The Paul Elam Debate, Part 3

by Frost on November 6, 2011

This will be my final installment in this debate. Before I begin, I want to commend Mr. Elam for his willingness to defend his ideas in an open forum, and thank him taking part in the conversation.

It may not feel like it, but we’re making progress. For example, Paul has conceded that:

1) Game is a useful tool for men who would like to increase the options available to them in their sex lives. As Paul himself wrote in a comment on the original Chateau Bullshit post:  “but one caveat that can’t be ignored. The tactics these guys employ work. Maybe not with you, but with lots and lots of women. I was not arguing that they would fail, just that it isn’t worth it.”

2) Young men are in desperate need of guidance and instruction in the modern dating market.

For my part, I will grant that many valid criticisms of the wider seduction community have also been made. There are a lot of posers selling overpriced bullshit. Most tactics really aren’t that important, once you achieve a basic level of social competence. The seduction community really does contain men who are obsessed with the pursuit of women above all else, and who need to be told that they’ll live more fulfilling lives if they broaden their horizons.

All of these criticisms apply to a segment of the seduction community that is generally unaffiliated with Roissy, myself, Chuck, Gmac, Donlak, and the circles we run in. But at least, the caricature Paul seems to imagine for us is not a complete hallucination.

I’m curious though – since the Roissysphere is far and away the most MRA-friendly and risk-conscious segment of the wider seduction community, why attack it? Why not write a post saying, “The seduction community is a bunch of bullshit, but if you must read blogs about picking up women, here are a few Game bloggers who, 1) Are aware of MRA issues, and 2) Aren’t trying to sell you thousand-dollar seminars. I still think they’re wrong about X, Y and Z, but they’re the best of a bad lot.”

I have my theories as to why many in the MRM are so hostile towards the seduction community, but I won’t go into them here. Perhaps some time in the future.

*

In any case, I’m going to shift gears in this final post. Until now, I’ve been arguing the pro-Game position on a purely personal level. To summarize: Men should learn how to improve their relationships with women, and tune out the voices of men who’ve given up in life, and wish for you to share in their misery. Call it something other than Game, if you’re allergic to the word, but learning how to approach and seduce women is one of the most essential skills a man can have in life. And it can be learned.

Like I said, Paul seems to agree with all this. Still, we seem to be talking past each other.

As those who read my blog know, I primarily write about self-improvement. I focus on how to become a better man for selfish, personal reasons. My blog is very rarely political in nature. Not overtly, at least.

Paul on the other hand is an activist. I’m sure he wants you to become a better man. But his primary focus is on achieving legal, political and institutional change.

So today I want to engage Paul on his own territory. I want to discuss Game, not as a tool for personal success and better living, but as a tactic in the MRM arsenal in the fight against feminism and misandry.

Let’s start with a bold claim.

Game is the key to male empowerment in the western world. The ground-level war against feminism and misandry will be won by the seduction community.

There are two fronts  on which the Men’s Rights Movement must fight: On the public front, they must fight the political, legal and cultural force that perpetuate misandry. But they also must convince individual men to make better choices in their personal lives.

What is the long-term solution to divorce theft, for example? Well, obviously we would like to see the family law system gutted and replaced by something moral, sane and fair. That’s not going to happen overnight though. Until then, we need to tell men: Don’t enter into legal marriage lightly, if at all.

Perhaps one day the penalty for a false rape accusation will be equal to the penalty for rape. Until then, we need to tell men: If a drunk bipolar girl with a personal history of deceit, drama and manipulation wants to bang you, maybe you should think twice.

More broadly, American men need to stop being such complete and utter pussies in their personal dealings with women. They need to:

– Stop accepting poor behaviour from crazy girls

– Stop encouraging fat chicks by banging them

– Stop letting their women be the men in their relationships

– Have expectations, and enough pride in themselves to walk away from women who don’t meet them

– Stop spending their entire lives supplicating to women in exchange for sex, i.e. by paying for expensive dates, presents, vacations, and so on

To win these small battles, men need to have power in their relationships with women. They need options, so they can walk away from women and behaviour that they don’t approve of.

Over the past half-century, men have been taught to cede control of all the power they have in their personal relationships with women. They have been trained to continue upholding their side of the social contract, while women have been told that any expectation for them to do the same is oppression, pure and simple. The Roissysphere is the solution to this imbalance. We are teaching men that it’s OK to be a cad, it’s OK to be selfish, and it’s OK to pursue your own wants and needs in the world.

The result will be the breakdown of the sexual marketplace. Feminism is not a self-sustaining entity. It is a parasite, and it requires ‘good guys’ to feed on. Game is the Red Pill that is turning good (i.e. obedient and self-sacrificing) men bad.

The bigger legal, political and cultural fights are important. But the battle is also being fought in the kitchens, bedrooms, dinner tables, and yes, barroom dance floors of our society every day. Western men will never stand up to feminism politically, until we have learned to stand against it personally.

By far the most amusing argument I’ve seen used against Game over the course of this debate is that practitioners of the crimson arts are inherently supplicative towards women. Several commenters seem to be under the impression that ‘Gamers’ achieve their carnal goals by caving in to what women want, jumping through hoops for them, and generally betraying their manly dignity for a taste of some sweet, sweet pussy. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth.

As anyone remotely familiar with the discipline knows, a man who has properly learned and applied Game will be far less supplicative in his dealings with women than he was before. An attractive man is dominant. He is in control. He is the master of his fate, and his woman’s. Consider this story of a man who used Game to reassert his dominance in his marriage:

“I got married young, and simply did not understand anything about game, or the benefits of assertive masculinity. I put my wife on a pedestal and spent 7 years or so of a very contentious, walking on egg-shell type of relationship that teetered towards divorce more than a few times.

I discovered PUA/Game sites like this one a few years ago, and after a bit of reading on shit tests, and the subconscious mating desires of females, I began to “run game” on my wife.

The transformation of our relationship is astounding.

Yes, she put on a good 40 lbs. a couple of years after we got married.

Once I learned to game her subconscious, competitive instincts and began to plant suggestions in her mind that I was desirable to other women…she’s gotten motivated and lost the weight, and her affection towards me reverted back to the way she was before got married.

Once I started recognizing her shit tests and began to not just “pass them” but literally blow them up, the passive-aggressive emotionally driven conflict that had been the hallmark of our relationship has all but disappeared.

We don’t fight anymore.

My wife, who used to grumble and complain and tell all her closest friends and family that we had a “difficult relationship with lots of problems that needs working on” now tells everyone she’s happily married without blinking an eye.”

His story (which goes on in more detail in the post) is extremely typical in that the result of learning Game was empowerment in his personal relationships. Game made him powerful. Thank god no one told him that Roissy was ‘bullshit’ before it did, or he would still be struggling through a shitty marriage, and perhaps a messy divorce.

Game empowers the men who use it on a deeper level as well. A man who is confident in his ability to consistently find and seduce women will be less likely to expose himself to risks such as marrying a pregnant hooker, because he has options. In my case, I’m probably never getting married, and I would happily walk away from a woman I loved if she refused to accept this. I can do this because I have options. I have options because I have Game. If I had neither, I would be much more likely to accept marriage and the risks it entails, because golly gee, what are the odds of another woman falling for me? Game turns regular $20k-wedding, no-prenup chumps, into Skittles Men.

The final point on which Paul and I agree, and also the most important one, is that the men of my generation need help. Millions of us are unemployed, indebted, and broke. Millions of us are fat, weak and out of shape. Millions of us are wasting away in front of computer and TV screens, letting the hours and days of our lives slip away. And yes, millions of us are completely and utterly failing to have healthy and enjoyable relationships with women. The vast majority of us want to regularly get laid. Most will eventually want to have families.

A huge number will never realize those goals, if they continue on the paths they’re on.

Me and my fellow ‘Gamers’ are doing our best to offer the men of my generation solutions to these challenges. We haven’t figured out all the answers yet. But we’ve figured out some. Paul does you a disservice by trying to hide you from our world.

{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }

Rivelino November 9, 2011 at 4:33 pm

great post man.

The Boar November 9, 2011 at 9:45 am

This is getting boring, like Frost said; there is little use in arguing with people who refuse to listen or change. Still…

Harry, all this stuff you wrote about in your post at great length can be summed to this:

People care what other people think of them, and that’s fact. Whether you like it or not, we live in a society next to other people and their opinions of us can usually have impact on our lives. To be completely immune from opinions of others, you would have to live in a cabin on the mountain, completely shut off from any human contact.

The only problem is when people start to derive their self-respect and sense of self-worth based on what other people think of them. These people can then start to fake themselves (by adopting certain behaviors, for example) to be accepted by a certain group of people.

…and that’s it. Game doesn’t make you a supplicating (damn, I’m starting to hate that word) loser; you’re either a supplicating loser to begin with or you’re not. If you are, Game can reinforce that behavior, or, more likely, can help you get rid of this problem. If Game doesn’t help with it, there are other ways to get rid of that behavior.

There, problem solved.

Harry November 9, 2011 at 5:58 pm

Boar, Im impressed. Your thinking is getting more sophisticated and I think you are coming close to achieving a breakthrough.

*…….The only problem is when people start to derive their self-respect and sense of self-worth based on what other people think of them. These people can then start to fake themselves (by adopting certain behaviors, for example) to be accepted by a certain group of people.….*

Do you mean like guys faking themselves to be accepted by women? You have just given a great definition of game, and explained what is wrong with it.

A few days ago before this debate you never would have written such a thing. You are still stuck in the cognitive dissonance of describing game whithout realizing you are doing so, but seeds of enlightenment have clearly begun to ripen in your mind. It takes time, my friend, so I will leave you to the slow maturation of these ideas in your mind. Its an interesting intellectual journey. It took me time, too.

But I agree this debate has grown boring. I have pretty much said all there is to be said. If someone replies to me, Ill answer, but I wont be posting anything new.

The Boar November 10, 2011 at 6:18 am

I’ll reply to this one last time, and be done with it.

First, cut the “you’re really making a breakthrough here” crap; this isn’t some shrink session where you reality is the absolute truth, and I’m starting to see it despite my limited mental capacity. I’m way beyond these pretentious attempts you employ to steer the argument in your favor.

Now that’s out of the way let’s go to the argument – again, you’re misattributing the supplicating behavior to be the side-effect of Game. If a man supplicates to women that behavior most likely doesn’t have anything to do with Game; it’s more likely that it arises from his beta conditioning by the society.

It’s like I said saw a guy who is a famous biologist steal someone’s car and conclude: “On no, all that studying biology made him a car thief!” It didn’t -these two things are completely unrelated. Now, I understand that supplicating behavior can be attributed to Game more easily than car theft can be to studying biology, but the truth is that these two things have nothing in common.
Game is knowledge – it’s up to you how you use it, and there is a good chance that by learning Game can stop your supplicating behavior toward women, although it’s not 100% guaranteed.

Harry November 10, 2011 at 1:43 pm

Boar, without being in the least condescending, you are not stupid. I really dont think you are. But you consistently mis-characterize my arguments.

I do not say supplication is a side-effect of game. I say game itself is refined supplication. Trying to appear confident so that women will like you is supplication. It is just more refined, less obvious supplication. Doing things so women will like you is weak.

Now, you have a perfect right to disagree with me, but at least be correct about what it is you are disagreeing with. You owe it to yourself to at least have an accurate idea of what it is precisely you are disagreeing with.

Now, can we finally lay this thing to rest?

Cheers,

Harry November 9, 2011 at 8:35 am

@Hugh, thanks for your intelligent reply. However, I think you miss a bunch of important distinctions.

Making an elaborate display of not caring what women think (which is actually a celebrated game tactic) would be using what women think as a reference point. Actually not caring what women think does not use female opinion as a reference point. It simply does not take it into account. What you are probably thinking of is the kind of guy who reflexively does the OPPOSITE of what women think, trying to DEMONSTRATE that he *does not care*. Obviously he does care, or he would not make a point of SHOWING her that he does not care.

But thats not what I am talking about. I am talking about simply not taking female reaction into account one way or another, good or bad.

You say you would be inauthentic because you had to stop yourself taking into consideration what others think. Yet authenticity does not consist in obeying every impulse. We might feel an impulse to fake ourselves – obeying it would make us inauthentic. We can be quite honest that we wish others to like us and yet still refuse to let that determine our actions. Thats how we learn to be more authentic.

Macho-ness would be making a DISPLAY of not caring – genuinely not caring is genuine indifference.

I dont understand your remark about *how* a man cares – you say it is about stripping away insecurities and anxieties, but still caring what she thinks of him. You say stripping away insecurities and anxieties about what a woman thinks of you is not the same thing as not caring.

So he is no longer insecure and anxious about what a woman thinks of him, but he still cares if she thinks well or poorly of him? I think the definition of no longer being insecure about how someone thinks of you pretty much means it does not matter to you if they think poorly or well of you.

So I think you are just setting up a contradiction there. Stripping away insecurities MEANS not caring if others think well or ill of you.

I dont think you have successfully made a distinction between not caring and between not caring in a way that involves anxiety. All caring what others think of you involves anxiety. I think what you MIGHT be trying to say is that one can wish to be polite and spare the other person pain – is THAT the kind of caring of what women think you are talking about? If so, it is not caring what she thinks of YOU, it is an attempt to avoid giving her pain. It is sensitivity to pain not favorable opinion , and perhaps one can say that this is caring about she thinks. This distinction I would recognize – I would merely say then one must not care what she thinks of YOU.

I dont really care to define masculinity, you are right; I was merely using it as a synonym for strength and self-respect. I dont wish to police anyonese masculinity but discussions of self-respect and strength are paramount to the issue

The guy who interprets not caring what others think to mean acting like a jerk is committing a crucial misunderstanding. He is confusing being indifferent to the good or bad opinion of others with being indifferent to causing others pointless pain in inappropriate contexts. So yes, one must be clear that we mean not caring what others think of US, not that we are advocating insensitivity to pain. My point was clear from the context of this discussion but I agree when we approach newbies with this advice we have to make this distinction.

There really are few things guys can do aside from basic grooming, removing inhibitions that are holding you back from being your genuine self, and approaching women. Beyond that, you just have to be her type. The belief that there really are lots of things you can do leads guys into the path of supplication. And even if there WERE things, being motivated by a desire to be liked by others makes you weaker as a human being.

Check out this website for a scientific and rigorous examination of whether or not you can do ANYTHING to *make* women attracted to you http://www.seductionmyth.com

Cheers,

Harry November 9, 2011 at 8:30 am

@Hugh, thanks for your intelligent reply. I think you miss a bunch of important distinctions.

Making an elaborate display of not caring what women think (which is actually a celebrated game tactic) would be using what women think as a reference point. Actually not caring what women think does not use female opinion as a reference point. It simply does not take it into account. What you are probably thinking of is the kind of guy who reflexively does the OPPOSITE of what women think, trying to DEMONSTRATE that he *does not care*. Obviously he does care, or he would not make a point of SHOWING her that he does not care.

But thats not what I am talking about. I am talking about simply not taking female reaction into account one way or another, good or bad.

You say you would be inauthentic because you had to stop yourself taking into consideration what others think. Yet authenticity does not consist in obeying every impulse. We might feel an impulse to fake ourselves – obeying it would make us inauthentic. We can be quite honest that we wish others to like us and yet still refuse to let that determine our actions. Thats how we learn to be more authentic.

Macho-ness would be making a DISPLAY of not caring – genuinely not caring is genuine indifference.

I dont understand your remark about *how* a man cares – you say it is about stripping away insecurities and anxieties, but still caring what she thinks of him. You say stripping away insecurities and anxieties about what a woman thinks of you is not the same thing as not caring.

So he is no longer insecure and anxious about what a woman thinks of him, but he still cares if she thinks well or poorly of him? I think the definition of no longer being insecure about how someone thinks of you pretty much means it does not matter to you if they think poorly or well of you.

So I think you are just setting up a contradiction there. Stripping away insecurities MEANS not caring if others think well or ill of you.

I dont think you have successfully made a distinction between not caring and between not caring in a way that involves anxiety. All caring what others think of you involves anxiety. I think what you MIGHT be trying to say is that one can wish to be polite and spare the other person pain – is THAT the kind of caring of what women think you are talking about? If so, it is not caring what she thinks of YOU, it is an attempt to avoid giving her pain. It is sensitivity to pain not favorable opinion , and perhaps one can say that this is caring about she thinks. This distinction I would recognize – I would merely say then one must not care what she thinks of YOU.

I dont really care to define masculinity, you are right; I was merely using it as a synonym for strength and self-respect. I dont wish to police anyonese masculinity but discussions of self-respect and strength are paramount to the issue

The guy who interprets not caring what others think to mean acting like a jerk is committing a crucial misunderstanding. He is confusing being indifferent to the good or bad opinion of others with being indifferent to causing others pointless pain in inappropriate contexts. So yes, one must be clear that we mean not caring what others think of US, not that we are advocating insensitivity to pain. My point was clear from the context of this discussion but I agree when we approach newbies with this advice we have to make this discussion.

There really are few things guys can do aside from basic grooming, removing inhibitions that are holding you back from being your genuine self, and approaching women. Beyond that, you just have to be her type. The belief that there really are lots of things you can do leads guys into the path of supplication. And even if there WERE things, being motivated by a desire to be liked by others makes you weaker as a human being.

Cheers,

Harry November 9, 2011 at 8:33 am

Sorry, meant to post this underneath. Will re^post.

Hugh Ristik November 9, 2011 at 6:08 am

Frost,

You made a good effort in the debate, but I think the gap in experience was too wide. It’s almost like pickup is considered lacking because it isn’t the men’s rights movement. That’s especially strange, because in practically the entire feminist blogosphere, men’s rights and pickup are considered to intersect: feminists will refer to “MRA/PUA assholes” as if those acronyms were linked.

I started studying pickup many years ago, and I got interested in men’s rights a year or two later. Pickup helped confirm my intuitions that men weren’t universally advantaged, and that female privilege exists, which helped lay the foundation for men’s rights.

Most of my pickup background comes not from commercial materials, or even gurus, but just hanging on seduction forums, and listening to the guys who seemed to be more experienced, and who had the sort of lifestyle and philosophy that appealed to me.

A few points that came up during the debate:

– The description of “game” on AVFM is at odds with my understanding of it. I agree that there is an overlap between game and gynocentrism, but that overlap is partial, not complete.

– Definition of “game.” I think critics of game are right that there are a lot of contradictory definitions of game going on. But perhaps that is partly because gamers aren’t trying to define what game is, but what they think it should be. When I’m talking about game, I’m really not interested in describing and defending the sort of game that other guys do. I’m trying to define and describe the sort of game that I like.

Some game critics brought up the shifting definitions of feminism, which is a good point. Yet feminism is a political movement, while game is more a personal development movement (though it does have some political elements). Consequently, I think it’s fairer to ask feminists for some sort of consistency with each other than gamers.

– Supplication and shit tests. I think the relationship between game and supplication is complex, and I think the understanding of that relationship by both gamers and non-gamers is too simplistic. Game can involve supplication, but I disagree that it necessarily does. Handling shit tests can also reward bad behavior, but I don’t know why some game critics think that handling shit tests always means appeasing women, or giving them the exact sort of drama they want. I think it really varies; it depends on the test, and how the guy responds.

Furthermore, a lot of things labeled “shit tests” aren’t necessarily even “shit” or “tests” (which I think many experienced PUAs understand), so they aren’t necessarily even the bad female behavior that MRA game critics think PUAs tolerate. For instance, if a woman says “getting a little full of yourself, huh?” that falls under “mild shit test,” but it’s probably not correct to judge that as bad behavior: she is probably just trying to flirt with you, not grab your balls in a vice.

If game critics don’t understand the emphasis placed on being willing to walk away, then their exposure to game is superficial. And even when a man chooses to stay in a situation where he isn’t quite happy, hey, sometimes you don’t always get what you want. If a man feels that “half a loaf is better than no bread,” and he makes an informed choice to enter into a non-optimal relationship or sexual situation, I defend that as a valid choice. Personally, I would have thought that a men’s rights approach would encourage giving men more choices. Even a bad choice is still a choice.

Making a woman happy isn’t necessarily supplication, when it’s an informed choice. Sexuality naturally depends on people meeting the criteria of the people they want to mate with. Women (some women, at least) work to meet our criteria, and I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with working to meet theirs. It’s how a man balances fulfilling women’s desires, and his own values and integrity, that matters.

If a woman wears high heels to attract men, or tries to behave in a charming way, or tries to make a man happy, is that “supplication”? There are people who believe that the answer is “yes.” Those people are generally radical feminists (though they have the own jargon in place of supplication). I am wary of arguments that sound like the errors of feminism with the sexes switched.

Sometimes, you need to fulfill (some of) the things that women desire, in order for them to care about fulfilling what you desire. Even if you were covertly supplicating to fulfill those desires, women still care more about your desires than if you weren’t attractive to them.

– Fake it ’til you make it. The folks at AVFM don’t understand the power of experimenting in helping socially inexperienced people form their identities and self-image (including masculinity, in this case). To be fair, most people don’t understand how that works.

Loiallgood November 8, 2011 at 7:01 pm

Honestly I think the majority of the results from game, for me and young (nerdy) men like me, comes from calling it a game. It takes something that’s a difficult and stressful transaction for me, and turns it into something I’m good at: logically analysis and beating games. I’m just using the skills that help me get As in Economics and History, and turning them towards getting laid.

Born Free November 7, 2011 at 7:20 pm

Elam was biased against Game theory even before the debates started and had no intention of opening his mind. As a new convert to Game I view Gamesmen as self-aware and self-actualizing.

Over at AVfM they are still splitting hairs over TDOM’s latest article called Game Over. As Elam would say “Ah, dude, whatever.”

After checking through the Game websites and gleaning their contents Game theory seems as elusive as the Tao—looked for it cannot be seen, felt for it cannot be touched—yet no less a viable and workable philosophy.

I haven’t abandoned the “mainstream” MRAs, I will be visiting AVfM and other MRM sites in the future. There is much to be learned from the Game community. I’ll be around.

Boar November 7, 2011 at 7:33 am

What those idiots of MRA’s simply can’t understand is that you can actually alter your behavior in some area of your life to get what you want and still save your inner core values; or actually replace the old values with the new, better ones.

For what it’s worth, Keoni, it was your blog that saved me (and some of my friends after I’ve sent them the link) from the fate of a subservient Beta, and put me on a path of studying Game and improving myself. Just wanted to say that.

Also, Frost, good work with the debate. MRA will never accept Game as a viable lifestyle option, since they can’t even think straight, but I think this debate proved the MRA’s folly to bystanders.

Harry November 9, 2011 at 6:57 pm

No one is denying the two claims in your first paragraph.

No MRA has every comprehensively and systematically proscribed any and all changes in behavior to reach a particular goal. That you continue to claim they do would be mystifying if I did not already know our arguing methods depend on consistently eliding crucial distinctions.

Are you trying to change behavior for a goal? Not necessarily bad. No MRA claims it is. But what goal? And what changes? Is the goal approval? Do the changes involve faking yourself?

I suppose being unable to understand basic but crucial distinctions is a question of IQ, and I am sorry if you dont get it. I think life experience might help you.

Keoni Galt November 7, 2011 at 2:45 am

Dave from Hawaii? Please. I confronted him on his blog about LTR PUA and he admitted that he spent his life “literally playing the role of a cocky bastard.”

Spent my life? Please. You entirely missed the point…prior to discovering “game” on the internet, I was falling into a really bad pattern modeled to me by my father, and I began treating my wife as if she were my mother authority rather than my lover.

I had to flip the script, and part of it was literally forcing myself to overcome beta pedastalizing patterns I had been raised with, subconsciously influenced by my Father’s behavior and his very unhappy and contentious marriage to my mother who is to this very day contemptuous and bitterly unhappy my Father is such a beta “beneath her.” So yeah, for a short while there, I did play the role of a cocky bastard.

We’re also talking about shit that happened 4 years ago, and things have changed a lot since then. But ruddy, you act as if you got me to make some grand admission to you that proved your point. You think you have some sort of debate victory under your belt.

That’s only in your own mind, and here we are, years later, and you still don’t get it.

In other words, while not a supplicant, he still devoted his entire life to presenting a front that pleased his wife.

I suppose I should have just kept going with what was obviously not working, eh?

It’s quite another to submerge your entire personality under a simulacrum of a caveman/alpha male because anything other than that will lead your wife into being a bitch and possibly taking you to divorce court and screwing you nine ways to Sunday.

Damn, you’ve constructed an entire narrative in your mind about me, eh?

Let me put it to you this way – I never “Submerged” or “put up a front” or any of these other dumb ass things you say I did. What I did was figure out a way to regain the proper place of being the leader in the relationship. It was understanding just how I actually was and the things I did when we first started dated and when we were first married. Over time, I gradually became lazy, clueless, comfortable, stuck in a routine, and began deferring to my wife in all areas of life and it made her unhappy with me. In hindsight, I don’t blame her.

Just a short anecdote to explain the situation:

When we were dating, I’d plan a date, pick her up, take her out and we’d have a great time. I lead, she followed. I flirted with her and seduced her. We were pretty hot and heavy for years before we got married.

After a couple of years of marriage, I was no longer proactive and continually supplicating and trying to seek her approval. “What would you like to do this weekend, honey? Would you like to go here? Perhaps we could do this? What would you like to do? What would make you happy?”

The more I did this, the unhappier she got. We got stuck in a bad dynamic that continually worsened over years of me surrendering into beta complacency and abdicating all decision making and authority over to her.

Finding and studying game (BTW, Frost, by the time I found Roissy’s and started commenting there, I had already gone through the entire Game-inspired transformation…I didn’t learn about Game from Roissy, but rather from several other obscure game blogs like “the Reality Method.”) made me realize EXACTLY where I had gone so wrong and why my relationship had begun to go so bad.

I didn’t put up a front, “submerge myself” or any other such assumptions you’ve made here. I basically realized I was no longer acting like the man I was that she agreed to marry, I had become her kid always trying to seek her approval like she was my mommy.

I fail to see…

Yes, you did, and continue to do so.

…how getting married, and then essentially being FORCED to run Game, becuase if you do not do so your wife will become cold and nasty, leaving you in a loveless relationship which you won’t be able to get out of (because of fear of the financial consequences of divorce) is empowering men.

Was I FORCED to “RUN GAME?”

Hardly.

Game gave me insight and understanding about the dynamics of my relationship and why MY behavior was making us both unhappy.

Game made me aware of things for which I was formerly clueless.

Finally, ruddy, as I wrote earlier, this was over 4 years ago. I’m not “struggling day to day” to “put up a front” or “run game” on my wife to just try and survive.

I’ve actually become secure in confident in who I am, and my role as a husband, father, lover and provider. I understand clearly now how my behavior and my communications play their role in the state of happiness in my household. It’s become nearly effortless, and it’s second-nature and my family and home life have never been better.

But whatever dude. I’m not trying to convert anyone or sell anyone anything.

I merely relayed my experiences at Roissy’s to help other men who had perhaps fallen into the same bad relationship dynamics I had, not to sell anything or win some kind of dumbass internet debate with embittered, hostile assholes like yourself.

What I find most amusing, is that you have made all kinds of judgements and statements about me, when you really don’t know much about me or my life. You jumped to a lot of conclusions, you made a bunch of assumptions, and you act as if you somehow put me in my place in a debate at my blog. The only place you achieved victory was in your own mind.

As I wrote during those debates 2 years ago for which you claim a pyrrhic victory:

I DO NOT PUT UP AN ACT OR A FRONT. I DID NOT ADOPT A FAKE PERSONA THAT I CONSTANTLY STRIVE TO MAINTAIN.

No, I learned to see my own behaviors and actions and how they interacted in dealing with hers. I learned what worked and what didn’t. I also learned that the things I did that were causing her to be upset with me WHERE CONTEMPTIBLE, WEAK and UN-MASCULINE. I learned from my mistakes and have changed my entire outlook on life and the way I interact with ALL people, not just my wife.

Harry November 7, 2011 at 11:20 am

*……In other words, while not a supplicant, he still devoted his entire life to presenting a front that pleased his wife.

I suppose I should have just kept going with what was obviously not working, eh?….*

Its incredible to me that gamers think that just because nice-guy bullshit was not good, that the only alternative is game. Every single gamer will say this and when you tell them there is a third alternative will just go silent, not respond, and then say the same thing next time too.

Yes, nice-guy bullshit is bad. Its great that game got you out of that. But then learning to supplicate through presenting a front of machoness is ALSO bad.

NEWSFLASH – you can simply not live in fear of WHAT SHE THINKS OF YOU and just not tolerate bullshit. NO GAME REQUIRED

Apparently this concept is too subtle for some to grasp.

Keoni Galt November 7, 2011 at 9:42 pm

It was never a binary, either or choice. I was having problems, and couldn’t figure out why.

Then I discovered Game theory on the internet, and I did a lot of reading and ruminating. I applied the principles I was reading about and saw them work exactly as predicted. It changed for the better.

Gee, I guess I made some foolish mistake or something? Whatever works for you buddy.

Harry November 7, 2011 at 10:16 pm

Point is, you could have achieved the same results without game, by simply abandoning nice-guy supplication bullshit.

By doing it through game you planted in your mind all sorts of harmful other forms of supplication that will make you weaker as a man, as ruddystone pointed out.

It wasnt game that worked – it was merely stopping nice-guy supplication bullshit, which is at best a tiny fraction of game.

You overreacted. Perhaps one day when you feel secure to step back a bit from your overreaction, you will see that. I dont blame you in the meantime for willing to become weaker through game-supplication if it at least got you to stop nice-guy supplication bullshit, if you saw no alternative.

I am merely pointing out that there is an alternative.

Cheers, and best of luck.

Hugh Ristik November 9, 2011 at 12:56 am

Harry, I agree with you that there are theoretical alternatives to “nice guy bullshit” and “game,” but I don’t feel that this path is currently carved out. There just aren’t enough resources and support all in one place.

Yes, nice-guy bullshit is bad. Its great that game got you out of that. But then learning to supplicate through presenting a front of machoness is ALSO bad.

But what if that sort of machoness fits you? Then it isn’t a front, and you aren’t supplicating.

I very much understand your concern about macho supplication. Since I’m not very macho myself, and I often feel that some parts of macho-ness are oppressive to men, and they haven’t felt good when I’ve tried them. Yet even giving them a try was a valuable experience that taught me about myself.

Basically, pickup encouraged me to experiment with different social behaviors and different expressions of masculinity, and I chose the ones that fit my personality and values.

NEWSFLASH – you can simply not live in fear of WHAT SHE THINKS OF YOU and just not tolerate bullshit. NO GAME REQUIRED

Ah, but how do you get a guy into that state of mind in the first place? You’re right that you don’t need pickup to get there. But for plenty of guys, it helps.

Some guys just don’t have the social and emotional resources to suddenly stop fearing what women think of them and avoid tolerating bullshit. They need to learn that it’s OK to put your foot down, risk pissing women off, and even drop them if necessary. Pickup teaches all of those things. Even if they are often framed as a way to attract women through macho-ness, it still encourages men to practice those important skills.

Pickup isn’t the only way for men to learn to assert what they want in relationships with women, but it is one way.

Harry November 9, 2011 at 6:18 pm

Hugh, you make interesting points here.

You say what if macho-ness fits you? To me macho-ness is defined by making an elaborate display of toughness. In other words macho-ness is an attempt to *show others* that you are strong, which is actually a form of insecurity. Needing to *show others* anything is a form of insecurity.

So mach-ness the way I have defined is by its essence something that is fake. Strong people dont make a point of trying to convince others they are strong.

Now, it is entirely possible that a person can have a personality style that is non-emotive and taciturn, and to the extent that he is not faking these things he is NOT supplicating.

You say that game can be a stage guys pass through going from nice-guy supplication to game-supplication to eventually simply not caring what others think?

Well, in my experience going doing game-supplication simply makes the problem worse as guys can now PRETEND to themselves that they are not supplicating at all. In a way it makes the fundamental mindset of needing to supplicate more deeply embedded and harder to root out.

Whats more, there is simply no NEED to go through game as a stage. One can simply show how nice-guy supplication is weak, and how trying to impress women with your *strength* is equally weak because both approaches are essentially different renditions of the same premise; needing to impress women.

I just dont see how game helps in the larger scheme of things. Its like saying it helps to ease a toothache by cutting out your entire jaw. Sure, the toothache issue is gone, but now you have a much worse issue to deal with.

You say pick-up teaches its OK to put your foot down and risk pissing women off and leaving women if necessary (game does not tell you to leave women, it tells you to pretend to do so in order to get her to like you). The thing is, game teaches this only in the context of making women like you. The growth in confidence one might experience from doing these things is undermined at the very root by the knowledge that you are doing these things to be liked. In other words, these behaviors are not genuine – they are just for display. So no genuine confidence is developed – the genuineness of your confidence is undercut from the very beginning. Whats worse, it is infinitely easier to simply lie to yourself about what you are doing, making it even harder to leave this state. You feel weak and unsure of yourself, but you are not sure WHY, because you have buried the fact that you are supplicating beneath layers of sophistry.

So as you can see, game is merely a sophisticated trojan horse that bases its appeal on the claim of making you more confident, and then undermines your psyche at its foundations once you let it in.

donlak November 6, 2011 at 1:40 pm

it’s how 14 year old kids view the world

donlak November 6, 2011 at 1:39 pm

To further illustrate game to you: game is learning the very valuable tool of omitting things I don’t wish to show a woman, not out of fear, not out of supplication, but of respect. if I want her to act a certain way, i should act a certain way, if she doesn’t act accordingly, she’s out the door. this is how humans work, it’s a give take thing. again not a video game.
in your version the girl doesn’t need to change her behaviour, her immediate self infront of you is her total sum, she’s graded on only current behaviour and that’s how she will act all the time. it isn’t so. humans interact with each other, and EVERY relationship consists of some compromise, again outside of a video game. A player is supposedly ‘supplicating’ to a coach. you’re a fool if you don’t accept roles that some might have within your life, because you don’t really learn or grow… you just are this shell of whatever it is you think you are.

donlak November 6, 2011 at 1:24 pm

Ruddy, you have two choices in life, be someone’s bitch or have a bitch – your faulty logic says a prison gaurd is supplicating to inmates because he has to play a role of enforcer. You’re a tool if you think everyone doesn’t take on different roles depending on people and situation. I’m alpha, but I am also beta, I even have some omega to me – I have many layers… each make up who I am – if someone wants to fight me, I show strength and power, am I supplicating to my opponent? By your so-called logic I am – no one man is entirely alpha or beta – we as humans are not characters from WoW. We’re you supplicating your teachers when you were a student? Do you talk to your mother the way you talk to your best friend? you tell your mom how you banged a hooker last week?

you are who you are because of the sum of your experiences and different parts – you seem to think there is only one you – all that says to me is you have no personality and no concept of reality. You sound like a computer.. with our the logic.

Harry November 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm

*……your faulty logic says a prison gaurd is supplicating to inmates because he has to play a role of enforcer. …*

He does not *play* the role of enforcer to trick someone into liking him – he literally IS the enforcer!

Do you grasp the distinction between *pretend to be* and *be*?

HAL3001 November 6, 2011 at 9:09 pm

So I guess, according to your logic, a guard who is scared of some of the prisoners he has to watch over should act scared, instead of pretending to not be bothered by who they are, since, as you explained, pretending to be something is quite pathetic instead of actually being something.

Harry November 6, 2011 at 9:30 pm

Yup. Who cares what the prisoners think? You think that if they see his fear they might attack, but wont otherwise? Youre pretty naive.

Let him act as scared as he wants, so long as he has his gun and is ready to use it. He does not need to spend his time in fear of what his prisoners might think of him – I cant think of a weaker frame to be in.

Its called being an independent person. Dont try it at home if youre not a professional.

Loiallgood November 8, 2011 at 8:41 am

So you completely reject the concept of bluffing? I’d LOVE to play poker with you…A prison guard who shows fear is committing suicide.

ruddyturnstone November 6, 2011 at 1:00 pm

“so he should remain a sniveling little wuss-bag and get ass raped in divorce then? You are missing the point, he learned to be a man… he feels good about it, and as a result she loves him more. ”

No, he shouldn’t have married her in the first place. OK, Game your wife, if you’re ALREADY married and can’t stay out of divorce court otherwise. But better not to marry at all.

“What you guys seem to be saying is that if women want masculine men, don’t give it to them cuz that’s what they want and it’s supplicating… so okay? How does that make sense.”

One can be “mausculine” without being a Gamer. It is supplicating, because it is changing your personality to prevent the person with the real power (ie the wife, who derives her power from the law and practices of divorce courts) from exercizing that power.

“We’re just teaching men to have power.”

If you have to “literally” play a role, then you have no power. You have a lot more power by remaining single.

“Game is just one case of altering your behavior to get along with the rest of the human race. Want to scream at customers because that’s “your real self”? Starve, loser. Want to show up at the office late and unbathed? Starve, loser..”

Thanks for proving my point. Gaming your wife is like sucking up to customers or your boss. Should your private life have to be the equivalent of what you do to avoid starving?

‘If you think adulthood in civilization is “supplication”, go live alone in the woods and let me know how that goes. Or are you not man enough, hypocrite?’

WTF? I don’t have to go live in the woods to think that a life spent pretending to be something I’m not so that Her Majesty won’t take me to divorce court and rape my ass is not a good idea.

“Life rewards alpha behavior.”

Actually, life rewards both alpha and beta behavior. All of the behavior you described above (sucking up to bosses and customers, generally following “the rules”) is beta.

“Women are part of life.”

Sure, and THEY mostly reward alpha behavior. So, Game them and sleep with them and have short and medium term relationships with them. But don’t marry them, becuase then Game has to be done full time, on her terms, not when you fell like it, on your terms.

Harry November 6, 2011 at 2:13 pm

Rudd, your points are excellent in general, but your last two paragraphs contradict each other.

You correctly note that Game is essentially beta behavior, by playing by a womanss rules. An excellent point.

But then you concede that women want alpha and game is successful at delivering alpha.

If women want alpha, game cannot possibly deliver it to them.

rmaxd November 6, 2011 at 12:52 pm

“you anti-gamers think game is running routines and lines – like the guy who’s married is constantly running a routine. it isn’t. it’s about being a man in the relationship. Growing some balls in his day to day dealings and realizing he can walk away from her if he needs to or wants to. it’s a shift in power. ”

Thats the whole point, most anti-gamers simply dont want to have the balls to stand upto women & they cant stand other men calling other men to stand up to them, especially on a personal level

Notice how one track their critiques are of game, pussy beggars, or manipulative, or i have to change my personality …

While not noticing game specifically addresses those points

What pisses these anti-gamers off the most is the fact it undeniably works & changes the lives of those who practise it

ie. Athol, dalrock etc

What cracks me up the most, is the amount of time they spend spamming blogs with their inane bullshit

Specifically jackasses like Alek nove, if he hates PUA so much & doesnt practise game, why the hell is he promoting anti-pua, to the point of it being an advert for pua ..

Ok, we get you’re stupid enough to hate pua, & stupid enough not to practise it, even though you must know the benefits by now, considering the amount of years these asshats’ve been spamming forums for

Thanks for the years of promoting pua, you asshats, now go get a clue …

Matthew Walker November 6, 2011 at 12:40 pm

Game is just one case of altering your behavior to get along with the rest of the human race. Want to scream at customers because that’s “your real self”? Starve, loser. Want to show up at the office late and unbathed? Starve, loser. Want to pick fights all the time? Nice dentures, loser. Think you’re too important to pay attention to traffic lights? You just killed somebody and got nailed for felony driving to endanger, bitch. But none of you MRAs have the balls for that life. You didn’t even have the balls to keepyour wives in line, much less live on your own terms among men who don’t give a fuck. You’re gutless posturing faggots. If you were what you pretend to be, you would not feel like a victim.

If you think adulthood in civilization is “supplication”, go live alone in the woods and let me know how that goes. Or are you not man enough, hypocrite?

Life rewards alpha behavior. Women are part of life.

donlak November 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm

“But “married Game” is completely ridiculous. Why should a man have to Game his wife? ”

so he should remain a sniveling little wuss-bag and get ass raped in divorce then? You are missing the point, he learned to be a man… he feels good about it, and as a result she loves him more.

you anti-gamers think game is running routines and lines – like the guy who’s married is constantly running a routine. it isn’t. it’s about being a man in the relationship. Growing some balls in his day to day dealings and realizing he can walk away from her if he needs to or wants to. it’s a shift in power. What you guys seem to be saying is that if women want masculine men, don’t give it to them cuz that’s what they want and it’s supplicating… so okay? How does that make sense. That argument is pure woman hating. if both people are happy, you are angry.

no amount of any of your rationalizations will change this key component to your argument. We’re just teaching men to have power.

Harry November 6, 2011 at 4:31 pm

So men gain power by learning to surrender the decision making process to the woman through figuring out what they *really want* and learning better ways to *give it to them*. In return they (supposedly) get sex.

Perhaps the most interesting description of gaining power I have ever read. It sounds more like a surrender of power in return for sex.

We need a special gamer dictionary in which every term is given a meaning completely different from its actual meaning, so that gullible and naive guys get confused and disoriented to the point where they think supplicating to women for rewards is *gaining power*.

I can just imagine one dog saying to another *yeah man, I wagged my tail and rolled out my tongue, and my master threw me a bone. I control him hahahaha*.

legion November 6, 2011 at 4:54 pm

Gee Harry, is there any basic concept you cannot contort to buttress your position (however weakly)?

**Warning simple concept ahead** For decades Feminism influenced Societal norms on Male-Female relationships. Game deconstructs Feminist propaganda. It teaches young men how to be men.

Perhaps the older male generation can contemplate just how they lost to the Feminists thus requiring deprogramming with “game”.

Harry November 6, 2011 at 5:24 pm

@legion, you are quite right that game de-programmes you from societal norms influenced by feminism. I agree with you 100%.

If that was ALL Game did it would be gold.

Game should have stopped after dismantling societal norms. That it proceeded to create new norms based on the feminist premise that women should be supplicated to in refined and indirect ways is the problem.

Game accepted the feminist premise – that it is mens job to cater to women – and claimed that it had found a better way to achieve this goal by better understanding what women *really want*.

How about rejecting the feminist premise entirely – how about rejecting the premise that it is mens job to adapt themselves to what women want? You know, like, have self-respect?

The one thing I agree is that the older generation let us down. I am not part of that generation. I hope to be a part of a new generation of young men who create a new gender dynamic that rejects the premise that men have no value unless they learn to adapt to women. In other words I hope to be part of a new generation that restores masculinity and strength to men.

Legion November 7, 2011 at 12:10 pm

Here’s the rub Harry,

“Game accepted the feminist premise … understanding what women *really want*. How about rejecting the feminist premise entirely…You know, like, have self-respect? In other words I hope to be part of a new generation that restores masculinity and strength to men.”

This is *precisely* the concept LOUDLY echoed by Roissy, Roosh, Dalrock et al. This begs the question, what will YOU do to “restore masculinity and strength to men”? Give me a real world example. Now I ask, if whatever actions you take to restore masculinity to yourself or others can be referred to as “Game”, and these actions are also, ironically, appreciated by women are you then “adapting to Women” or merely righting a disharmonious wrong?

Reread the above.

THIS IS WHY the whole MRA hijack attempt by Paul is nothing more than divisive attention whoring at the expense of his more widely read peers.

Harry November 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm

Legion, thats not true at all. Roosh, roisy et all talk about how supplicating to women in society nice-guy bullshit ways is wrong and then tell you to do all sorts of things to be liked by women. In other worse nice-guy bullshit ist bad because it is pathetic, but because its not what women *really* want. If women WANTED nice-guy bullshit, it would be *game* and roosh and roissy would be falling head over heels to give it to women.

As an examlple, go read rooshs post about how he was forced to become the sort of person he despises in order to be liked by girls http://www.rooshv.com/you-did-this-to-me.

Here is roissy ADMITTING that game is supplication but saying it doesnt matter because it gets him sex. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/second-stupidest-anti-game-meme-on-the-internet/

Do you get that? Thats the genius of game – its PRETENSE that it is about masculinity. Its a sophisticated trojan horse. It tells you be *confident* in order to be liked by women – which undercuts the genuineness of your confidence because the more you care what others think of you the less confident you are.

STOP – take a few moments to re-read that and dwell on its full ramifications.

Do you get the genius of this kind of thing? Most guys want to learn how to grow in confidence AND most guys want to learn how to get hot women. By telling guys to grow in confidence by learning to how to supplicate to women game crafted a sophisticated poison. Instead of telling guys that learning how to be liked by women will undercut any growth in confidence, it attempts to conflate the two.

Game has incredible emotional appeal because no one wants to admit two or our goals might be incompatible and involve a choice.

You want real world examples of me being masculine? I dont try to make women like me! At all. I am a free man. I do what I want and if women like me, great. If not, I am not their slave, and I tell them to go f**** themselves. Damn it feels good to be a free man!

ruddyturnstone November 6, 2011 at 11:25 am

Dave from Hawaii? Please. I confronted him on his blog about LTR PUA and he admitted that he spent his life “literally playing the role of a cocky bastard.” In other words, while not a supplicant, he still devoted his entire life to presenting a front that pleased his wife. It’s one thing to do a little dominant role play in the sack, to use a little slap and tickle or “who’s your daddy” if that’s what your woman is into. It’s quite another to submerge your entire personality under a simulacrum of a caveman/alpha male because anything other than that will lead your wife into being a bitch and possibly taking you to divorce court and screwing you nine ways to Sunday.

I fail to see how getting married, and then essentially being FORCED to run Game, becuase if you do not do so your wife will become cold and nasty, leaving you in a loveless relationship which you won’t be able to get out of (because of fear of the financial consequences of divorce) is empowering men.

Game in general is giving women what they want. Women want alpha men. Game makes beta men appear alpha, or, even if one assents to its proponent’s stronger claims, makes more men alpha. How does increasing the supply of what women want do anything to reduce their power?

But “married Game” is completely ridiculous. Why should a man have to Game his wife? Does she have to “Game”him into putting his paycheck in the joint accoutn, into being nice to her, into giving her a shoulder to cry on or an “I love you” when she needs or wants one, or remembering her birthday and their anniversary? No. Yet he has to change his whole personality so that she won’t get “bored” and “unhaaaapy” and try to go “Eat, Pray, Love” on him.

Better to not marry at all. You want to reduce the power of women? Don’t marry them. Don’t give them access to your resources. Let them work for a living, like a man has to. Let them live with their baby rabies, or live the life of a low class, low status, single mom. Women want husbands, in the long run, despite how they act in their twenties, when their sexual marketplace value is high. They want husbands and they want to be SAHMs. And they want betas to provide that for them, after they spent their twenties having sex with alphas.

Learn Game in your twenties so that you can have sex. But don’t marry. Don’t give women what they want. And then you want HAVE to run Game on 24/7 basis. You can still run it when you want to, ie to pick up women and even have short and medium term relationships with them, but don’t marry. And don’t cohabit either, because many jurisdictions treat that as marriage, when it comes to YOUR obligations (women don’t have obligations).

Johnny Milfquest November 6, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Dave from Hawaii was already married with kids when he took the relationship Red Pill.

I don’t fault him for getting his swagger on with the wife, get treated with respect and avoid getting arse-raped in divorce court.

Having said that, I take your point about marriage and even co-habitation being a shitty deal for most men. No need to preach to the choir on that one.

Johnny Milfquest November 6, 2011 at 9:02 am

“Game is the key to male empowerment in the western world. The ground-level war against feminism and misandry will be won by the seduction community.”

+1.

I have nothing against men who choose to GTOW. Either temporarily, or permanently. But that just isn’t going to cut it for the majority of men.

Frost November 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm

i think this comment is the knockout blow.

A man who is struggling with women can come to the ‘Gamers’ and receive practical, specific advice. harry can offer nothing but vague hand-waving assertions that men should be themselves and tap into their inner core of masculinity.

There is truth to the charge that putting on a fake macho exterior to attract women connotes weakness. But we do not advocate putting on a front for life. Instead, we say – look beta man, you’ve been conditioned your entire life to act weak and supplicative. If you recondition yourself to act strong and dominant, you will have far more success in your romantic, personal and professional relationships. Also, you’ll feel a lot better about yourself because men naturally enjoy being the dominant party in a relationship.

The MRA says: Ignore game, just act like a man. But the beta actually doesn’t know HOW to act like a man. He needs the training wheels of specific behaviors to help coach him into his new mindset. At first, these will be ‘fake’ in the same sense that every conscious personal change requires being a fake, ie better, version of yourself. The MRA movement, if it wants to offer an alternative to us, needs to include specifics on how a man should ‘act like a man,’ But then, that would be Game, wouldn’t it?

I’m glad Paul and I had this debate, but I have to admit that I’m getting tired of trying to argue with men who aren’t interested living better lives.

Harry November 8, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Excellent point about macho posturing, Frost. Im quite pleased you have the maturity to see that. I think thats a real breakthrough.

Macho posturing is the flip side of nice-guy supplication. Both use female reaction as the reference point

But thats just it, the advice game gives LEADS to men *putting on a macho exterior*.

Being strong to be liked by women = putting on a macho exterior.

Not caring what women think – being genuinely masculine.

When you tell a beta to stop caring what women think, he naturally becomes more masculine. When you tell a beta to act strong to be liked by women, he just becomes a refined beta. Anyone who can read 3 paragraphs of roissy and not think he is just putting on a macho exterior, that he is not just a refined beta, is fooling themselves.

There is nothing in the least vague about my advice. It is quite specific. Simply ask yourself this question – am I doing this to be liked by women? If the answer is yes, stop doing it.

This is the most specific and easy to do thing imaginable. Betas can start acting like this today . Doing so will naturally eliminate all supplication from their behavior and all macho posturing as well.

The reason you want so much more is because you wish to believe that there IS a ton more you can do to make yourself attractive. But there isnt.

Hugh Ristik November 9, 2011 at 6:28 am

Harry,

Not caring what women think – being genuinely masculine.

Doesn’t this still use women’s thoughts as a reference point?

Humans are social animals. Except for those low in empathy, humans do care about how other people think. So the only way for most people to “not care” is to actively shut out their caring about how other people think. Suppressing one’s caring about how women think altogether is a solution that I would consider inauthentic, and I would still need to use women’s thoughts as a reference point, because I would constantly have to make myself stop considering them!

I don’t think “not caring” is a good measure of masculinity; it sounds too much like macho-ness to me. I think it’s how a man cares what women think, and how he responds to those thoughts, that matters.

I acknowledge that “not caring about how women think” is a useful attitude to some guys, but I would question if they really don’t care, or if they have just stripped away their main anxieties and insecurities, a healthy result that isn’t accurately described by “not caring.”

I am skeptical of yours, and everyone else’s, attempts to define masculinity. I think a lot of these definitions just lead to men policing each other in divisive ways, and I hope you appreciate this concern.

When you tell a beta to stop caring what women think, he naturally becomes more masculine.

According to how you’ve defined it, yes.

In my experience, the result really depends on the guy. If you tell a guy something like that who doesn’t have much social skills, then in my experience, he may just start being a massive jerk to everyone, including other guys. He thinks he’s being so manly by not caring, but really, he’s alienating everyone around and not knowing it, because he is so socially unaware.

The reason you want so much more is because you wish to believe that there IS a ton more you can do to make yourself attractive.

In some cases, there really can be a lot of things that a guy can do to increase his attractiveness before he hits the point of diminishing returns, if he is starting from a low place. If you aren’t starting from such a low place, then I understand why this wouldn’t be easy to relate to.

Harry November 9, 2011 at 8:36 am

@Hugh, thanks for your intelligent reply. However, I think you miss a bunch of important distinctions.

Making an elaborate display of not caring what women think (which is actually a celebrated game tactic) would be using what women think as a reference point. Actually not caring what women think does not use female opinion as a reference point. It simply does not take it into account. What you are probably thinking of is the kind of guy who reflexively does the OPPOSITE of what women think, trying to DEMONSTRATE that he *does not care*. Obviously he does care, or he would not make a point of SHOWING her that he does not care.

But thats not what I am talking about. I am talking about simply not taking female reaction into account one way or another, good or bad.

You say you would be inauthentic because you had to stop yourself taking into consideration what others think. Yet authenticity does not consist in obeying every impulse. We might feel an impulse to fake ourselves – obeying it would make us inauthentic. We can be quite honest that we wish others to like us and yet still refuse to let that determine our actions. Thats how we learn to be more authentic.

Macho-ness would be making a DISPLAY of not caring – genuinely not caring is genuine indifference.

I dont understand your remark about *how* a man cares – you say it is about stripping away insecurities and anxieties, but still caring what she thinks of him. You say stripping away insecurities and anxieties about what a woman thinks of you is not the same thing as not caring.

So he is no longer insecure and anxious about what a woman thinks of him, but he still cares if she thinks well or poorly of him? I think the definition of no longer being insecure about how someone thinks of you pretty much means it does not matter to you if they think poorly or well of you.

So I think you are just setting up a contradiction there. Stripping away insecurities MEANS not caring if others think well or ill of you.

I dont think you have successfully made a distinction between not caring and between not caring in a way that involves anxiety. All caring what others think of you involves anxiety. I think what you MIGHT be trying to say is that one can wish to be polite and spare the other person pain – is THAT the kind of caring of what women think you are talking about? If so, it is not caring what she thinks of YOU, it is an attempt to avoid giving her pain. It is sensitivity to pain not favorable opinion , and perhaps one can say that this is caring about she thinks. This distinction I would recognize – I would merely say then one must not care what she thinks of YOU.

I dont really care to define masculinity, you are right; I was merely using it as a synonym for strength and self-respect. I dont wish to police anyonese masculinity but discussions of self-respect and strength are paramount to the issue

The guy who interprets not caring what others think to mean acting like a jerk is committing a crucial misunderstanding. He is confusing being indifferent to the good or bad opinion of others with being indifferent to causing others pointless pain in inappropriate contexts. So yes, one must be clear that we mean not caring what others think of US, not that we are advocating insensitivity to pain. My point was clear from the context of this discussion but I agree when we approach newbies with this advice we have to make this distinction.

There really are few things guys can do aside from basic grooming, removing inhibitions that are holding you back from being your genuine self, and approaching women. Beyond that, you just have to be her type. The belief that there really are lots of things you can do leads guys into the path of supplication. And even if there WERE things, being motivated by a desire to be liked by others makes you weaker as a human being.

Check out this website for a scientific and rigorous examination of whether or not you can do ANYTHING to *make* women attracted to you http://www.seductionmyth.com

Cheers,

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: