them is to have something she wants and refuse to give her if she keeps acting up…*

Yup. She wants male attention. By giving her more of it when she acts bitchy, you are not refusing her what she wants.

By walking away, you give her less of what she wants – male attention. If you structured you approach rightly and made her look foolish, you giver her less of what she wants – social validation.

*…. by walking away, you give up responsibility and the chance to train her properly on how to act…*

Nope. You merely refuse to reward her.

donlak November 2, 2011 at 2:57 pm

and before you tell me it’s different because it is on your terms, well I do the opposite on my terms. you have your own terms, I respect that – but you should come on here saying we’re spineless – because it ain’t true, and you’re exactly the same – just different ‘values’

donlak November 2, 2011 at 2:52 pm

punishing bitch shields is reacting to them snd over coming them – walking away and laughing at them is acknowledging them and overcoming them in your own way. all you are saying is your way is the ‘right’ way and we’re all spineless, lol. dude, you just refuse to acknowledge that you are reacting to it. punishing shit tests and ignoring them is game and you are reacting to it. not ‘putting up’ with these tests are as equal a reaction and suplication – her shit tests are her way if getting rid if unappealing men – which is you. no loss for her. only you walk away, looking like a social reject or in Aleks case a clown laughing at his crazy internal delusions.

seriously dude

Harry November 2, 2011 at 3:11 pm

*…..punishing bitch shields is reacting to them snd over coming them ….*

So *punishing* means *rewarding a girl for bitchy behavior by behaving in ways she enjoys and likes (you know, to give her gina tingles)?*

You haver a very interesting interpretation of punishing, sir.

*….her shit tests are her way if getting rid if unappealing men ….*

Agreed. To respond by trying to convince her you are *appealing* is pathetic. I have too much self-respect.

On another level, you raise a good point. Having an unappealing man walk away from her is not exactly punishing her. Its just what she wants. While this is true, it is still better than positively rewarding her by behaving in ways she likes. Walking away instead of proving to her you are *worthy* is worthwhile for YOUR OWN self-respect, also. Not all rewards can be measured in terms of how SHE reacts.

But you make a good point about how walking away has limitations as a punishment. It is still superior to rewarding her positively by proving to her you are *appealing*.

But if we structure our approach correctly, we can make walking away better as a punishment, even by an unappealing man. If a man (even an unappealing one) approaches without enthusiasm and with obviously no effort at making her *like* him, and the woman responds like a bitch, onlookers are more likely to think she is a social retard who does not know how to respond to social situations in a calibrated, nuanced way. She might realize she is being an idiot as well.

Which is all just one more reason not to do *game* but to approach with perfectly normalcy, without doing anything *special*.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT – None of that changes the fact that she would do it for our own self-respect. I want to make clear that I am measuring things PRIMARILY in terms of MY self-respect rather than HER reactions. Thats a side issue.

Frost November 2, 2011 at 12:13 pm

I unfortunately didn’t have time to jump into the comments here, but I want to thank Harry for his comments here. We probably agree on more than we think.

I agree that there are higher values in life than getting laid. As an extreme example, I would not toss my little brother off a cliff if it meant getting some sweet, sweet pussy. More realistically, I don’t engage in a variety of behaviours that I consider demeaning, and incongruent with who I am and who I aspire to be:

– I don’t adorn myself with shiny jewellry
– I don’t pursue girls who flake
– I often walk away from hot girls who I’ve approached who, but for whatever reason, mentally turn me off

I have nothing against these behaviours per se. They’re just not me. I actually think dressing normally the way I do (pretty much like a regular dude) is optimal for me, but even if it wasn’t, I still wouldn’t dress like mystery. Wearing a top hat and goldfish high heels is not worth a slight bump in sexual success.

On a broad level, I agree with your ethos: Figure out who you are, and be that person. But I will make one correction: Figure out who you WANT TO BE, and be that person. Don’t sacrifice the values of the man you want to be for a one-night stand.

If a man is uncomfortable and awkward in social situations, should he not aspire to change that? If he’s fat, should he not want to lose weight? If he’s poor, can he not aspire to earn more money, without degrading himself?

I think a lifelong commitment to self-improvement is far more dignified than “just being yourself.” A man who refuses to be the best version of himself – physically, mentally, and yes, socially – is failing to be himself. Instead, he is a low-rent, 3rd rate version of himself.

Harry, you strike me as a man who would agree with this sort of approach to life, so in a way, we’re arguing over semantics. Here are three points that I think you might disagree with though:

1) It is not degrading for a man to be motivated towards self-improvement by the desire to have more success with women. Biologically, the subconscious desire to get laid fuels 95% of our lives, whether we admit it or not.

2) Most of the changes that game implies to your personality, are value-neutral. For example, Roosh discovered that he had more success meeting women in South America if he opened them in English rather than Spanish. I passed this advice along to a buddy of mine working in BA, and he incorporated it into his personality. Was that demeaning? Even more arbitrarily, if you were to learn that girls responded better to “Hey” than “Hi” would you consider it demeaning to switch?

3) Game is entirely compatible with a set of values that does not venerate pussy uber alles. Game is a world of tools, and a way of looking at the world. I use game to maximize my success with women, given other constraints I’ve imposed on my life related to financial, time-allocation, and yes, personal dignity reasons.

When I started learning about Game, it became apparent to me that a lot of PUAs practice “pretend to be gay” game. Sometimes explicitly, but more often just as a means of coming across non-threatening and effeminate, so as to guarantee a good five-minute interaction (to show off to bootcamp payees, but I digress). That kind of game is not for me, so I don’t practice it.

* * *
I’ll say it again, great discussion from everyone here. Way to represent me better than Paul’s commenters did for him =D

Harry November 2, 2011 at 2:53 pm

I will respond to this soon, just gotta go do some stuff.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 4:49 pm

*…. unfortunately didn’t have time to jump into the comments here, but I want to thank Harry for his comments here. We probably agree on more than we think…..*

Thank you, Frost. While you may agree with me that some tactics are pathetic (as I see below), I disagree with you that ANY tactics are un-pathetic (as you go on to claim).

*…I agree that there are higher values in life than getting laid. As an extreme example, I would not toss my little brother off a cliff if it meant getting some sweet, sweet pussy. More realistically, I don’t engage in a variety of behaviours that I consider demeaning, and incongruent with who I am and who I aspire to be:

– I don’t adorn myself with shiny jewellry
– I don’t pursue girls who flake
– I often walk away from hot girls who I’ve approached who, but for whatever reason, mentally turn me off…..*

To the extent that you do not do these things, you are not practicing game, and your behavior is perfectly consistent with self-respect.

*…… have nothing against these behaviours per se. They’re just not me. I actually think dressing normally the way I do (pretty much like a regular dude) is optimal for me, but even if it wasn’t, I still wouldn’t dress like mystery. Wearing a top hat and goldfish high heels is not worth a slight bump in sexual success…..*

Excellent, so far you have described the many ways in you are self-regulating and do not do game.

*……On a broad level, I agree with your ethos: Figure out who you are, and be that person. But I will make one correction: Figure out who you WANT TO BE, and be that person. Don’t sacrifice the values of the man you want to be for a one-night stand….*

This depends. If who you WANT TO BE is someone who changes his values based on how others react to them, then I would not consider that aspiration consistent with self-respect.

If you wish to be the sort of person who is universally liked, then this aspiration might involve you doing things that are degrading.

So not all personal aspirations are the same. Not all aspirations for personal change are consistent with self-respect.

You draw a distinction between who I *am* and who I *aspire to be*. I would draw a distinction between who I *am right now* and who I *am when I am not faking myself to be liked*.

In other words, the only *aspiration* for personal change I recognize as consistent with self-respect is one that is towards who I am when I am not trying to be liked.

See the distinctions?

*…..If a man is uncomfortable and awkward in social situations, should he not aspire to change that?….*

He should do so not to be liked, but to lessen the discomfort he experiences. The goal is not being liked by others but reduction of pain. There is no loss of dignity in that. To do so he needs to recognize that this discomfort is caused by his preoccupation with being liked, and he needs to lessen that.

Trying to become less awkward in social situations for the purpose of being liked will only drive make him more awkward.

Either way, he should not do so to be liked.

*…..If he’s fat, should he not want to lose weight?….*

If being thin is a value for him. Not just to be liked by others.

*…….If he’s poor, can he not aspire to earn more money, without degrading himself?….*

Of course he can. But if he is only trying to earn money to impress his neighbors he is degrading himself.

*…… think a lifelong commitment to self-improvement is far more dignified than “just being yourself.”…..*

The standard for self-improvement must be MY values, not other peoples positive reaction. Making changes in myself for the purpose of satisfying others does not seem to me a *self-improvement*.

One way of self-improvement is to learn to fake ourselves to be liked less and less.

*……A man who refuses to be the best version of himself – physically, mentally, and yes, socially – is failing to be himself. Instead, he is a low-rent, 3rd rate version of himself…..*

Agreed. Often, we fail to realize our own values out of a fear of what others think. For instance, sometimes we think kindness is a value but fear women will not like us for it, so we bury that part of ourselves.

*……It is not degrading for a man to be motivated towards self-improvement by the desire to have more success with women……*

It is nothing less than a contradiction in terms. A man cannot improve himself by learning to make changes to his behavior based on how well a woman will like him.

To the extent that a man allows his motivation to be what a woman will like, rather than what HE will like, he is failing to self-improve.

Part of the DEFINITION of self-improvement is to become the sort of man who does not make changes to his behavior based on how someone else will like him for it.

Self-improvement for the PURPOSE of becoming more successful with women is what I call a definition-level contradiction. Improvement MEANS no longer doing things on the basis of their appeal to others.

*……Biologically, the subconscious desire to get laid fuels 95% of our lives, whether we admit it or not…..*

I emphatically deny this. It is merely a strong desire. Either way, the question is WHAT are we willing to do to get it?

*….Most of the changes that game implies to your personality, are value-neutral…..*

Many are. But the very act of faking yourself is not value-neutral. What is objectionable about it is making changes to your personality on the basis of whether others like you instead of whether YOU judge it to be a good change. That is not value-neutral. The behavior itself is often neutral, but to the extent that it is faking what you genuinely feel or think it casts you in the role of the suppliant. The role of the suck-up.

*……. For example, Roosh discovered that he had more success meeting women in South America if he opened them in English rather than Spanish. I passed this advice along to a buddy of mine working in BA, and he incorporated it into his personality. Was that demeaning?…*

It is not degrading if the reason they respond poorly to your Spanish is because your Spanish is poor.

But if you speak Spanish fluently and you switch to English merely to *impress* her, it is degrading. Needing to *impress* is degrading.

That does not involve a personality change. That does not involve faking oneself. You ARE an English speaker.

While ALL game tactics are degrading because they are an attempt to make others like you, some are more degrading than others. You have given a good example of a mildly degrading tactic. Most game tactics involve much higher levels of degradation.

Some gamers are certainly more pathetic than others. But all are pathetic.

You choose these extremely mild fringe examples to illustrate that it is possible to supplicate to women in ways that involve only a very mild sacrifice of dignity. That is quite correct. I answer you on your own terms to illustrate that even a mild loss of dignity is a loss of dignity. Perhaps you wish to show – look, some game tactics involve a mild loss of dignity, so perhaps most game tactics involve a mild loss of dignity? I feel I have showed – even the mildest fringe game tactics involve a loss of dignity, imagine how much greater the loss is with most central game tactics!

You were trying to have some of the mildness of your examples spread a soft veil over game as whole by association. The correct interpretation is that if even the mild fringe examples are degrading, how much more so the central mainstream game tactics!

*…….Even more arbitrarily, if you were to learn that girls responded better to “Hey” than “Hi” would you consider it demeaning to switch?….*

Taking these things into consideration would be demeaning. Figuring these things out would be demeaning. Dwelling on such minutiae in order to make girls like you is demeaning.

Either way, this is also not a personality change. This does not involve faking oneself.

*…..Game is entirely compatible with a set of values that does not venerate pussy uber alles…..*

True. Game is compatible with a set of values that does not put pussy above all your other values. As you correctly noted, game is compatible with not putting pussy above killing your brother.

Game merely puts pussy above the value of SELF-RESPECT.

Which is what I have been saying all along.

*……Game is a world of tools….*

Just because it is a tool that does not mean using it does not involve self-degradation.

*……and a way of looking at the world…..*

True. It is the outlook of the slave.

*……I use game to maximize my success with women…*

By sacrificing your self-respect.

*……. given other constraints I’ve imposed on my life related to financial, time-allocation, and yes, personal dignity reasons….*

Yes, by sacrificing it (dignity).

Frost November 3, 2011 at 1:36 am

Well, I guess we’re at an impasse. I see nothing intrinsically degrading about modifying my behavior to get a desired reaction out of someone else. I want things in life, and I’m willing to put effort into getting them. I’m willing to regulate how I act to make others like me. Employers, friends, family, and women. Being liked is important to me, both psychologically, and because people who like me are more useful than people who don’t.

A few questions:

– What is “self-respect?” Why is it so important?
– Why is acting in a certain way, with the goal of making other people act as you would like them to, necessarily incongruous with what you define as self-respect?
– My apologies if you covered this elsewhere in the 90-comment thread, but do you consider using game (i.e., conscious behaviour modification to make people respond how you want them to) demeaning in a professional context? Or with male friends?

Cheers,

Frost

Frost November 3, 2011 at 1:37 am

BTW, if you’d like to distill your point into a post, I’d be happy to run it as a guest.

Harry November 3, 2011 at 2:15 am

That is a very interesting post on several levels, Frost, and I appreciate your in some ways radical honesty.

I will definitely get back in response tomorrow morning or evening. Got to clock out for tonight. Cheers.

Harry November 3, 2011 at 3:09 am

Ok, managed to squeeze out a response before bed.

*……Well, I guess we’re at an impasse. I see nothing intrinsically degrading about modifying my behavior to get a desired reaction out of someone else….*

Doing so means playing by anothers rules. It means submitting to anothers rules. It means a radical loss of autonomy . It means supplicating to others in order to make them like you, even if done in refined and sophisticated ways. You put the other person ABOVE you.

Now, the implication is that who you ARE is not a value. If you fake yourself to be liked, you are conceding in action, even if not in thought, that who you ARE is not a value. If you pretend to think what you do not think in order to be liked, if you pretend to feel what you feel do not feel in order to be liked, if you pretend to value what you do not value in order to be liked, you are conceding in action that who you ARE is not a value.

Now, I think honsty compels us to admit that this fits the defintion of degrading. The definition of degradation is to lower yourself to another person. To nullify your value. I think it is clear that modifying your behavior in accordance with the preferences of another is to privelage their preferences over yours. It is to lower yourself to them. I think what you are saying that this kind of thing simply does not bother you. But I do not think, if we examine the defintion, we can honstly say that this kind of behavior is not degrading.

Now, I fully accept that some men are not very bothered by degradation. I also admire the courage of men who admit this rather than insist that they are not degrading themsleves.

But a man needs to make an informed choice. Below, you question why self-esteem is so important, hinting that perhaps that is not a value to you. I accept that this is not a value for some men. But there is a problem when gamers do not honestly present the choice facing men who are considering adopting game, when they try to conceal that it even contains a choice.

*….I want things in life, and I’m willing to put effort into getting them….*

I also want things, but it is important to realize that the mere fact of wanting does not imply that ANY effort to get what I want does not involve degradation. History contains countless examples of men degrading themselves in order to get what they want. Its a commonplace. The question must revolve not around whether or not it is worth doing things to acquire what you want – we all agree it is worth doing SOMETHING – but on WHAT it is worth doing.

*……I’m willing to regulate how I act to make others like me…..*

In some ways, so am I. I am willing to be polite to others and avoid causing them needless and pointless pain, because this does not involve putting them ABOVE me. Doing anything beyond this, however, involves putting them ABOVE me. You may be willing to do this – I am not. Each man must choose for himself.

*……..Employers, friends, family, and women. Being liked is important to me, both psychologically, and because people who like me are more useful than people who don’t….*

But I wish to be liked for who I AM. I do not value an illusion in their minds above the reality of who I AM. Doing so would be conceding, in action if not in thought, that who I AM is not a value. If you derive psychological satisfaction from being liked by others for a pretense of someone you are not, I would suggest you have a self-esteem problem. If you derive psychological satisfaction from being liked by others by conforming to their preferences, then you are allowing others to define your value. You are seeking validation from others. Needing to be validated by others to feel good about oneself is evidence of a self-esteem problem.

In my view, your second reason for wishing to be liked involves less of a degradation. If you wish to be liked merely to acquire some material good, that seems to me more respectable. But then the question becomes, am I willing to LOWER myself to this person to be liked in return for a material good?

*……What is “self-respect?” Why is it so important?…..*

Self-respect is the feeling that you have value and worth. It is partly achieved through not lowering oneself to other people.

As for why it is so important, that is a question that cannot be answered. Some men consider it vitally important, and some do not. History is full of examples of men who died rather than surrender their self-respect, and of examples of the many men who meekly surrendered. If you do not consider self-respect important, then that is a reflection of your values. I accept that there are such men, perhaps most men. One thing is for sure – the main importance of self-respect is not to be found in its utility.

What is a problem is that gamers say one can grow in self-respect while practicing game. Each man must make his own value choice with the facts on the table.

I want men to make a choice with their eyes open – I do not wish to choose a mans values for him.

*……Why is acting in a certain way, with the goal of making other people act as you would like them to, necessarily incongruous with what you define as self-respect?….*

As I have described above, trying to be liked by faking who you ARE concedes that who you are is not a value. It is a form of disrespect for yourself. Further, it puts the preferences of OTHERS above yours. It puts others ABOVE you.

*……My apologies if you covered this elsewhere in the 90-comment thread, but do you consider using game (i.e., conscious behaviour modification to make people respond how you want them to) demeaning in a professional context? Or with male friends?….*

I actually did address this point, but have no problem returning to it. The answer is – YES. I consider faking myself to be liked demeaning in a professional contex as well as a male friendship context. I will not kiss my bosses ass to keep my job. I will not supplicate in a negotiation to secure a deal. I want my male friends to like me for who I AM, and would never change myself to be liked by them. That is what having a back bone MEANS.

Cheers,

Harry November 3, 2011 at 3:10 am

Thank you for the kind offer of me writing a guest post, but I think I have my hands quite full with the comments section here and on other blogs!

Cheers,

Harry November 3, 2011 at 2:20 pm

Frost, I wanted to add an amplification of some remarks I made that I feel are insufficient. I wrote this response to G.L Piggy on another thread, but it fits in very well right here, so I am just going to rep-post it.

G.L, I realize there is some confusion here that needs to be cleared up, and the analogy of work has beautifully brought to light where this confusion lies.

You say – game is doing things you do not wish to do in return for a reward. Work is doing things you do not wish to do in return for a reward. What is the difference? Why is one slavery and one not? Why is one degrading and one not?

I think we all agree that certain work conditions can be so extreme and can ask so much of us in return for so little that it is tantamount to slavery. We also all grasp that certain actions, such as kissing the bosses ass, are degrading, even if done for work.

So what is the difference?

When I said *radical loss of autonomy*, the word radical means in the most fundamental aspects of our personality. When we alter our behavior to be liked it means losing freedom over the most basic aspects of our personality and how we present ourselves to the world. This is truly a RADICAL loss of autonomy. We also surrender our judgement to others, if we consider their judgement of what is *good* more important than our own.

But why is this bad?

If you fake yourself to be liked, you imply who you are is a non-value. Is insufficient to be liked. You concede this premise through action. The same thing when you concsiously try to be *impressive*. You concede who you are naturally (when not trying to be liked and living out your own values) is NOT impressive. Same thing with sitting around figuring out minutiae about being liked (as I suggested to Frost) – it suggests that who you ARE is insufficient, and a non-value, or an insufficient value. If you feel that who you ARE is a value, that should be sufficient. Figuring out minutiae is an implicit admission that something is lacking in you.We all intuitively grasp that the man who sits around obsessing over which small thing would be appealing to the boss, or women, is faintly contemptible. Why? Because implicit in this is an admission that who he IS is insufficient on its own to have value.

Further, when you change your behavior to be liked by others rather than in accordance with your own values, you surrender to THEIR judgement. You accept that their judgement of value, of what is *good*, will dictate how you present yourself to the world, not your own values. It is an act of capitulation and a betrayal of the self.

Supplication is trying to get something from others by acknowledging that you are lower than them, by *humbly* asking them. The humility involved with game is that you concede implicitly the that who you are is a non-value, so you have to give them something MORE than who you are when you are naturally living out your values and not trying to be liked. You have lowered yourself to the other person by acknowledging that who you ARE is not sufficient to be liked.

Changing with the direction of the wind means you have no back bone, you are spineless. You stand for nothing. We all recognize the guy who is obviously eager to please as pathetic, as standing for nothing. Game operates on the same dynamic just in a hidden way.

donlak November 2, 2011 at 11:51 am

Harry, so if my values are that I value having sex with women and playing the game, by your definition I’m not spineless or weak or whatever, because I’m doing so, passing shut tests etc, because they are my values. I enjoy it. So yours are different. but you aren’t arguing this concept, you are trying to tell us that your values should be our values. not gonna happen bro.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 2:52 pm

*……Harry, so if my values are that I value having sex with women and playing the game, by your definition I’m not spineless or weak or whatever, because I’m doing so, passing shut tests etc, because they are my values. I enjoy it….*

I have acknowledged from the get go that someone might value *sex* more than he values his *self-respect*. In fact, that is the whole point.

If you *enjoy* submitting to another, if you *enjoy* losing your autonomy, if these are *values* for you, then you value sex more than self-respect.

That is precisely what I have been saying all along.

*…So yours (values) are different…..*

I have admitted this all along.

*…..but you aren’t arguing this concept, you are trying to tell us that your values should be our values. not gonna happen bro……*

I have never said my values should be anyone elses values. I have always said guys should choose their OWN values. I have admitted from the get go some guys choose sex over self-respect. Self-respect is merely MY choice.

I merely want guys to UNDERSTAND that there the are sacrificing their self-respect if they adopt game. That it is pathetic. The CHOICE is theirs.

Broadhead November 2, 2011 at 5:18 am

Harry – I noticed from your replies that you view this argument personally rather than in terms of generalities. I want to engage with you on that level so please don’t view the following as an attack, just an attempt to understand your personal viewpoint:

So you are very selective with women. Do you spell out your views on marriage, children, divorce, abortion, politics and social justice during this first meeting?

If you don’t do that, what is your reason? If it’s time constraints, have you ever had an extremely long first conversation where you discussed these?

Clearly these are critical things in a relationship so getting them out of the way at the beginning would avoid wasting time on the wrong type of woman.

Gmac November 2, 2011 at 9:52 am

At the same time, it could keep him from landing a lot of girls because he’s too picky. I had this mentality even when I started getting into game. I missed out on a lot of opportunities because I immediately disqualified a large group of the girls out there just like Harry seems to do.

Broadhead November 2, 2011 at 10:07 am

Although I might agree with you, that’s beside the point.

There’s got to be at least one dealbreaker on my list and I would like to hear Harry’s view on when such an important point should be brought up.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 5:13 pm

*…..At the same time, it could keep him from landing a lot of girls because he’s too picky…..*

I never discussed how picky I am. There are more important things than landing the maximum number of girls.

*….I missed out on a lot of opportunities because I immediately disqualified a large group of the girls out there just like Harry seems to do….*

If you disqualified them for reasons of self-respect, then in my view it was worth it.

Not everything is about getting the maximum number of girls.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 2:44 pm

*….So you are very selective with women. Do you spell out your views on marriage, children, divorce, abortion, politics and social justice during this first meeting?…*

You mean do I volunteer this information? Of course not. Many of my sexual encounters are for casual sex and these topics never arise. However, if the natural flow of the conversation touches on these subjects, I certainly dont hide what I think.

I HAVE had extremely long conversations that touched on SOME of these topics, yes. Rarely in bars or clubs, though.

Many times I am just looking for sex, not relationships. As for relationships, I get to know women and over time their opinions on all sorts of subjects are revealed, and then I might move to a relationship.

If I was deliberately looking for a suitable woman for a relationship, it might make sense to be more deliberate about the process, although confining it all to the very first conversation seems unnecessarily restrictive.

Boar November 2, 2011 at 3:32 am

Damn quote tag messed things up. The first paragraph should be qoute:

Funny how non-feminized countries dont have the bitch shield, and it did not exist in the West before feminism. Yet it is a fact of nature.

Boar November 2, 2011 at 3:28 am

Funny how non-feminized countries dont have the bitch shield, and it did not exist in the West before feminism. Yet it is a fact of nature.

And on what particular research is this based? Maybe you interviewed thousands of PUA’s and women like Alek Novy to come to this conclusion?

The so-called “bitch shield” is women’s natural screening process to determine the reproductive worth of the man (alpha traits); the male counter-part would be the screening process in which we determine which woman is hot enough for us to have sex with, and which one is not.

The only difference is that we use our eyesight for our decision for the most part, and women use other means, because they’re attracted to other things than physical appearance (things like social status etc.). If you’ve never read any history books you will be surprised to find that, upon reading some of them, you might encounter this very female behavior present throughout history of mankind.

So unless you can prove that feminism in today’s form existed thousand of years ago, this could completely discredit your claim; however, I’m pretty sure that you will find another reasonable explanation on why this is so which fits well into your reality-tunnel. Maybe the men throughout history didn’t have enough back-bone and strong principles to lead the lives of dignity and autonomy they wanted?

In simpler terms, you’re mistaking normal women’s behavior (“bitch shield”) for excessive bitchiness, nagging and demand for attention of today’s woman (bitch) that was indeed reinforced by feminism. The only difference is, all women hasve bitch-shields, but not all women are bitches.

Alat November 2, 2011 at 12:00 am

By learning to *overcome* bitch shields you are merely reinforcing them.

Bitch shields are a fact of nature. You may as well complain that by feeding meat to lions I’m reinforcing their being carnivores. There is such a thing as human nature – and female nature.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 12:04 am

My decision to walk away from a bitch shield and not tolerate it is also a fact of nature that women have to deal with.

If ALL men did that it would be one massive fact of nature. Then we would see how the *fact of nature* of the bitch shield vanished.

Funny how non-feminized countries dont have the bitch shield, and it did not exist in the West before feminism. Yet it is a fact of nature.

You see Alat, women CHOOSE to do the bitch shield, because guys put up with it. Maybe women are naturally programmed to WANT to do it, but they can and would restrain themselves if they found that men did not put up with it. Violence is a male *fact of nature*, but the police make sure we CHOOSE not to be violent.

Gmac November 2, 2011 at 9:49 am

“If ALL men did that it would be one massive fact of nature. Then we would see how the *fact of nature* of the bitch shield vanished.”

All men ARE NOT going to do this, so that is a practical fact of life you must accept. That is why we adapt.

“Funny how non-feminized countries dont have the bitch shield, and it did not exist in the West before feminism. Yet it is a fact of nature.”

Why do you think Roosh moved to Poland? Other guys are following suit. I’ll be an expat within 10 years myself. The women of our country is going to get far worse before it gets better.

You’re far too idealistic if you believe that everyone is going to suddenly change their behavior and ignore women who behave poorly. I doubt we will see a significant positive change in our lifetimes.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 2:19 pm

*….All men ARE NOT going to do this, so that is a practical fact of life you must accept. That is why we adapt….*

I was merely illustrating the fact that this supposedly unavoidable *fact of nature* would disappear if men changed their behavior. My point is that it is not an inevitable fact of nature but a response to male behavior.

As we see from the fact that non-feminized countries have much lower incidences of bitch shields (I know, I have been all over the world), and that the pre-feminist West had lower incidences, it is QUITE possible to get a critical mass of men to behave in ways that do not reinforce bitch shields.

Your *resignationism* has no basis.

Either way, *adapting* is spineless. And that is the CENTRAL point. We might not see a change in our lifetime, but having a back bone carries it own satisfactions. We do it for ourselves. Like I said, there are higher values than sex, and if *our times* make one sacrifice self-esteem for sex, having a back bone means doing with LESS sex.

I understand why Roosh moved to Poland, and I dont judge him for it. It does not, however, exactly make one confident that he has learned how to be successful with women in America, as he claims.

Gmac November 2, 2011 at 3:16 pm

“I was merely illustrating the fact that this supposedly unavoidable *fact of nature* would disappear if men changed their behavior. My point is that it is not an inevitable fact of nature but a response to male behavior. ”

Men aren’t going to change their behavior, THAT is an unavoidable fact of nature. It’s too late for that. You can’t turn back time or change the other 99.9% of the population and it’s not about to happen on its own anytime soon — so your point is moot.

Alat November 2, 2011 at 10:39 am

Harry, you’re wrong if you think that bitch shields and the rest of the less congenial elements of female nature do not exist in “non-feminized” countries or the pre-feminist West. They do; but in those functioning societies women are punished for displaying them, so they are present in a weaker and less destructive form. Or, in other words, women themselves pay some of the price for controlling their natures. Except for the sometimes impenetrable jargon, the “Game” writers have not had any original insights on women: they just rediscovered what was well-known by traditional society.

Given that they exist, always have and always will, men have to DEAL with bitch shields and the like. Your choice of words gives the game away (pun unintended): men don’t have to PUT UP with it, they have to DEAL with it. They can learn to deactivate the bomb, and it will make their lives better – better, I think, than your alternatives of “supplicating the bomb by cutting the red wire” (which is how I think you’d put it), or “just leave the bomb alone” (and fell empowered by jacking off in your mother’s basement).

By the way, or comment in another thread above that “History is replete with examples of celibates doing just fine” is astonishing. I agree with it on a personal level; but to expect that “ALL men” will do something that will tend to make them celibates in the short run is just, well, so obviously unrealistic I find it difficult to believe you really hope for this to happen. If this is the way MRAs expect to have good lives and/or win in the long run, you don’t have much to offer.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 2:33 pm

*…..Harry, you’re wrong if you think that bitch shields and the rest of the less congenial elements of female nature do not exist in “non-feminized” countries or the pre-feminist West. They do; but in those functioning societies women are punished for displaying them, so they are present in a weaker and less destructive form…*

That is exactly my point. If men in the West *punished* bitch shields rather than learned to *overcome* them through giving women what they want, we would reach a similar state in the West.

*…..Given that they exist, always have and always will, men have to DEAL with bitch shields and the like. Your choice of words gives the game away (pun unintended): men don’t have to PUT UP with it, they have to DEAL with it…..*

*Deal with it* in game parlance MEANS learning to reward a woman with the behavior she enjoys in response to her bitch shield. This is pathetic.

You yourself have admitted that punishing women for it can help create a society where it is less prevalent, so why not be part of such a change?

*…..They can learn to deactivate the bomb, and it will make their lives better….*

Deactivate the bomb means *reward female bitch shields by responding to them with behaviors women like*. This will only make a mans life better if having self-respect has no value for him.

*…..better, I think, than your alternatives of “supplicating the bomb by cutting the red wire” (which is how I think you’d put it), or “just leave the bomb alone” (and fell empowered by jacking off in your mother’s basement)….*

I would punish women for bitch shields by walking away (aleknovy suggests you do it while laughing, to indicate she committed a social faux-pas).

I think this is more consistent with self-respect, and thus *better*, than learning to give women what they want in sophisticated ways in response to their bitch shields.

To me, self-respect is *better*.

*….by the way, or comment in another thread above that “History is replete with examples of celibates doing just fine” is astonishing. I agree with it on a personal level; but to expect that “ALL men” will do something that will tend to make them celibates in the short run is just, well, so obviously unrealistic I find it difficult to believe you really hope for this to happen….*

That was in response to someone who suggested sex was a need equivalent to food and sleep. It is not.

I dont believe doing game is the only way to get sex. I believe nearly all men can get sex by eschewing game and just FINDING those women who dig who they ARE, once they stop faking themselves to be liked by others. At most, this means getting LESS sex (if game works, which I deny). There are also prostitutes.

EVEVN IF THIS WERE NOT TRUE, game needs to acknowledge that a man loses his dignity by doing game. The game line that it is about *self-improvement* as well as getting sex – you can have it all with game! – needs to be dropped. Men need to know what they are sacrificing and make an informed, honest choice.

Peter Phoenix November 1, 2011 at 11:54 pm

Harry,

It sounds hard to believe that you do EVERYTHING for yourself and never make any compromises or sacrifices.

Building self-esteem is great, but it gives no direction as to how you should interact with women.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 12:14 am

Sometimes I fail my own standards, being only human. But it is my goal, which I aspire to. Perfection is not required. Choosing perfection in this area as an aspiration is all that is needed. It gets easier with time as well. All good things require courage.

*….Building self-esteem is great, but it gives no direction as to how you should interact with women….*

It does provide a direction, the basis of self-respect. I presume you mean it does not tell men how to make women attracted to them. That is quite correct. The reward of self-esteem is in how you feel about yourself, not in getting women.

As I said, there are higher values than women. Self-esteem is one of them.

Peter Phoenix November 2, 2011 at 1:13 am

Ok, I get where you’re coming from. Very interesting.

My question to you is, you are at a bar with a group of friends, and you see an attractive woman (that you would like to talk to) sitting at the bar by herself. How would you approach her?

Harry November 2, 2011 at 1:47 am

I would approach her in a completely normal DIRECT manner (no looking over my shoulder bullshit), without great enthusiasm and without taking any special action whatsoever. Its as if I am walking over to male acquaintance. There is almost no acknowledgement that she is a woman as reflected in any change of action on my part. I simply am my normal everyday self. Then I see how the interaction unfolds. If she does not show interest in me, I walk away. If she is even remotely bitchy, I walk away. If she gives monosyllabic answers to my questions, I walk away. If she shows no enthusiasm for me, I walk away.

I do not TRY to make her like me in any way whatsoever. I go over to SEE if she is the sort of person who digs my type. That is all.

G.L.Piggy November 2, 2011 at 6:08 am

haha. so at what point do you stop treating her like one of your buddies and start treating her like someone you’d like to put your dick into? where is this magical inflection point where you have to admit you sacrifice backbone for the other one? or, and i’m really not saying this to belittle you, do you fuck your boys too?

why would you approach a woman you’d like to bed the same way and with the same mindset as you would a buddy of yours? you aren’t approaching her with the same intentions in mind, why would you then tie yourself into approaching her with the exact same mindset and conversation? i mean, if it works it works, but to hold it up as some sort of ideal is lunacy. there is nothing more noble about that than treating her like someone you’d want to bang and thereby shaping your behavior to fit that goal.

you’re fitting your behaviors to this convoluted premise about nobility and backbone. but you lose the premise by the fact that the premise for your approaching and talking to a woman is different than the premise for your approaching and talking to a guy friend. your scenario is not consistent all the way through and falls under its own weight.

Gmac November 2, 2011 at 9:34 am

This is how so many men get stuck in the “let’s just be friends” zone. There has to be a time when you ramp it up, or there’s never going to be any sexual attraction or chemistry.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 2:09 pm

@G.L Piggy

*…..haha. so at what point do you stop treating her like one of your buddies and start treating her like someone you’d like to put your dick into? ..*

When she responds positively to me, I escalate sexually. I dont do that with my male buddies.

But at no point do I try to *make* her like me.

*….where is this magical inflection point where you have to admit you sacrifice backbone for the other one?….*

There is not one.

*…or, and i’m really not saying this to belittle you, do you fuck your boys too?…*

Nope.

*…why would you approach a woman you’d like to bed the same way and with the same mindset as you would a buddy of yours?….*

Like I said, I do not have the same mindset.

I approach in the same WAY for this reason. The only difference in the way I act towards a woman than I do with a male buddy is that with a woman I become sexual and romantic. When I approach a girl I do not YET know if she is interested in having that kind of relationship with me, so I do not include those elements in my APPROACH. That relationship does not yet exist between us.

I do not try to *make* her attracted to me. Nor do I fake myself. Nor do I select my behavior based on what she will find attractive in me.

*……. you aren’t approaching her with the same intentions in mind, why would you then tie yourself into approaching her with the exact same mindset and conversation?…….*

I approach a girl with the intention of SEEING if she wants to have sex with me. I approach a male acquaintance to SEE if he wants to have a conversation with me.

I do not try to *make* either of them want to do those things.

Since on the approach I do not know if a girl likes me or not, I initially have the exact same relation to her as I would with a man. That is why I have the same kind of conversation as with a man. Game says you should approach in a manner to to *make* her like you. I only approach to SEE if she likes me. Since I do not know that she does, I do not include sexual or romantic elements in my approach. Unless…..

Girls who have indicated interest in me I approach differently. If a girl girl on the dance floor is making heavy eye contact I approach her with immediate sexuality. That happens a lot.

*…..i mean, if it works it works, but to hold it up as some sort of ideal is lunacy….*

Its not about whether it works or not. I advocate it because it is the only thing consistent with self-respect.

*…. there is nothing more noble about that than treating her like someone you’d want to bang and thereby shaping your behavior to fit that goal….*

There are other approaches that are just as *noble*. Going over to a girl and offering her sex in a take it or leave it way is just as *noble*, although I personally dont do that (unless the girl has shown heavy interest me).

Doing anything to *make* her like you by selecting your behavior based on what she likes is what is NOT noble. Faking yourself to be liked is NOT noble. Its spineless.

*…you’re fitting your behaviors to this convoluted premise about nobility and backbone….*

Its not convolute, it has an almost elegant simplicity. You merely insist it is convoluted.

*…..but you lose the premise by the fact that the premise for your approaching and talking to a woman is different than the premise for your approaching and talking to a guy friend…..*

The only difference is that I seek sex and romance from women, and not from men. Since I do not know if a woman who has shown me no interest wants that kind of relationship, I do not include those elements on the approach. Thats all.

*…… your scenario is not consistent all the way through and falls under its own weight…..*

As I have shown, my scenario is quite consistent.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 2:11 pm

Gmac, what you say is quite true.

But you dont ramp it up to CREATE sexual chemistry. That is pussy begging. You ramp it up in RESPONSE to signals of interest. The sexual attraction is already THERE.

Guys who allow signals of interest to go with no reaction will be *friended*, true. Not because the girl is not attracted to him, but because she assumed he has no interest.

donlak November 1, 2011 at 9:20 pm

my spelling is atrocious, but I think I made my point.

donlak November 1, 2011 at 9:17 pm

you come from the fallacy that game does not teach a man to be passive at times, which means your take on it’s uneducated and misinformed, and therefor invalid. Do some reading first. Many if the things you say are game. not everyone is int the state you say you are, it’s what we right about. you are arguing to become the man game teaches you to be, with out the high horse of course.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 9:48 pm

You are not getting what I am saying. I know game says you should be passive sometimes.

Guess what? Being passive for the purpose of being liked by women is degrading.

Being passive can be a form of supplication as well. The criteria is – are you doing it so SHE will like it? Or are you doing it because YOU like it?

*….Many if the things you say are game. ….*

This is the thing about game, why it is so poisonous, and why it ensnares so many men who cant quite articulate what is wrong with it. Game excels at claiming to be something that it is not.

It claims it is not about pussy begging – enhancing its appeal to men who care about having a back bone – but then advising men to be pussy-beggars. It is a mind fuck designed so that weak men can pretend they are being strong. Game is a cleverly designed form of cognitive dissonance.

That is why it is so much more dangerous than straight up honest supplication. By hiding what it is it makes it harder for guys to grasp what they are doing.

Let me make it as clear as possible – ANYTHING you do to be liked by a woman is supplication. Game says you should do just that. *I* say you should NEVER do that.

*….you are arguing to become the man game teaches you to be, with out the high horse of course….*

Game says you should become the sort of man who conforms to what women like. *I* say you should become the sort of man YOU admire even if women despise you for it.

It is the malign genius of game that it defines itself as the precise thing it is not. It is a marketing scam meant to disarm men who would feel queasy if they could honestly face what they are doing.

Gmac November 1, 2011 at 8:10 pm

Oh those comments were fun to read. I commented enough over at AVFM today though I think for a lifetime.

donlak November 1, 2011 at 7:36 pm

Harry it’s your fallacy to beleive that self esteem only comes from you and nothing else. if you lived a life sheltered from humanity, maybe, but you don’t. Your self esteem relies on how you perceive yourself in relation to others and how they see you, deny it like I know you will, but this is how human beings are, regardless of what you rationalize.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 8:45 pm

Then its not *self-esteem.

Its allowing your self-value to be defined by others.

Believe it or not, this is not some kind of inevitability of your nature. It is a choice. History is replete with famous men who did what their personal conscience demanded of them in the teeth of social disapproval. Open a history book almost at random.

But it is difficult. It requires courage and a back bone. It is why those same history books are even more replete with men who surrendered. Except that no on remembers their names.

Like I said, everything excellent for the few.

donlak November 1, 2011 at 7:32 pm

That never worked. Elam employed game, whether it was conscious or not. Everyone runs game. You either learn how to master it, are schooled by it, or pretend you don’t. Some have natural bad game, some have average natural game, and some have awesome natural game.

Our game blogs teach how to learn to harness this power. Social dynamics on any level requires the use of game, even Harry does, he’s just convinced himself that it’s his in born values, rather than being influenced to have those values. it’s a cart before the horse kinda thing,

Peter Phoenix November 1, 2011 at 7:19 pm

The biggest point I would like to make is that Paul Elam has been in a relationship for the past 10 (TEN!) years.

The dating market has changed a lot Paul. Smelling clean and waiting for them to get on your nuts just doesn’t cut it anymore!

Any opinions he could give on how to behave around women are wildly flawed.

G.L.Piggy November 2, 2011 at 6:02 am

Elam’s market is also quite different than ours, as young men, would be. Yet he pretends that his world is ours. He’s in his 50s. If he was in his 40s and a single man at a function with single women also in their 30s or 40s he’d have to have serious issues not to have women feeding out of his hand. It’s not that the times have changed per se; it’s that sexual marketplaces change for the folks participating in them.

A lot of men are competing for finite women here among younger people. Up at Elam’s age? There’s no competition. The women will give it to anyone who looks at them.

donlak November 1, 2011 at 6:56 pm

that above comment was for Harry.

I really think you MRA types need to look up the words spineless and supplicating.

so if you want a raise or a promotion, you just ask for it and if you don’t get it, you just sit back Down and go to work? you don’t do whatever it takes to get ahead? infant you don’t do anything.

you’re right it is a value difference, but the spineless part is you. it’s easy to say I could win the superbowl, if I played, but those players are spineless for wanting it snd doing that, not so easy to take a tackle.

it’s also of weak masculine character to call another man spineless or weak. a powerful man doesn’t need to do this, especially through the Internet. if you truly believed in your superior ways, you wouldn’t need to hurl insults and shaming language, it would be beneath you, but yet here you are supplicating to us, by trying to convince us of your reality.

we actually don’t care.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 8:38 pm

*……so if you want a raise or a promotion, you just ask for it and if you don’t get it, you just sit back Down and go to work?….*

There are a number of things I might consider doing. I only said I would not fake myself nor select my behavior based on its appeal to the boss instead of based on my values. To me that is supplication. If the boss does not want to give me a raise based on my value to the company, I am certainly not going to beg him to do so or try to placate him. I might quite, though.

*….you don’t do whatever it takes to get ahead?…*

Of course not. Having a back bone MEANS not compromising your dignity or values to get ahead.

*…… infant you don’t do anything…..*

I do plenty of things. I just dont do supplication as I defined it above.

*….. it’s easy to say I could win the superbowl, if I played, but those players are spineless for wanting it snd doing that, not so easy to take a tackle…..*

My position is not based on saying I have certain skills but choose not to exercise them. I am saying developing the skills of supplication are not worth it. Perhaps I never would even have been able to develop those skills.

I never suggested men are spineless for wanting women. I did suggest they are spineless for supplicating to get them.

*……it’s also of weak masculine character to call another man spineless or weak. a powerful man doesn’t need to do this, especially through the Internet…..*

The point of this discussion is to determine which behaviors are spineless or weak. In doing so, one must of course say which behaviors one considers spineless and weak.

I am not pointlessly in irrelevant contexts calling men spineless.

*……if you truly believed in your superior ways, you wouldn’t need to hurl insults and shaming language…..*

I agree with you. Thats why I dont do it. I respectfully discuss with those men who are interested in doing which of their (or mine) behaviors are spineless.

Doing so involves saying harsh things about behaviors. That is the point of the discussion. Insulting men in irrelevant contexts would, I agree, be evidence of weakness.

*….. it would be beneath you, but yet here you are supplicating to us, by trying to convince us of your reality…..*

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am offering up an alternative perspective for men who sense something is wrong with game but cant quite articulate it.

donlak November 1, 2011 at 6:46 pm

huh? your logic is flawed buddy.

training a dog properly means I must display certain behaviors in order to communicate to the dog and display dominance over it. so I’m supplicating to my dog? you’re holding onto a false notion that you do not change your behaviour for different solutions. if you are as you say you are, you are the one being chosen by the girl that decides to come up to you… that’s pathetic. I know you act differently depending on who is around you because I assume you are not a robot. just because you’re not aware of your behaviors doesn’t mean you aren’t acting them out. you employ ostrich standards.
game teaches you to take control of your life, not be a passive person waiting for something to happen.

I know you will just spew the same things you have been doing ad naseum – I just think you need to take the real red pill… stop living like a woman in a fantasy land.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 7:36 pm

Dogs are trained through pain. You do not train a dog by learning what the dog wants and giving it to him in better and more sophisticated ways. If you did, you would be supplicating to your dog.

You train your dog by making clear to him he will experience pain if he does not obey you. This is the precise opposite with game. Game is based on obeying women in sophisticated, indirect, and refined ways for the purpose of giving them not pain, but pleasure.

If you threatened a girl with pain if she does not sleep with you, THAT would be analogous to training a dog. (I am not advocating you do that).

Gotta run, be back in a minute to respond to the rest of your post.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 8:23 pm

I do not sit around playing dominance games with my dog. I do not try and conform to my dogs idea of a dominant male. If I cant have a dog any other way, I would rather not have a dog.

*……you’re holding onto a false notion that you do not change your behaviour for different solutions…..*

I do not change my behavior to win anothers approval. Behavior changes designed to win approval are a solution I do not use.

*……if you are as you say you are, you are the one being chosen by the girl that decides to come up to you… that’s pathetic…..*

I choose the girl as much as she chooses me. We choose each other if we end up hooking up.

Unless I am going to rape a girl, I have no choice but to allow myself to be chosen by her. Game also accepts that you must be chosen by the girl. The difference is game tries to influence her choice by selecting your behavior based on its appeal to the girl. I am only prepared to allow her to choose me if she recognizes who I AM as a value.

You seek to influence her choice through surrender to her values and a sacrifice of self-respect. I am not willing to influence her choice on those terms.

*…… I know you act differently depending on who is around you because I assume you are not a robot…….*

Of course I act different depending on who I am around. I merely do not try to make others like me.

*….. just because you’re not aware of your behaviors doesn’t mean you aren’t acting them out….*

OK.

.*…. you employ ostrich standards. game teaches you to take control of your life, not be a passive person waiting for something to happen….*

Game teaches you to achieve a desired outcome by forfeiting self-respect. Sometimes, remaining passive in certain respects is more consistent with self-respect.

Activity for its own sake is not always more consistent with self-respect. If the only thing you can do to influence a desired outcome involves forfeiting your self-respect, it might be better to remain passive.

Nor am I a passive person waiting for things to happen. I proactively seek out those women are compatible with who I AM. I am just passive when it comes to taking actions that forfeit my self-respect, and quite proud of that, too.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm

*….you know what makes me lose my dignity? having girls control how I feel about them…*

Feelings are not under our control. Actions are. You cannot control how you feel about a girl. You CAN control how you act towards her. The only way you can lose your dignity to a girl is if you ACT in a supplicating manner towards her (game).

*…..including bitterness and anger towards what they may or may not do to me…*

If you want to avoid bitterness and anger, simply dont tolerate female misbehavior. Simple. No need to supplicate to them through game.

*………If I know certain things that work to get me what I want, that’s power over females…..*

By trying to create a positive reaction in a woman you give her power OVER you. You play by HER rules. By selecting your behavior to be appealing to women you have surrendered to her.

In exchange, you get what you *want*. This is spineless.

*…..if you’re too angry or bitter, or just hate them girls for what they could do do you is pathetic….*

I am neither bitter nor angry, and I love girls. In fact I enjoy casual sex regularly.

Cheers.

Peter Phoenix November 1, 2011 at 6:43 pm

Harry,

*….if you ACT in a supplicating manner towards her (game)…*
None of us follow this definition of game.

sup·pli·cate – Ask or beg for something earnestly or humbly.

You of all people should know that asking or begging a women for sex/attention is the most unattractive of behaviours. And will result in you not getting laid. Game advocates a non-neediness approach and abundance lifestyle.

My question to you is, what are the men (who were raised by spineless fathers and mothers who told them to treat women nice and buy them dinners) supposed to do in regards towards their behaviours towards women?

How are they meant to know any better? And where do they turn for help when all of their interactions with women are failures?

Harry November 1, 2011 at 7:32 pm

*……None of us follow this definition of game…..*

ALL game is supplication. ANY time you select a behavior based on is appeal to women rather than based on it representing your own values you are supplicating.

Game says you must select your behavior according to whether women like it or not. It does not matter what *version* this concept you use. The concept itself is flawed.

Being aloof when you are feeling social to be liked by a girl is a form of supplication.

*…..My question to you is, what are the men (who were raised by spineless fathers and mothers who told them to treat women nice and buy them dinners) supposed to do in regards towards their behaviours towards women?…*

This is an excellent question, and I am glad you asked it. It is the failure to properly answer this question that leads some men into game.

Many men see that society advises men to be spineless, and wrongly conclude that the only way to not be spineless is game. In fact, though game is just another version of being spineless. Game accepts the premise of nice-guy supplication – that you must try and make others like you – and says that it offers up a better, more effective version of it.

However, the way to develop a back bone and repair the damage done by being raised spineless is, to reject once and for all, with finality, the premise that it is your job to make others like you.

If you do not reject that premise, no matter how hard you try, supplication will find its way back into your thinking, in ever more refined and disguised ways, thus ever more poisonous ways, thus subverting your growth as a man at the root in ways that you wont even be consciously aware of.

I do not blame men for not knowing any better. They can help themselves by developing genuine self-esteem.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 6:00 pm

Donlak, I appreciate that you will avoid insults, I will too. But if you feel I am advocating a pathetic behavior, describing it as such is not a shaming tactic, its the point of the debate. So I wouldnt mind.

*…….Game is not just about women. Every man must do this in life, Any successful business man has to play the game. it’s called interacting with humans and whether you want to believe it or not, you change your behaviour depending on what you want out of them. if you want someone to give you a promotion, you play the game, wanna win an election, play the game, wanna win, play the game, wanna get pussy play the game, etc…..*

I find this kind of time-serving and supplicating behavior spineless and pathetic. Thats precisely what I am saying. It is a VALUE difference.

I would not supplicate to my boss to get a promotion. I would rather go without the raise. I would not be the kind of businessman who supplicates to his clients and colleagues.

Having a back bone means going through life NOT doing these things.

And I deny that they are in the least bit necessary – I have been quite successful without them. People appreciate my honesty.

*……now I have no problem with someone hating the game, but to sit there on the sidelines and tell the players that their basically pathetic to bother with that game while you twiddle your thumbs or stomp your feat for all the things wrong with the world and what the other team did to you, is ludicrous and ignorant….*

I neither stomp my feet nor twiddle my thumbs about the state of the world. I am not concerned with the state of the world. I cannot control that. I am concerned with MYSELF. Whether I act in ways that *I* respect or admire. Its not about the world or others at all – its about me. My reward is how I feel.

*…….All I hear from this argument is a frightened spoiled child who wants girls served on a silver platter….*

It is interesting to me that you think the only way you feel you can be attractive to women is by faking yourself. That you feel that there are no women who can possibly like who you ARE.

To me, this is an indication of low self-esteem on your part.

I dont feel that way.

Either way, I hardly want women to be served to me on a silver platter. I am just not willing to sacrifice my self-respect to get them. I am quite prepared to do without them if I cant get them any other way.

See what having a back bone MEANS?

*…..oh yes, you must be a god, you don’t need to work for anything….*

When it comes to women, it is sad that you feel that who you are is so inadequate that you cannot possibly be attractive without having to work for it.

I do not feel that way about myself. Who I AM is a value. I do not have to DO anything to offer value.

*……..what you want should happen no matter what….*

I never said or implied this.

*…..you don’t need to change, everyone else does…*

I never EVER said this. Precisely the opposite. I dont change for OTHERS, and others dont change for ME,

Instead, people SEEK OUT people who naturally like them.

*….sounds a lot like the female entitlement complex we talk about so much, either that or just delusions….*

This only follows if the things you attributed to my positions were correct, but they are not.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 5:49 pm

Davver, I really dont want to get dragged into a conversation of what does and does not appeal to women, when my whole position is more or less based on the idea that to ask that question is pathetic.

The last thing I wish to say about it is this; being self-confident means not selecting your behavior based on its appeal to women, but based on whether it represents your values. Nice-guy society bullshit exemplifies a lack of self-confidence, but so does doing game. Anything AT ALL that a man does designed to appeal to a woman rather than live out his own values is a form of supplication and not compatible with being *alpha*.

Now for the other point.

*…..Millions of years of evolution have programmed you otherwise. You NEED to fuck. If you don’t fuck it will fuck with you. Your body, your mind, your soul…*

No, I merely WANT it. History is replete with examples of celibates doing just fine.

But I fully agree that we all have a strong DESIRE to fuck. The question is, is there anything we want even MORE? Are you willing to do ANYTHING to get it?

To me, I want self-respect and dignity MORE than I want sex. Thats MY choice. Anything that involves a sacrifice of self-respect is just not worth it for me.

*……Bullshit. Today I came into work (around the hours my job tells me to), dressed in the business casual dress outlined by my employer. My boss told me, “I need task X done.” So I did task X. Do you think I woke up in the morning and said man I like waking up to an alarm clock, putting on some slacks, going to a building, and doing task X because someone asks me too? No, I want to sleep in and do whatever the fuck I want to all day. But I gotta eat, and pay the rent, so I do what I gotta do….*

None of this involved faking who you are. You did not pretend to think what you do not think or feel what you did not feel. If it did, I would suggest you find another job.

None of this involved violating your values. If it did, I would suggest finding another job.

*….Sometimes you gotta fuck, and to do that you gotta do what you gotta do….*

Having a back bone means not doing these things if it involves a loss of self-respect.

*……In game I work on seduction skills so that I have to invest fewer resources/bang and bang higher quality chicks who don’t annoy the shit out of me every second I’m not fucking them. ….*

You do this by learning what women want and selecting your behavior in accordance with it. To me, that involves being spineless and is a pathetic activity. If the only way you can increase your options with women is by loss of dignity, autonomy, and self-respect, then it might not be worth it.

For me, it is not.

davver November 2, 2011 at 9:49 am

“None of this involved faking who you are. You did not pretend to think what you do not think or feel what you did not feel. If it did, I would suggest you find another job.

None of this involved violating your values. If it did, I would suggest finding another job.”

Every single job in the entire world involves doing something I don’t want to do. Even if I were a rock star I’d have to play gigs I don’t feel like sometimes. The entire concept of paid work is that you have to be paid to do it, otherwise you would do it for free.

I didn’t walk in today and tell my boss he’s fat. And I didn’t call in and say I’m not comming in today because I feel like sleeping in. That’s how I actually feel. If I do anything but that I’m “faking it”. And that would be true in any job or business I could engage in.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 7:02 pm

*……Every single job in the entire world involves doing something I don’t want to do. Even if I were a rock star I’d have to play gigs I don’t feel like sometimes. The entire concept of paid work is that you have to be paid to do it, otherwise you would do it for free…..*

Doing what you do not wish to do is not the same as sacrificing self-respect. I do not cross the street in heavy traffic even if I wish to.

If you sacrifice your values for your job you sacrifice self-respect. If you pretend to be be who you are not in order to curry favor with your boss you sacrifice self-respect.

If you sit around trying to figure out what your boss likes in terms of behavior and learn to mold yourself according to that, you are pathetic. If you try to get a job through means other than having the requisite skills and being polite, you sacrifice self-respect.

Do you see the difference? It is NOT merely about *doing what you do not want to do*. Stop mis-characterizing it.

*…..I didn’t walk in today and tell my boss he’s fat…..*

Volunteering that info would be causing pointless pain. Avoiding causing others pointless pain is not putting them above you.

If he asked you, though, what would you answer?

*….And I didn’t call in and say I’m not comming in today because I feel like sleeping in. That’s how I actually feel. If I do anything but that I’m “faking it”……*

This is what you do not understand. Being genuine does not mean acting on every emotion we feel. That would be impossible. Sometimes we even feel conflicting emotions so it is not possible to act on EVERY emotion in a literal sense.

By coming in to work sleepy did you in any way DENY that you were feeling sleepy?If someone had asked you, would you LIE about it in order to curry favor?

If you would, THAT would be *faking*.

See the difference?

donlak November 1, 2011 at 5:35 pm

this mcguffin of losing your dignity by doing anything to get pussy these guys keep stomping their feet about is dumbfounding.

you know what makes me lose my dignity? having girls control how I feel about them, including bitterness and anger towards what they may or may not do to me. If I know certain things that work to get me what I want, that’s power over females. if you’re too angry or bitter, or just hate them girls for what they could do do you is pathetic.

Johnny Milfquest November 1, 2011 at 5:41 pm

^^ This.

davver November 1, 2011 at 5:02 pm

“The alternative is to stop faking yourself and seek out those women who like who you ARE. The fear that there ARE no such women shows that you think who you ARE is inadequate. It is a self-esteem issue.

Nerds should for nerds, jocks for jocks, etc. ”

Nerd girls don’t like nerd guys. They like alphas.
Arty girls don’t like arty guys. They like alphas.
Sporty girls don’t like sporty guys. They like alphas.

Yes, every girl would prefer that their ALPHA shared some charactistics and interests with them (nerdy, arty, sporty, etc), but ultimately alpha is the most important thing.

Beta women stopped going for beta men awhile ago. That model is dead. Either be an alpha or be celebet. It doesn’t matter whether its fair or its what you want. Its biological determinism.

“In any event, some things are MORE important than sex to some men. EVEN if game were necessary, it involves a massive loss of self-respect. This needs to be acknowledged. ”

Millions of years of evolution have programmed you otherwise. You NEED to fuck. If you don’t fuck it will fuck with you. Your body, your mind, your soul.

“Again, just not true. Most jobs do not involve selecting behavior based on how others like it. A job involves having the skills required.”

Bullshit. Today I came into work (around the hours my job tells me to), dressed in the business casual dress outlined by my employer. My boss told me, “I need task X done.” So I did task X. Do you think I woke up in the morning and said man I like waking up to an alarm clock, putting on some slacks, going to a building, and doing task X because someone asks me too? No, I want to sleep in and do whatever the fuck I want to all day. But I gotta eat, and pay the rent, so I do what I gotta do.

Sometimes you gotta fuck, and to do that you gotta do what you gotta do.

In my job I went to college and worked on skills so as to maximize my options (retire sooner and have more freedom because I make more). In game I work on seduction skills so that I have to invest fewer resources/bang and bang higher quality chicks who don’t annoy the shit out of me every second I’m not fucking them. Just as going to college took work learning game takes work.

donlak November 1, 2011 at 5:01 pm

damn iPhone, more from got perspctive forming your behaviour to fit

should read more from the perspective of forming your behaviour to fit

donlak November 1, 2011 at 4:58 pm

Harry,

I wouldn’t want this discussion to deteriate into a bunch of turd tossin like it did at AvFm, so I will refrain from swearing or shaming tactics – I find it revealing that the comments here are for the most part intelligent and level headed. But your issues of men using game, more from got perspctive forming your behaviour to fit someone elses ideas as abohorant or spineless, or giving away our dignity. Game is not just about women. Every man must do this in life, Any successful business man has to play the game. it’s called interacting with humans and whether you want to believe it or not, you change your behaviour depending on what you want out of them. if you want someone to give you a promotion, you play the game, wanna win an election, play the game, wanna win, play the game, wanna get pussy play the game, etc.

now I have no problem with someone hating the game, but to sit there on the sidelines and tell the players that their basically pathetic to bother with that game while you twiddle your thumbs or stomp your feat for all the things wrong with the world and what the other team did to you, is ludicrous and ignorant.
All I hear from this argument is a frightened spoiled child who wants girls served on a silver platter. oh yes, you must be a god, you don’t need to work for anything. what you want should happen no matter what. you don’t need to change, everyone else does. sounds a lot like the female entitlement complex we talk about so much, either that or just delusions.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 4:33 pm

*….But a man can’t get sex without game….*

Completely untrue.

The alternative is to stop faking yourself and seek out those women who like who you ARE. The fear that there ARE no such women shows that you think who you ARE is inadequate. It is a self-esteem issue.

Nerds should for nerds, jocks for jocks, etc.

In any event, some things are MORE important than sex to some men. EVEN if game were necessary, it involves a massive loss of self-respect. This needs to be acknowledged.

For me it is not worth it.

*……It’s like saying your shouldn’t get a job because its degrading (every job everywhere is, even a entreprenuer has to degrade himself to clients and customers), but then the problem of needing to eat and pay the rent comes up. Well, sex is as fundamental a need as food or shelter. And your going to have to do thing you don’t want to get it, just like you go to a job you don’t want to to pay the bills….*

Again, just not true. Most jobs do not involve selecting behavior based on how others like it. A job involves having the skills required.

SOME jobs, like used car salesmen, are slavish, and are generally considered contemptible.

If your job requires you to be spineless, find a new one.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 4:28 pm

Johnny Milqfest, where did I use the expression of jumping through hoops?

I said * selecting your behavior on the basis of whether it will appeal to women rather than your own values*.

Nowhere did I use jumping through hoops.

Yes, white knights also enable bad female behavior. But so does game.

Game enables bad behavior by learning to adapt to it. If a woman is a bitch, you dont game her. You walk away.

But the point is, selecting your behavior based on its appeal to women involves a massive loss of male autonomy and self-respect. EVEN if it got you women, which it does not.

Johnny Milfquest November 1, 2011 at 5:38 pm

“If a woman is a bitch, you dont game her. You walk away.”

I totally agree that you should walk away from bad female behaviour!

That’s a major part of good Game. The remaining part is how to flirt with women.

I’m sorry, but Elam is still talking out of his arse if he thinks that women are going to approach him and be up on his nuts for no apparent reason. Get real.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 6:25 pm

Johnny, have you ever heard about needing to get past a girls bitch shield? That is hardly walking away from female misbehavior. By learning to *overcome* bitch shields you are merely reinforcing them.

Thats a major game tenet, and if you disagree with that, you disagree with a major part of game.

Problem with game is that it excels at these kinds of contradictions.

G.L.Piggy November 2, 2011 at 5:55 am

Sophistry of the highest order.

The statement “by learning to overcome bitch shields you are merely reinforcing them” is not logically valid. It is literally like you just said “knocking down a wall merely reinforces the wall”.

Since this is the crux of your entire argument, your argument has been nullified.

Harry November 2, 2011 at 1:27 pm

No, G.L, *overcoming* here means *behaving in ways the girl likes so she can be persuaded to drop the bitch shield*.

If every time a girl does a bitch shield, she is REWARDED through you behaving in ways she likes, is she less likely or more likely to do bitch shields? Does it reinforce her tendency to do bitch shields or not?

To vary your analogy, its as if someone erected a wall and charged money to pass through a door in it. Every time you paid that money you convinced him it was a good idea to erect that wall. Every time you simply walked away from that wall, you made him reconsider.

The Boar November 1, 2011 at 4:18 pm

“Women = evil. Men must avoid western women at all costs if they don’t want their lives ruined. Men who don’t are ignorant and/or foolish.”

This is exactly the sentiment on which MRA is based, unfortunately. While somewhat simplified, it rings true on all levels – but the MRA’s will never admit this to themselves, let alone others; instead they have made up convenient delusions of self-righteousness; a platform from which they can proclaim their judgment on everyone else who doesn’t adhere to their ideas verbatim. Which is sad, because they are fighting for a cause which is imperative in today’s feminism-ridden culture.

I must say that I was surprised at the level of sheep mentality evident at the MRA comments regarding the debate. Disregarding obvious idiots like Alek Novy, only some of the pro-MRA guys had something useful and original to say; instead, most of them constantly spewed forth rubbish consisting of catch-phrases like “pussy beggars”, “PUA’s promoting shitty products”, “losers with no life”, “snakeoil salesmen” etc. These are not arguments; these are stupid figures of speech, nothing more than smear words used to obscure the lack of actual logical arguments used in order to “kill the conversation”, viz. shut down thought process.

Hell, you can take a look at this recent comment from Harry above – just count how many times he repeats words “slavish”, “spineless”, “loss of autonomy and/or dignity”, “losing self-respect” etc. This obviously happens when someone tries to argue a point, but lacks original ideas to bring to the table – instead he uses catch-phrases because his whole thought-process is based on these conceptions. It’s useless to argue with that kind of people, and like I said, it’s unfortunate that most people (not all) on AVFM are obviously like that.

Since I’m already taking my time with this comment, I’ll also say this – in my opinion the definition of Game provided by Frost is not really good. Actually, I don’t recall anyone defining Game in a satisfying manner to my taste. I don’t have a better definition myself, but I would propose that Game should be defined clearly so no one can use the lame arguments like “yeah, game is defined vaguely so you can defend it easily”. If I would try to describe Game it would include something like this: “Study of women’s psychology and behavior, what kind of men’s behavior is attractive to women and what kind is not; study of underlying social principles that guide male-female relationships; study of social and group dynamic;, study of psychological phenomena related to sex and relationships; ability to demonstrate traits attractive to women” and so on. Maybe this sound like bullshit, I don’t know, but I think that if couple of top dogs like Roissy etc. got together we could properly define Game, so that we at least settle that issue once and for all.

Finally, I think that Game community needs to somehow break the stigma of association with fuzzy hats and stupid lines; not for the sake of proving our worth to MRA or anyone else, but because I honestly believe that Game can offer real self-development (in the sphere of relationships and sex) instead of just increasing your chances of getting one-night stands. This is obvious to the smart guys out there studying Game theory, but a lot of PUA’s don’t get that and use basic Game only to increase their chances with women (nothing wrong with that, it’s just that real game knowledge goes much deeper).

This illusion that Game is only about some sleazy pickup lines, peacocking etc. is what MRA’s are attacking, without acknowledging that Game is much more than that.

davver November 1, 2011 at 3:08 pm

Harry,

“True, but if a man wishes to get sex without sacrificing his self-respect, he will also have no use for game. ”

But a man can’t get sex without game.

It’s like saying your shouldn’t get a job because its degrading (every job everywhere is, even a entreprenuer has to degrade himself to clients and customers), but then the problem of needing to eat and pay the rent comes up. Well, sex is as fundamental a need as food or shelter. And your going to have to do thing you don’t want to get it, just like you go to a job you don’t want to to pay the bills.

In your working live you try your best to maximize your benefits to degradation ratio. The luckiest people get to do what they love. Maybe your a millionaire rock star. But even millionaire rockstars have to do things they don’t want to do. Do you not think some of them play gigs they aren’t thrilled about? Do you not think they hate dealing with publicists? No matter how good a job, its going to have unpleasent parts that are degrading. Dealing with women is the same thing. No matter how good you get you will always have to do something you don’t want to do. If your lucky and you have great game maybe you can minimize the unpleasentness and maximize the reward, just like the rockstar, but nothing in life is free.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 2:40 pm

*….Game is the study of how women respond to men’s behaviour….*

You forgot to add, for the purposes of adapting mens behavior based on how women respond. Some men consider this a spineless and slavish study.

*…..We learn from each other, we experiment for ourselves, and we use whatever helps us achieve our goals with women, discarding the rest. …*

Some men feel that selecting our behavior on the basis of how it will likely appeal to women rather than because it represents our values to be a spineless and slavish thing to do. Some consider it a contemptible loss of autonomy.

*….The bottom line is that Game is a tool men can use to increase their success with women. No more, no less….*

Perhaps, but if using a particular tool involves a massive loss of dignity and autonomy, then perhaps it is not worth it?

*…….If a man chooses to eschew sex for life, I admit he will have no use for Game….*

True, but if a man wishes to get sex without sacrificing his self-respect, he will also have no use for game.

*……Otherwise, he would be a fool to dismiss the idea of thinking critically about his interactions with women….*

Again, there are other standards in life than utility. If a man wishes to try and improve his interactions with women through loss of autonomy and dignity, perhaps the gained utility is not worth the loss in self-respect and masculinity.

*….There are two possible reasons why Paul and other MRAs might disapprove of Game.

1) You think that our specific teachings are flawed….*

No, we think the very CONCEPT of selecting your behavior on the basis of how it will appeal to women rather than because it represents your values is slavish and spineless, a form of supplication and an example of abject pussy-begging.

It really does not matter WHAT you do. Even inherently neutral behaviors like being aloof, if selected on the basis of appealing to women rather than because you are a naturally aloof kind of guy, is degrading.

It is really not about specific teachings.

*…..All this talk about ‘just take a shower’ being the sum total of advice a man needs with regard to women, is a bit silly. I don’t think Paul actually believes that the legions of young men who are not meeting women, not getting laid, and not having fulfilling relationships with women, just need a bucket of warm soapy water to achieve their wildest penthouse-letters-esque fantasies….*

It may not be enough to get great with women, but it is all that one can do that is consistent with self-respect and masculinity. Doing more will certainly not make you better with women, but worse. Just because what Paul suggests is not enough does not mean game is. The desire for something that can do the trick might lead men in a desperate pursuit that sacrifices dignity, autonomy, and self-respect.

Sometimes our desires for certain outcomes can enslave us and lead us to do degrading, self-hurtful things.

It might be necessary to just give up some dreams as not worth it. No one wants to do that, it takes emotional strength and radical honesty. Instead of sacrificing self-respect in a desperate pursuit of something, realize that anything that involves the sacrifice of self-respect is not worth it. You can either learn to pursue your dream in ways that do not involve loss of self-respect, or give up the dream.

*..deep down, Paul realizes that consistently sleeping with attractive women is something that almost all men want to do, and only a small number of men actually do. If it were easy, you’d all be out doing it right now….*

Of course, none of that has to do with what a man should be WILLING to do to get sex.

*….One of the human brain’s favourite hobbies is self-deception. If we can’t have something, we rationalize that we didn’t want it anyways. …*

We also rationalize to ourselves that we are doing to get what we want is not really degrading and pathetic. That because we want it, we just pursuing our desires and that cannot possibly involve us in any degradation. The mind is just such a subtle beast when it comes to rationalizations, isnt it?

*….Personally, I’m wary of any belief system that seems to give me an easy way to justify taking the easy road…..*

Indeed, which is why men with back bone reject game. It is the easy road.

*….If necessary, I will thoroughly debunk the first four claims in the comments of this post. …

Yes, please do. So far you have not.

*…..The people you call “Gamers” are simply those who understand socio-biology and gender politics, and have chosen to use that understanding to improve their personal lives…*

In my view, gamers merely claim they understand that, bot dont in reality. To the extent that they use the understanding of what women want to select their behavior accordingly, they are pussy begging. I would not call that an improvement, even if they got women.

*….. Game is the Men’s Rights Movement’s most powerful weapon in the battle against feminism….*

By teaching men to select their behavior on the basis of what women like and not their own values? Interesting perspective.

*……Roissy has done more to empower 21st century men than A Voice For Men by an order of magnitude. Show a little respect….*

Roissy has systematically poisoned minds and made countless men into weak men who sacrifice their autonomy and dignity in a desperate pursuit of something they cannot get through a sacrifice of autonomy and dignity.

Johnny Milfquest November 1, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Harry,

Where the hell do you and Paul Elam get this bizarre notion that Game involves “jumping through hoops”?

Its the exact opposite of that.

The men who “jump through women’s hoops” are the white knight beta chumps with zero Game buying drinks to open women or dinner for chicks that they haven’t slept with yet!

They are the ones creating monsters in terms of flaky female behaviour. If MRAs want to attack a subset of the male population how about taking aim at all the mangina beta orbiters on Facebook (for example) instead?

Peter Phoenix November 1, 2011 at 6:02 pm

Harry,
You made so many invalid points it makes my head spin.

*…Perhaps, but if using a particular tool involves a massive loss of dignity and autonomy, then perhaps it is not worth it?…*

I don’t know how you associate game with loss of dignity and autonomy.
We’re trying to provide men with the teachings to get walked over LESS by women.

If you learnt about dominance, teasing, humour, boldness, leadership would you consider it spineless?

If you are currently getting the women you REALLY desire (the ones you stop and stare at on the street) with your current set of values and behaviours then I applaud you. Because most men aren’t.

Harry November 1, 2011 at 10:04 pm

*…. don’t know how you associate game with loss of dignity and autonomy….*

Because you select your behavior based on its appeal to women not based on your own values. HER reactions decide for you. This is a loss of autonomy. This is a loss of dignity.

*…..We’re trying to provide men with the teachings to get walked over LESS by women….*

You are trying to accomplish this by learning what women *really* want and giving it to them. It is like learning to get walked over less by a bully through submitting to him.

Spineless?

*……If you learnt about dominance, teasing, humour, boldness, leadership would you consider it spineless?….*

If I DID these things to be liked by women, YES, I would consider it spineless.

*…..if you are currently getting the women you REALLY desire (the ones you stop and stare at on the street) with your current set of values and behaviours then I applaud you. Because most men aren’t….*

This is irrelevant to the question of whether game is supplication. Even if it worked it would be supplication. Just because you want something, does not mean everything you do to get is not degrading.

Bronan the Barbarian! November 1, 2011 at 2:06 pm

Frost – Great analysis.

Gmac – Your three stages of progression are spot-on. This is the exact same progression I’ve gone through over the last year or so that I’ve been studying game and I can say that I’ve gained a significant amount of control over something I used to feel that I had no control over. Game has made me a better man.

The term “gamer” creates a negative mental image of some World of Warcraft dork spending hours in front of a video game, spent cans of Mountain Dew littering the basement like soldiers fallen in battle. I use “gamesman” instead.

Rusty November 1, 2011 at 1:29 pm

I’ve left a comment which has generated a fair few replies over on AVFM, but thought I’d swing over to see what was being said here. And there’s something which has been on my mind about this which I don’t want to say there (as I think it will just cause an argument, and that’s no use to anyone).

Gmac just said “And at least we’re not afraid of women”. I think, if you add “angry at”, “spiteful towards” and, yes, oftentimes “hateful towards women”, then some of the more extreme/vehement comments from various guys over there start to make a bit more sense.

When I first discovered the manosphere and MRA blogs, I was swept up by a lot of the rhetoric and hyperbole that gets thrown around. These sites were giving voice to something that had been niggling away at the back of my mind, and here were other men agreeing – more than that, shouting about it! It was quite something, and for a while I was carried along on that tide as well: getting righteously angry, waiting to challenge people about it, I (briefly) started a blog and got into arguments with my friends when they disagreed…

Then, after a while, I calmed down, took a breath, and surveyed the landscape around me. And I realised: this anger wasn’t helping. I was mad about slights that had not happened to me. I was pre-emptively attempting to punish people before they’d committed any crime, because I’d learned to expect they were going to. I wasn’t actually helping anyone to see things from a ‘red pill’ perspective – in fact, all I was doing was driving people further away.

So I started re-evaluating everything. Starting over, I took what I had been told, what I had read, and researched, and took it out to the world outside my door. And a lot of it didn’t fit. Some did. But nothing I saw in front of me was cause to be so damn angry. Aware, yes. But not angry.

Now, in fairness, I don’t really have anything to be angry about. Aside from some mismanaged relationships in my past, where a bit of game knowledge would have immensely helped me, I’ve had it pretty good. Education, security, work? Check. Better relationships? Check. Places to go in life? Check.

And therein lies the rub: many men on MRA sites are there precicely because of the injustices which, whilst I am aware of them, I have not experienced. And they have every right to be angry. However, special interest websites and forums have a way of sucking people in, and making them see the world through a very specific filter. In this case, a lot of the time that filter is “Women = evil. Men must avoid western women at all costs if they don’t want their lives ruined. Men who don’t are ignorant and/or foolish.” *

So, seeing the world through this filter, what must guys who expend time and energy in an attempt to improve their success with women look like? When you spend all your time decrying any remote semblence of pedestalisation, how does this ‘gamer’ come across? When the word ‘pussy’ is used as a prefix for all the ills in the world, what the hell do you think of someone who decides they want it?

Ultimately, I think that’s the rift. That’s what is stopping many MRAs from understanding (wilfully or not) why game might be a force for good in a man’s life.

At least, that’s how it seems.

*Apologies if this in itself seems hyperbolic. I know that’s a massive simplification, but this post is getting massive enough as it is…

flyfreshandyoung November 1, 2011 at 1:14 pm

@Gmac

Spot on with the progression.

I’d like to think a lot of us write about “next level” shit- cultivating and maintaining high value self worth. For example, if I could take away only a few things from the manosphere, one of them would be that “No woman is worth your dignity”. This includes such things as not bending over backwards for girls, deleting poorly behaved women from your life, and in general just not putting up with any of women’s shit. Not only is this a greatly empowering mindset for men to have, something those in the MRM would no doubt agree with, but it is also a mindset that will yield much snatch.

Gmac November 1, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Great post.

What these MRA guys continue to fail to grasp is the fact that you can’t just lump everyone from the “game” and “pua” camps together. If anything, I’d say even the game community has fractured off into something else entirely. I get why they think “gamers” (I hate that term) are only after pussy, but they’re not seeing the whole picture.

There’s the “men’s self-improvement” sect (roissy/roosh/evil patriarchy/et al) and there is the “hey we’re better than the virgin pua wannabes but still only focused on getting pussy” sect (fast seduction & nearly every other game forum out there). They fail to see that the game community is evolving into something much different and (arguably) more effective than the 100% MRA mindset. And at least we’re not afraid of women.

We here in the manosphere know that the whole “PUA” community is basically one big money making scam full of opportunists. These MRA guys are wrongly associating us with them.

I also think that there is a natural progression that a lot of guys go through when they get into game.

1. “PUA” mindset after first reading “Mystery Method” & “The Game” for rookies, omegas, etc.
2. “Game” mindset after getting some experience and learning more about women (i.e. finding the manosphere) – leaving most of the “PUA” tactics behind
3. “Self-Improvement” mindset once you realize that in order for you to get to the next level you need to become that higher value man

(r)Evoluzione November 1, 2011 at 12:09 pm

Well-done, Frosty. This may turn out to be a very fruitful debate. I don’t think anyone who’s already in one camp or another will be convinced to jump ship, but I do think that young bucks coming up on the scene will read these words from you & Paul (and his irresistable radiating field of Paul-ness), and have a better appreciation for both game and MRM, and participate in both. At least that’s my hope.

Legion November 1, 2011 at 10:52 am

Nice job Frost.

Perhaps in future installments you can expound on the differences between “Game” insights ala Roissy, Roosh, Solomon (may he rest in peace), D&P, F25 etc and the douche-bag PUA hucksters promising magical results with their secret knowledge via “boot camps”, Seminars and DVDs available in three easy payments.

Broadhead November 1, 2011 at 9:40 am

Perhaps the equivalent advice would be “Just pick up a guitar and play the sounds you hear in the song” – I feel that task would be
a) possible for some with a previously unknown natural talent
b) challenging and a waste of effort for most, when there are less frustrating ways to achieve the desired result
c) impossible to even comprehend for those who can’t distinguish between the sounds of different instruments

Broadhead November 1, 2011 at 9:17 am

I like music. If I learn guitar so that I can play songs that I enjoy, I am not making myself subservient to the guitar or the songs. I am applying my new knowledge and skills to achieve the outcome I want.

Is that a controversial statement?

Now:
I like sex. If I learn game so that I can enjoy sexual relationships with women that I like, I am not making myself subservient to the relationship or the game, I am applying my new knowledge and skills to achieve the outcome I want.

What about that makes it so objectionable? Guitar lessons are commercialised and a lot of music instruction material is created by people wanting to make money. But you can also go online and get a huge amount of free advice, lessons, tips and song transcriptions – the people creating those items may have paid $1000’s for their musical education. They might even have taken lessons from a poor teacher and had to re-learn elements themselves. Does that knowledge affect how I should view their work?

Johnny Milfquest November 1, 2011 at 8:32 am

WIN.

Elam just got his arse handed to him by a man 30 years his junior.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: