Game, sluttiness, and the corresponding propositions test

August 13, 2014 § 81 Comments

My understanding of Game is that it is essentially the male equivalent of slutty behavior. Not every kind of male inchastity is Game; but Game is, in its essence, male inchastity.

That is all ground we’ve covered here before. But in order to cut through the nominalist BS as it resurfaces it is useful to have a concrete test to apply. I’ve mentioned this in passing before, but it is worth highlighting just to make sure the horse is dead.

Game is demonstrably the male equivalent of slutty behaviour because for every proposition about Game there is a corresponding proposition about slutty behavior, and vice versa. “Corresponding” doesn’t mean perfectly identical, because man-woman is a complementarian reality. Specific technique will differ. But in the context of man-woman complementarian reality Game and slutty behavior are homomorphic, and this can be demonstrated in general by word substitution into propositions about either.

Here are a few examples of true corresponding statements:

  • “Not all use of X is to fornicate”.
  • “X is the use of psychological knowledge to influence the behavior of the opposite sex.”
  • “X may not be for healthy relationships, but it is possible for it to catalyze change in a relationship that is in trouble.”
  • “X is sometimes the most efficient means for someone to solve a particular problem.”
  • “X is based in truths about the real nature of men and women.”

… and here are a few of examples of false corresponding statements:

  • “X is nothing but the use of psychological techniques to influence the behavior of the opposite sex.”
  • “X is a box of morally neutral tools.”
  • “X is nothing but learned charisma.”

§ 81 Responses to Game, sluttiness, and the corresponding propositions test

  • jf12 says:

    I agree. But the mapping between the sexes is not merely homomorphic but symplectic. Male and female are inseparably intertwined, braided together. Corresponding sexual behaviors are partially antisymmetrical upon transposition of male and female.

  • Mike T says:

    As I said previously, sluttiness as a reproductive strategy is usually aimed at getting men to drop their standards in exchange for what the woman wants. Upper tier women tend to not resort to it anywhere near as much as lower tier women mainly because there’s nothing to gain from it; a 9/10 with a good attitude can, simply being herself, have a good chance of landing a highly desirable man. A 4/10 not so much. Game is an attempt to increase or make people think you have increased your socio-sexual standing. It is an attempt by men to either become more of what women want or to make them think you have that.

    As sluttiness implies sexual attitudes intrinsically at odds with monogamous living without fornication, it’s not a good comparison. I don’t know what you’d call teaching women how to be the things men want and subtly convey a vibe that they are interested in sex (and marriage and such) but it wouldn’t be sluttiness.

  • Mike T says:

    That is to say, sluttiness necessarily entails a woman using sex or the promise of it to get what she wants. For men it’s more complicated since Game is usually a tool for getting more successful with women, but at the same time unlike sluttiness it also has a strong overlap into other areas of life that are positive. A man could read Athol Kay, Dalrock and Vox Day, choose to be celibate and still jack his ranking up high in his social standing. The same is not true of sluttiness as a strategy.

  • Zippy says:

    “[Game] as a reproductive strategy is usually aimed at getting [women] to drop their standards in exchange for what the [man] wants. Upper tier [men] (“naturals”) tend to not resort to it anywhere near as much as lower tier [men] mainly because there’s nothing to gain from it; a [natural] with a good attitude can, simply being [himself], have a good chance of landing a highly desirable [woman]. A [nerd] not so much.”

  • Zippy says:

    “[Game] necessarily entails a [man] using [sex appeal] to get what [he] wants.”

  • Mike T says:

    “Game as a reproductive strategy is usually aimed at getting [women] to drop their standards in exchange for what the [man] wants. Upper tier [men] (“naturals”) tend to not resort to it anywhere near as much as lower tier [men] mainly because there’s nothing to gain from it; a [natural] with a good attitude can, simply being [himself], have a good chance of landing a highly desirable [woman]. A [nerd] not so much.”

    You can play with words all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that many nerds who are perceived as male 3s can change themselves into 6s and 7s with effort, whereas a woman who is congenitally a 3 short of plastic surgery cannot make herself a 6 or 7.

  • Zippy says:

    “You can play with words all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that many [sluts] who are perceived as [female] 3s can [get the same level of sexual attention as] 6s and 7s with effort, whereas a [man] who is congenitally a 3 short of [hypnosis and a complete personality makeover] cannot make [himself] a 6 or 7.”

  • Gavrila says:

    Zippy,

    Game – unlike slutty behaviour – is necessarily bound up with applying systematised behaviour to spontaneous, real-life situations. In this respect, Game is equivalent to Best Practice. Actually Game is a kind of Best Practice for the socio-sexual sphere. This is an aspect to it that makes it odd, un-natural and repuslive to normal people.

    What is equivalent to this in ordinary slutty behaviour by women? There is none as far as I can see.

    Mike T wrote:

    A man could read Athol Kay, Dalrock and Vox Day, choose to be celibate and still jack his ranking up high in his social standing.

    I doubt if you could apply Vox’s thinking in real life without getting smacked around, let alone using it to jack up your social standing. His aggressive obnoxiousness (and that of his commenters) is deliberately anti-social. They get a kick out of it.

    You should do what Vox does (write novels) rather than do what he says (mad gibberish). Writing novels might increase your social standing.

    The same is not true of sluttiness as a strategy.

    But a woman can follow through on the promise of sex and make material gains (e.g., securing a promotion).

  • jf12 says:

    @Zippy, you could do this all day long.

    I’m not seeing exactly why, after the first example, that anyone couldn’t write the algorithm in their own head and concede that you definitely could do this all day long.

    But maybe, just maybe, it is the familiar idea that every analogous behavior is necessarily *parallel* when there is such an exacting mapping.

  • Gavrila says:

    Mike T,

    You can play with words all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that many nerds who are perceived as male 3s can change themselves into 6s and 7s with effort, whereas a woman who is congenitally a 3 short of plastic surgery cannot make herself a 6 or 7.

    Males nerds are beginning with some sort of a handicap – social anxiety, awkwardness, bad personal habits, introversion – and can overcome said handicaps through edification, better personal hygiene, physical exercise and learning to become confident.

    But the reason they can rise so far is because they are starting from such a low beginning. An obese woman can go from a 3 to a 6 or a 7 as well – with proper nutrition and intense exercise (e.g., cycling 7 days a week).

    The “room for improvement” is contingent upon circumstances.

  • Zippy says:

    Gavrila:

    Game – unlike slutty behaviour – is necessarily bound up with applying systematised behaviour to spontaneous, real-life situations. In this respect, Game is …

    … distinctively male.

  • jf12 says:

    Question: is the complementarity of the sexes entirely symplectic?

  • Elspeth says:

    The same is not true of sluttiness as a strategy.

    Are you kidding me? Surely you recognize that women who dress in a more sexually provocative manner receive more deference from men than women dressed in a very conservative manner.

    And this is true whether or not said woman EVER sleeps with the man giving her this treatment.

    Mike assumes that sluttiness automatically includes sexual intercourse when it doesn’t necessarily have to, and often doesn’t.

  • jf12 says:

    re: checking for signs of life in a dead horse. Are there signs of death to check for? I think so. Some of them are lacks of signs of life.
    1. Lack of responsiveness.
    2. Lack of breathing.
    3. Lack of circulation.
    4. Stench of death.
    5. Carrion beetles, blowflies, etc.
    Anyone think of any more?

  • sunshinemary says:

    Speaking of Game, I never thought I would see Mrs. Laura Wood utter the name Roissy!

    http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2014/08/looking-for-a-wife/#more-72679

    Or allow comments extolling the virtues of Game to stand.

  • Mike T says:

    Are you kidding me? Surely you recognize that women who dress in a more sexually provocative manner receive more deference from men than women dressed in a very conservative manner.

    And this is true whether or not said woman EVER sleeps with the man giving her this treatment.

    Much of what goes into “Game” are things that are not even intrinsically sexual. That’s the difference. Most of what is involved in being an alpha is just as possible for a Catholic priest under an oath of celibacy as it is for a PUA. A good chunk of what is involved in being attractive to sluts and being a cad is beyond that, but to simply be a “generic alpha” or what have you doesn’t involve anything distinctly sexual in nature.

  • slumlord says:

    Or allow comments extolling the virtues of Game to stand.

    🙂

  • Svar says:

    “Or allow comments extolling the virtues of Game to stand.”

    What are the virtues? It really is not that hard to attract women, I am not sure why everyone online is going around saying that you need game, that American women are ruined, Anglospherian women are ruined, Western women are ruined, all women are ruined and other drivel.

    The PUAs are just like the NeoRXNaries. They find something known for millennium, distort and warp it, and then present it as a previously undiscovered truth.

    Women do not find morality or conservative family values to be sexually attractive in it of itself. That doesn’t mean that some women don’t value them at all. Those women think beyond their sex drives just like how some men do.

  • What are the virtues? It really is not that hard to attract women…

    I’m going to guess, then, that you’ve never really had trouble attracting women.

    Trust me, the whole reason game is a thing right now is because many, many men have trouble attracting women.

  • Mike T says:

    It’s hard for a lot of guys in places like this to believe, but a significant swath of men in the West have been trained to behave toward women in ways that are antithetical to attraction. One of the main reasons it is doing so well is because many of its critics are the very purveyors of the false teachings on masculinity that created the environment ripe for it. These would be, among many different flavors, the sort of Christians who speak of “mutual submission” wherein submission is not really submission and then men should never ever think that being head over their household means that their opinion should be final short of it being a clear violation of the moral law.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    a significant swath of men in the West have been trained to behave toward women in ways that are antithetical to attraction.

    A significant swath of women have become fat and entitled, and couldn’t attract a man without engaging in slutty behavior.

  • Svar says:

    @ Malcolm

    I am 21 now and I had trouble attracting girls when I was younger but I slowly started attracting them as I grew older and older. I am not like Brad Pitt or anything like that but I can say I am attracted to the girls that are attracted to me.

    @ Mike T

    You may have a point. I wasn’t raised a Christian and I was never in any sort of church community. I’m starting to realize that I was better off not being raised a Christian and coming to it by myself.

  • jf12 says:

    @Svar, the lodestar of female attraction is the bad boy who magically has a pure heart somewhere down deep under all the nastiness. She enjoys “getting her hands dirty” with a bad man in order to help him become more good, or something. “The so-called jerks are the real nice guys.” Were I to go whole hog bad, I would definitely do “church game”, in and out of pretend repentance for all the women I would be corrupting.

    It is extremely difficult to attract women starting from a position of goodness. It may be even more difficult to start good and try to be more bad, but trying to stay good isn’t much more effective. “The so-called nice guys are the real jerks.”

  • jf12, that really isn’t typical of all women. It’s a fair question whether it’s even typical of a plurality or slight majority.

    It’s interesting that pro-game people like to talk about how women tune out vast percentages of the male population, but never consider the possibility they are doing likewise.

  • Svar,

    I wouldn’t say you were “better off” not being raised a Christian. It all depends on the Christians raising you, doesn’t it?

    Anyway, trust a 20-something here. Many, many men have trouble attracting women, yes, in my age group.

  • Sub Roas says:

    Zippy, you are a bit late to the game party. I’ve seen your other posts on this subject, and still think you miss the mark..or rather the best discussion had on this subject.

    Game is so much more than just male fornication. It is a generational breakthrough from the lies we were taught. I normally don’t like long quotes, but I think this quote from Auster’s View from the Right explains your wide of the mark shot. Below is a comment left on View from the right worth pondering. Aquinas Dad will find this interesting:

    The generation gap is poking it’s head up again………

    …..Keep in mind that we are talking about men in their twenties and early thirties. PC has been the only moral philosophy with any power in our society for almost their entire lives. They have not known anything else. They’ve never seen any real competitor to PC that hasn’t been beaten or ridiculed into obscurity.

    In the dark days of detente, Vaclav Havel wrote an incredible essay called “Power of the Powerless.” He uses the analogy of a grocer who hangs a sign in the window of his shop saying “Workers of the World, Unite!” Does the grocer agree with this sentiment? Is he making an ideological statement? As Havel tells it, the grocer likely never even gives the sign a second thought. To him it is just a bland statement with little meaning. It’s harmless feel-good sophistry. But he hangs up the sign because everyone else does as well.

    However, hanging the sign in his window sends a different message to his rulers and to the myriad informers all around. It tells them, “I am compliant and obedient. I will cause you no trouble.” If that’s what the sign said, then he would probably question it. It would be a direct assault on his dignity. But if he thinks it’s just a dull little slogan that everyone else also displays, he can convince himself that his dignity is intact. The totalitarian ideology has so completely poisoned everything around him that he doesn’t even notice the small indignities.

    PC is just as much a totalitarian ideology, and it has been the ruling moral philosophy for a couple of decades. For these young men, it has always been the water in which they swim. They (and we) may claim that they don’t believe it, and may rail against PC loudly. But there are many little indignities every day with which we comply, and to which we never give a passing thought. You can freely attack PC as a broad ideology to your hearts content, and a great many heads will nod along with you. But any actual threat to it in practice has very damaging costs. It can cost you your job and your friends. It can make you an outcast. PC is our ruling authority and it is a jealous one.

    We remember the world before this change. They do not. That’s the chasm to be crossed here.

  • Patrick says:

    “It is extremely difficult to attract women starting from a position of goodness.”

    Women are attracted to confidence and assertiveness, which can be done in a good way or a badboy way, but the effect is basically the same. Goodness ought to be confident and assertive, but most of the time it’s tied to being just a humble servant not asking or demanding anything. Because Jesus was a servant (so to speak), even though he’s the King of kings, there’s an idea that being a servant (literally) is the true path of virtue or something.

    “It’s interesting that pro-game people like to talk about how women tune out vast percentages of the male population, but never consider the possibility they are doing likewise.”

    I think that’s true. I was on another blog and there were multiple women saying they had never been asked out. They could have been ugly, but I’ve read in the manosphere a lot of times that beautiful girls often get less actual attention than the ones in the middle.

  • Zippy says:

    Sub Roas:

    “[Slutty behavior] is so much more than just [female] fornication. It is a generational breakthrough from the lies we were taught. I normally don’t like long quotes, but I think this quote from Auster’s View from the Right explains your wide of the mark shot. Below is a comment left on View from the right worth pondering.

    …..Keep in mind that we are talking about [women] in their twenties and early thirties. [Victorian sexual repressiveness] has been the only moral philosophy with any power in our society for almost their entire lives. They have not known anything else. They’ve never seen any real competitor to [sexual repressiveness] that hasn’t been beaten or ridiculed into obscurity.”

    Etc, etc.

    Therefore we just have to be supportive of women rejecting the “PC” of Victorian sexual mores and self-consciously adopting slutty behaviors to get what they want in life. Because it works. And is empowering.

  • Zippy,

    I generally agree with you on this issue, and actually quote you frequently. But isn’t the problem with your quote that it’s false, and not that it can be substituted with terms used when talking about game?

    Because, frankly, I don’t think that substitution is analogous.

  • Zippy says:

    Malcolm:
    I think it is analogous, just not simultaneous. Sluttiness is the material emancipation and empowerment of female sexuality; game the material emancipation and empowerment of male sexuality. They had different ‘oppressors’ by accident of history, but that doesn’t undermine the correspondence. The sexual revolution marches on in stages, and it is no accident that the homosexual and Game stages correspond.

  • Svar says:

    @ jf12

    “the lodestar of female attraction is the bad boy who magically has a pure heart somewhere down deep under all the nastiness.”

    While I think women do appreciate a kind heart, they do not like nastiness, the well-bred ones atleast. What women do love is strength and confidence.

    “She enjoys “getting her hands dirty” with a bad man in order to help him become more good, or something. “The so-called jerks are the real nice guys.” Were I to go whole hog bad, I would definitely do “church game”, in and out of pretend repentance for all the women I would be corrupting.”

    I will say this, I have never dealt with church girls. I have dealt with Christian girls but outside of a church context so I have no clue what the situation is there.

    @ Malcolm

    “I wouldn’t say you were “better off” not being raised a Christian. It all depends on the Christians raising you, doesn’t it?”

    Seeing the average Christian, I can not help but think that Nietszche or Mencken were right. The lack of courage and the incorporation of PC into Christian theology irritates me. Either way, it doesn’t matter where I come from, what matters is the path I’m on and my final destination.

    “Anyway, trust a 20-something here. Many, many men have trouble attracting women, yes, in my age group.”

    This is something you need to elaborate on. What do you mean by “attracting”? Just getting glances and looks as you walk by on the street or being able to get a girlfriend?

    @ Sub Roas

    The PC thing is definitely a thing when it comes to certain races(esp. blacks and Jews) or when it comes to homosexuals(and in the very near future trannies) but you may have noticed that “sexism” is not seen to be as serious of a charge as “racism” or “homophobia” is.

    PC, to the ire of the radfems, have not been able to change the natures of either men or women; we both want each other and are irritated by each other just as much as always.

    However, when PC gets infused into Christian theology the resulting ideology is extremely detrimental because it is a half-truth in the guise of truth.

  • Svar says:

    ” it is no accident that the homosexual and Game stages correspond.”

    Could you please elaborate on this? I have suspected a connection but I am curious as to the nature thereof.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Could you please elaborate on this? I have suspected a connection but I am curious as to the nature thereof.

    I’ve pointed out before that for almost all of human history the practical answer – for both men and women – to the question ‘what turns women on sexually’, has been ‘who cares?’ It just wasn’t – could not be, in the scheme of things – a priority. There is something intrinsically gay about obsessing over the subject enough to turn it into a ‘system’. And Sunshine Mary has noted the fagginess of a lot of the Game promoters.

    This is related to the ‘women like jerks’ phenomenon. Women like jerks because only nonconformist jerks are willing to act masculine, even if only sociopathically so. A conformist in modern society will suppress his masculinity, because that is what society expects of him.

    This works in reverse too, when it comes to female vulnerability. Women are supposed to be strong and independent, men are attracted to vulnerability in women, so vulnerability is something that mainly sociopathic women have to offer.

  • sunshinemary says:

    The sexual revolution marches on in stages, and it is no accident that the homosexual and Game stages correspond.

    Great insight.

    Actually, nearly everyone’s a fag now, Zippy. Haven’t you noticed the obsession with anal sex in much of the manosphere? Roissy, or whoever really writes Heartiste, is simply gaga for it. And I was absolutely stunned when I read this recent article at J4G:

    http://www.justfourguys.com/sexual-healing-guest-post-by-ms-lynm/

    A surgical nurse said they are regularly seeing young women with something she called “gaping rectums” due to how common anal sex has become among heterosexual partners.

    I had never heard of gaping rectums before so I started googling whether anal sex is safe or not (not that I had any intention of taking it up). It turns out that Catholics are quite wise to ban the practice as it truly does cause the muscles down there to become lax.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1293903/

    To put it delicately, leakage has always been a problem among homosexual men and is now becoming a more common problem among young heterosexual females.

    So this is where we are at in the sexual revolution; heterosexual men using game behave like faggots to attract heterosexual women who then offer themselves up in the way a man would offer himself to another man.

    tl;dr – The sexual revolution has turned everyone into fags.

  • Svar says:

    That’s disgusting. I thought it was a very small number of men who are into sodomizing women.

  • Svar says:

    Btw, anal sex is quite dangerous. Prolaspe, torn rectums. The rectum is very thin because it designed to absorb as many remaining nutrients from fecal matter before it gets expelled.

    Even if it was completely safe, what normal person would want to partake? It’s like humping a pile of manure.

  • sunshinemary says:

    That’s disgusting.

    Isn’t it?

    I thought it was a very small number of men who are into sodomizing women.

    I thought so too. I even seem to remember several years ago defending the manosphere at Samson’s Jawbone – I think that’s where it was anyway – saying I hadn’t noticed much discussion about anal sex. Then I started noticing it everywhere. Roissy writes about it not infrequently, but it’s really a common topic. I’ve more posts and comments that I can count in which that topic came up. But it’s not really unique to the sphere; it’s a common topic in general now. Modern young men seem to be obsessed with it, and I’ve read that this is so because it is commonly shown in pornography.

  • Svar says:

    “Modern young men seem to be obsessed with it, and I’ve read that this is so because it is commonly shown in pornography.”

    I have noticed this amongst some young men of my acquaintance but amongst most it invites disgust. And this has nothing to do with Christian or not or liberal or not. Across the spectrum most young men I know find it disgusting.

    There is something to say about how porn is warping natural human sexuality to the point where heterosexual intercourse is becoming deviant.

  • Svar,

    This is something you need to elaborate on. What do you mean by “attracting”? Just getting glances and looks as you walk by on the street or being able to get a girlfriend?

    Honestly? Both. Some people have problems just getting glances, some people can get glances but still have problems getting dates. Neither is a good thing. And a LOT of men have problems with the opposite sex.

    This isn’t really provable, so I guess you can either believe me or not, but there you go.

    Keep in mind that I agree with Zippy on this topic pretty much completely.

  • BTW – I actually don’t discuss sex much in general, even with my friends (not that we’re all celibates, we’re just not the type of people who go around bragging about our sex lives). Even so, while I can’t be positive, I would be very, very surprised if any of them regarded the prospect of *themselves* having anal sex with anything but disgust.

  • Mike T says:

    An obese woman can go from a 3 to a 6 or a 7 as well – with proper nutrition and intense exercise (e.g., cycling 7 days a week).

    Provided that she has a pretty face, decent breasts, skin, etc. That’s why I used the qualifier congenitally. A woman who is a plane jane with Photoshop is simply never going to be a 6 or 7 without plastic surgery. There is an aspect of genetic determinism that women face here that men don’t. Sure, some men may have problems like being born incapable of looking even healthy because they’re so naturally wiry. But that doesn’t change the fact that an average looking, but accomplished man who isn’t exactly built like a buff dude can shoot much higher than an average looking women. Exhibit A: Jay Z.

  • Mike T says:

    FWIW, the reason many men, particularly geeks and nerds need a “system” to teach them systematically what they don’t naturally possess is roughly the same reason many men need an MBA. For every Gates, Graham, Ellison, Dorsey, Brin, Page, Musk, etc. there are legions of men who simply lack the natural aptitude or learning opportunities to transition technical skill to business skill. Judging the number of PMPs and MBAs I’ve met who are probably incapable of managing an already successful McDonalds in a high traffic area, I can only include that MBA training carries with it a degree of placebo effect.

  • Mike T says:

    I think anal sex in a heterosexual context is probably just the ultimate display of submission by a woman to a man. That she’d submit to something which can only bring the man some pleasure while both dangerous and painful to her is a pretty powerful statement. It’s a sociopathic form of female submission.

    Though in college, my suitemate’s girlfriend apparently insisted that they only have anal sex since she wanted to “remain a virgin” when she got married. I didn’t get the impression that it was actually his preference. Some of it surely is legalistic thinking like a preserved hymen is literally the only thing making one a virgin.

  • Zippy says:

    I’ve known some pretty ugly women who got plenty of male attention by acting slutty.

  • Gavrila says:

    Mike T.,

    Provided that she has a pretty face, decent breasts, skin, etc.

    Good nutrition and exercise generally improve skin and the appearance of the face. The woman’s face will thin, bringing out her cheekbones. (Also true for men.) Some obese women turned thin will have nice, thin faces and some will have plain, thin faces.

    I still don’t think the scope for malleability is so dramatically different for men and women – as an intrinsic aspect of life – as gamers think (wish) it were.

    Men’s “room for improvement” is circumstantial.

    Due to technology and PC/feminism, men are artifically constrained and have a lower starting point than they might.

    Men who in ancient Florence or Venice would have been fierce warriors or at least sturdy farmers are flabby, hunched over desks and demoralised (partly due to decline of the Christian religion). There are scant opportunities for valiance.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that an average looking, but accomplished man who isn’t exactly built like a buff dude can shoot much higher than an average looking women. Exhibit A: Jay Z.

    Jay-Z is super-accomplished and below-average looking.

    But being a talented artist isn’t malleable. Not everyone can be a musician, or a litterateur like Vox. You need an aptitude for it (and hard work and favourable circumstances).

    So if you’re average-looking but a natural sportsman or composer, you are not the average man but a genetic lottery winner.

    That’s why I look askance at Vox’s game blog. Why is an accomplished novelist advising men to pick up women by focusing on the minutiae of behavioural cues? He should tell his readers to become accomplished novelists. Of course, most of them just won’t be able to.

    They could pursue real yet conventional and unglamourous accomplishments. Hard enough to do in this economy. We’re almost into blue-pill territory now anyway.

  • Gavrila says:

    There is a piece of blue-pill wisdom that I think is true but which is rejected quite bitterly by gamers and it is the advice, often considered worthless, “Just be yourself”.

    A young man goes out into the world, is himself, and gets nowhere. Girls don’t like him. He fails totally. Yet people repeat this seemingly useless piece of advice.

    Then why do people say this? You see it everywhere.

    I think the reason is this (not basing this on any careful theological reading, just thinking out loud): each person has a unique, God-given personality – they just are a certain way. The spontaneous belief in “just being yourself” is that if two personalities, or souls, meet they will connect naturally and congeal in love. If the proper relation between each soul is love then this should happen, and it does happen.

    I think the reason that it fails as a strategy is because it doesn’t really work with unformed or malformed personalities. Unformed because too young. Malformed because of the nihilistic culture and the culture’s suppression of masculinity.

    So what a person must do is break through the noise and become more of himself. This may sound like a contradiction since in this case a person must change to become who they already are.*

    Yet there is an analogue in the Christian religion where you are striving to be the good, true, courageous version of yourself and to resist being the corrupt, evil man you might be – or are, or were.

    So you have a kind of inborn personality, which you can influence and direct to an extent.

    Also you must be yourself because you want to be loved for who you are, which you might be (no guarantees), and not for a simulacrum that you have created.

    Red-pill thinkers sneer that this implies that everyone is a special snowflake.

    Why do gamers hate “snowflakism”? Because they are technocratic thinkers who believe that humanity came off an assembly line. They wish to treat women as if they came off an assembly line – each one is identical, replaceable, and you can cycle through them. It’s consumerism applied to human relations.

    *And this is why I favour poetic thought over dialectical or intellectual thought: since so much true observation of life requires such paradoxical, complete (non-compartmentalised) understanding. My first comment on this blog I recommended Dostoyevsky as a replacement for game blogs. Still good advice.

  • Mike T says:

    I’ve known some pretty ugly women who got plenty of male attention by acting slutty.

    True enough, but an attractive male may slum it for X period of time, but that doesn’t mean he’ll actually commit to it.

    I still don’t think the scope for malleability is so dramatically different for men and women – as an intrinsic aspect of life – as gamers think (wish) it were.

    I tend to think it is higher than anti-gamers wish to believe and much lower than people like Roissy believe.

    Some obese women turned thin will have nice, thin faces and some will have plain, thin faces.

    I’ve never, not once, seen an obese woman whose face would become substantially more attractive with weight loss. Not that I can remember anyway. Facial attractiveness in both genders is really something you are born with or get by plastic surgery. No amount of good nutrition is going to make a woman who is just naturally not pretty at all more than “decent looking.”

    Jay-Z is super-accomplished and below-average looking.

    You’re missing the point. A nerd who cleans himself up and learns how to interact in social situations well and really makes something of himself materially will jump much higher than where he started from.

    Due to technology and PC/feminism, men are artifically constrained and have a lower starting point than they might.

    We can’t change the circumstances of our birth. Many men who are failures today would be successes in hunter-gatherer societies as their time preferences, physiques and attitudes would be perfectly suited to such a society. Men have to adapt with the times.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:

    I’ve never, not once, seen an obese woman whose face would become substantially more attractive with weight loss.

    You must not get out much. Seriously, I’ve seen this plenty.

    Invoking celebrities is just the apex fallacy all over again, attempting to address a point about the middle of the distribution using an example from the tail. Applying the apex fallacy in a pro-game capacity doesn’t turn it into a valid argument.

  • CJ says:

    I think anal sex in a heterosexual context is probably just the ultimate display of submission by a woman to a man. That she’d submit to something which can only bring the man some pleasure while both dangerous and painful to her is a pretty powerful statement. It’s a sociopathic form of female submission.

    This is my experience as well. After I “took the red pill” but before I started dating my wife, I dated a woman who thought I walked on water. I liked the fact that she was into me more than I actually liked her. I once floated the idea of anal sex just to see what she would say. She enthusiastically agreed, researched positions, products, etc. I never went through with it, but the high from her willingness was intoxicating. A textbook case of sociopathy in intersexual relations.

  • Mike T says:

    So what a person must do is break through the noise and become more of himself. This may sound like a contradiction since in this case a person must change to become who they already are.*

    Not to snowflake myself, but I don’t think this is good advice for a lot of men. I started out as a very classic example of “blue pill nice guy” on many, many levels. It took years of hard lessons to realize just how much of that had to simply go. I had to fundamentally stop “being myself” to actually be the sort of man capable of getting to where I wanted to be.

    You must not get out much. Seriously, I’ve seen this plenty.

    I’ve seen plenty of women where I thought “her face is pretty, but she’s too fat to actually be ‘pretty.'” I’ve never seen a woman that I can recall who had a gorgeous face just waiting to reveal itself if she’d drop 50-100lb.

    Applying the apex fallacy in a pro-game capacity doesn’t turn it into a valid argument.

    What defines the apex fallacy is when you judge all men by the standards of the apex. I didn’t do that. I pointed out that Jay Z is not an obvious “natural alpha.” If he’d been content to stay in the ghetto and be a hustler who alternated between that, prison and working at Subway, Beyonce would not have even given him the time of day. He had to work for it. That is what I appealed to. In fact I’ve seen it at work plenty of times. There are plenty of schlubs on the job who are content to live a middling existence. I’ve also seen plenty of geeks who can shoot much higher than them by acquiring drive, learning how to talk business, building six figure technical skill sets and things like that. The difference between the two and what they can accomplish is very noticeable.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    “People have to actually think about and work at stuff if they want it to happen” isn’t a particularly profound observation, although I admit that it is something that gives many modern entitled people a hard time.

  • Mike T says:

    At various points you’ve said that game just repackages old truths and calls itself something new. To a large degree that’s true. It doesn’t change the fact that those simple, old truths as seemingly unprofound as they may be are in fact quite profound to many people blinded by modern dogmas.

    When you call it kinda gay to be “so obsessed” with it as to turn it into a system, you miss the fact that many of the men who do that were raised in a poverty of real masculinity among other things. For them to systematically attack their defects is no more gay than it is for someone like you to take an MBA program to systematically improve your ability to operate in a purer business context. It would, however, be rather pathetic for a man who was born with none of those deficits to be obsessed with a system because that would mean his chief concern is his dick, not addressing a poverty of knowledge and experience that was crippling his prospects.

  • Mike T says:

    Sorry, caffeine withdrawal…

    than it is for someone like you to take an MBA program to systematically improve your ability to operate in a purer business context

    was supposed to read:

    than it is greedy for someone like you to take an MBA program to systematically improve your ability to operate in a purer business context

  • Svar says:

    “Honestly? Both. Some people have problems just getting glances, some people can get glances but still have problems getting dates. Neither is a good thing. And a LOT of men have problems with the opposite sex.

    This isn’t really provable, so I guess you can either believe me or not, but there you go.

    Keep in mind that I agree with Zippy on this topic pretty much completely.”

    I believe you but my point is that no man is going to attract all women. There are some women who’ll find you unnattractive and some who’ll find you attractive. That’s life.

  • At various points you’ve said that game just repackages old truths and calls itself something new. To a large degree that’s true. It doesn’t change the fact that those simple, old truths as seemingly unprofound as they may be are in fact quite profound to many people blinded by modern dogmas.

    This. I agree with Zippy that a lot of “red pill” men have simply pulled up stakes and moved to another corner of the Matrix. A lot of unnecessary confusion has arisen from the tendency to conflate Game with general self-improvement.

    At the same time, I generally sympathize with the notion of the red pill. Liberalism is irrational and inhuman so of course many people will seek to escape from it as much as practicable. The trick is not to get lost down one of the many other dead ends. The blind leading the blind indeed.

  • jf12 says:

    @Gavrila, thoughtful comments but look at the title of this post again.
    “Yet there is an analogue in the Christian religion where you are striving to be the good, true, courageous version of yourself and to resist being the corrupt, evil man you might be – or are, or were.”

    A man trying to be the good guy version of himself is what fails with women. Totally. A man trying to be the bad boy version of himself, in order to stop failing with women, is the very definition of Game, esepcially as it is being used here. And it works. Being bad is what works. Unfortunately.

  • Svar says:

    @ jf12

    I’ve done both and when I was in high school and 17(we all know that all 17 year old boys are little shits and I was no different) I attracted girls. When I got a few more years on me and decided to stop acting like a jerk, I also attracted girls except I’ve been attracting a far better class of girl than I was at 17.

    There are girls who like good men. Not spineless, sycophantic men but good men.

  • Mike T says:

    There are girls who like good men. Not spineless, sycophantic men but good men.

    I can’t remember the exact language he used, but slumlord once made an insightful comment about how modern society is absolutely petrified of violence. Any violence except by authorities is absolutely terrifying to many people. There’s a healthy attitude of restraint that good men should have. They should restrain themselves out of deference to the authorities, but a man should never in abstract “just accept” evil, especially violent evil, as something he cannot forcefully act against ever. This failure has lead to good men who are spineless and sycophantic, not the least bit dangerous to anyone but themselves and that signals many bad things to the hindbrains of women. Not the least of which being “I can’t or won’t defend you.”

    I bring this up because a friend of mine just liked a post calling for justice for a mentally handicapped teen who was lured by a girl on a pretense of a date to a place where a bunch of thugs beat the hell out of him on video for fun. The authorities are apparently only charging one of them because several of them have family among the police and other local authorities. The corruption implicit in that is something that’s been present from the dawn of civilization. What isn’t is the fact that if you asked a random sampling of 100 “good men” you’d find probably not even 10 who would avenge their son against those young men and the girl responsible, let alone those who would defend the man who went after the animals who brutally assaulted his disabled son for pleasure.

    Concurrent with the spinelessness and general cowardice of good men is the loss of civilized conduct. That such men don’t fear that in the absence of the authorities taking action, good men will hunt them down and put them down like rabid dogs in defense of the weak and civilization is why we are seeing a rise in barbarism. It’s not just about pussy, it’s about protecting society in the long run.

  • Gavrila says:

    jf12,

    look at the title of this post again

    The corresponding dichotomy is: nice guys and bad boys. Niceness = insipid.

  • jf12 says:

    Goodness is not sexually attractive to women.

  • Svar says:

    @ Mike T

    Now, you’re talking. I am tired of all of the talk about getting women, it’s a boring topic, but vigilantism? This is something that needs to be spoken about.

    I personally believe that it is time to challenge the state’s monopoly on violence. In an anarcho-tyranny, there is no choice but to fight back against the sociopathic elements in society who have been unrestrained.

    @ jf12

    “Goodness is not sexually attractive to women.”

    So? It’s not sexually attractive to men either but I would still want to marry a good girl over the alternative. Just because it’s not sexually attractive doesn’t mean that it isn’t attractive or valued. Men and women think with more than their genitals.

  • Gavrila says:

    jf12,

    Goodness is not sexually attractive to women.

    Is badness sexually attractive to women? Is badness necessary to attract women? (In your opinion.)

  • Zippy says:

    Gavrila:
    I’ve noted before that one ‘thread’ of the tapestry of manosphere discourse seems to presume that female sexuality is intrinsically disordered, like homosexuality.

  • sunshinemary says:

    So? It’s not sexually attractive to men either but I would still want to marry a good girl over the alternative. Just because it’s not sexually attractive doesn’t mean that it isn’t attractive or valued. Men and women think with more than their genitals.

    Exactly. Sexual attraction is important, but it’s not the only important thing in a potential marriage partner. I don’t think it sexually arouses my husband that I know how to can homemade strawberry preserves, but the fact that I am proficient in this was an attractive trait for a wife in his view because he didn’t want to spend his life eating corn-syrupy store preserves. And likewise “goodness” may not be sexually arousing to women, but wise women desire and like this trait in their potential husbands anyway.

    If we’re going to shuck off all our traits and behaviors that don’t increase blood flow to the genitals of the opposite sex, we’re denying our humanity and might just as well be bonobos.

  • jf12 says:

    @Gavrila, re: “Is badness necessary to attract women? (In your opinion.)”

    A very fair question which I will dance around. Empirically I have found personally that when I was trying to be good that women did not see me as sexual, and even when it is *permissible* morally that women (sample size of two) make getting sexual more difficult when I am trying to be good and make getting sexual easier when I was trying to be bad. In total contrast, when it is *impermissible* morally women make getting sexual (sexual is the only dithered word here, not good, not bad) easier the badder I try to be. Spreadsheets are available …

    More generally, dark triad works for men. Women makes themselves easier for bad men and treat bad men much better sexually; much much much better. In contrast, men treat nice women better sexually.

  • Mike T says:

    Svar,

    Now, you’re talking. I am tired of all of the talk about getting women, it’s a boring topic, but vigilantism? This is something that needs to be spoken about.

    It does because one aspect of vigilantism that is rarely spoken of is that good men only refrain from vigilantism out of respect for the authorities and law. They fear vigilantism not because they fear violence and hurting wrongdoers, but because they fear hurting an innocent person and trust civilized courts more. But that is not why most “civilized people” recoil so strongly from it. Rather, they recoil out of spinelessness. They cannot even imagine seeing their battered, broken child whimpering after a day of being tortured, grabbing a fully loaded gun and putting down the animals who did that to their child so that their child would be safe from them and no one else would suffer their child experiencing such a thing.

    I am not even advocating vigilantism, so much as offering an indictment of the hearts and minds of too many “civilized people.”

  • Svar says:

    Well, Mike, you’ve touched upon a much deeper issue.

    “It does because one aspect of vigilantism that is rarely spoken of is that good men only refrain from vigilantism out of respect for the authorities and law. They fear vigilantism not because they fear violence and hurting wrongdoers, but because they fear hurting an innocent person and trust civilized courts more”

    That is only in the case when trust in the law and the courts hasn’t been completely eroded.

    Overall, when some men have had enough, things will change.

  • It does because one aspect of vigilantism that is rarely spoken of is that good men only refrain from vigilantism out of respect for the authorities and law. They fear vigilantism not because they fear violence and hurting wrongdoers, but because they fear hurting an innocent person and trust civilized courts more. But that is not why most “civilized people” recoil so strongly from it. Rather, they recoil out of spinelessness. They cannot even imagine seeing their battered, broken child whimpering after a day of being tortured, grabbing a fully loaded gun and putting down the animals who did that to their child so that their child would be safe from them and no one else would suffer their child experiencing such a thing.

    It seems most of your tribe are prepared to engage in vigilantism but only for profoundly stupid and evil causes like for “liberty” and against “taxes.” Vigilantism against say abortion clinics, why that’s un-American!

  • They cannot even imagine seeing their battered, broken child whimpering after a day of being tortured, grabbing a fully loaded gun and putting down the animals who did that to their child so that their child would be safe from them and no one else would suffer their child experiencing such a thing.

    To be fair, while that would be a perfectly understandable reaction I’d find it hard to condemn, rationally death is probably not an acceptable penalty for assault.

  • Svar says:

    “It seems most of your tribe are prepared to engage in vigilantism but only for profoundly stupid and evil causes like for “liberty” and against “taxes.” Vigilantism against say abortion clinics, why that’s un-American!”

    What do you mean by vigilantism against abortion clinics? Like bombings? Do you think that is prudent?

    “To be fair, while that would be a perfectly understandable reaction I’d find it hard to condemn, rationally death is probably not an acceptable penalty for assault.”

    I agree. It would be best to kneecap them so they would understand how being in a wheelchair feels like.

  • Svar,

    No. It was a reference to L Brent Bozell and a group of protesters who attempted direct action in demolishing one of the nation’s first abortion clinics. He was condemned as “anti-American” and rightfully so.

  • jf12 says:

    re: the relative attractiveness of the *specific* badness that is promiscuity.

    The experiment to address this question is to present the same man, or arther set of men for statistical purposes, to groups of women in two very different ways: in one way he is presented as quite promiscuous, having had a lot of sexual partners, even recently with multiple girlfriends, and in the other way the same man is presented as saving himself for the right one. And luckily for us this exact experiment has been done a lot of times, and the promiscuous man gets a lot more attention.

    And no, the Groucho Marx club membership paradox doesn’t apply. And no, the supposedly promiscuous woman does NOT get more attention from men.

  • jf12 says:

    Continuing in the refutation of “Men like bad women too”, dark traid women are extremely unsuccessful with men. Extremely. Like, the inverse of the success that dark triad men have with women.

  • Mike T says:

    To be fair, while that would be a perfectly understandable reaction I’d find it hard to condemn, rationally death is probably not an acceptable penalty for assault.

    The story is just now percolating into the MSM, so it’ll be interesting to see what of the things said on Facebook turn out to be based on more than hearsay. However, based on the accusations I saw at a minimum, I could see a prosecutor wrangling out the following charges: conspiracy, false imprisonment, kidnapping, assault, battery and something like felony child abuse. If the prosecutor were inclined to throw the book at him, he could probably get the punk a minimum of 10 years in a state prison. Assault is actually not the crime of directly beating someone. That’s battery. What these punks did was significantly worse legally than even simple assault and battery. Multiple-on-one fights in most states are grounds to automatically consider your life at risk.

  • Svar,

    I believe you but my point is that no man is going to attract all women. There are some women who’ll find you unnattractive and some who’ll find you attractive. That’s life.

    No argument there.

  • Mike says:

    @jf12:

    “Continuing in the refutation of “Men like bad women too”, dark traid women are extremely unsuccessful with men. Extremely. Like, the inverse of the success that dark triad men have with women.”

    Not true. Sociopathic / narcissistic women are extremely attractive to most men = many men are extremely attracted to them and pursue them to their detriment and self-destruction.

    Female sociopaths, like their male equivalents, have higher than normal testosterone levels, which translates into, among other things, higher than normal sex drive, less inhibition (no shame or guilt), and excitement-seeking damn the consequences. Men fall for such women time and again, and pay the price in one way or another.

    It is extremely easy for female narcissistic sociopaths to manipulate men. You don’t have to look any further (although you should) than a random discussion thread on any Red Pill site, for instance, frequented by eager female regulars. Pay attention.

    Here’s one popular link (there is more, and more research-oriented — this data is easy to find):
    http://www.lovefraud.com/2013/04/26/truth-sex-sociopaths-3/

  • Zippy says:

    I have proposed that jerks and fabulous disasters are both sexually ‘successful’ for the same basic reason.

  • Marissa says:

    It is extremely easy for female narcissistic sociopaths to manipulate men. You don’t have to look any further (although you should) than a random discussion thread on any Red Pill site, for instance, frequented by eager female regulars. Pay attention.

    I used to read Heartiste back in the day. Apparently a very anti-marriage MRA-type guy in his fifties used to comment on there, met a (divorced, single mother) female commenter 20 years his junior and they got married. One of the worst parts about it that I remember was that her ex-husband lived on the property with them…so this anti-marriage MRA guy is basically cuckolding another man right in front of his face while raising that man’s daughter…Goes to show most of those people are skin-deep activists.

  • Mike T says:

    The women who do poorly with men are basically… “bitches.” Most women are constantly bitchy are probably stronger on the dark triad traits than ordinary women, but that doesn’t mean that dark triad traits manifest the same in women. There are plenty of superficially sweet and feminine women who are strongly dark triad under the covers. Those are the ones that do well with men; the only members of the former who do well are ones sufficiently hot that men tend to overlook their attitude problems.

  • Mike says:

    @Marissa:
    “Goes to show most of those people are skin-deep activists.”

    Most of these people are conscience-free (or conscience-disordered) sociopaths. Red Pill is an inherently sociopathic “ideology,” and it takes a particular person to be drawn to it and embrace it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Game, sluttiness, and the corresponding propositions test at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: