In the meantime, he posted something that concretised my thoughts on this subject.
From time to time, I get asked what I think of Game.
I have never really shied away from admitting that I am a fan of Game.
But I think there is a paradox regarding Game which is important to tease out.
Sorry for seeing paradoxes everywhere I look these days, but this one is actually a cool one.
I believe that what we call 'Game' is actually not new at all.
It must be as old as the hills.
Afterall, men must have always had to have something that distinguishes them one from another.
Until very recently, the plan was that men actively displayed to women, and women passively stood by and chose the best men off the parade. If she didn't like him, she tossed him back to the parade.
This doesn't sound so great where men are concerned, because this picture depicts men as some sort of 'performing monkey' (to use Prince Charles' 'favourite' expression when describing the role of the Royals on 'walkabouts' :-)
That is, until you consider that underneath all that 'legit script' that society adopts because it is aesthetically pleasing for women to think of it that way...
Underneath all of that, individual women are actually privately aggressivley sending out signals to the man of their choice, and publicly picking him after he 'displays' along with the rest of mankind, and it looks like he was 'chosen' after a democratic process...
Kind of like advertising for a job vacancy when you have already picked a candidate for the job :-)
We women know this more than men...
And the men who know this about women are not surprised :-)
The phenomenon of 'he chased me until I caught him' is a phenomenon that men who understand women know very well. I touch on it a little here.
But then, the above script has been flipped in the last few decades.
What we have now, is a bit strange, in the sense that no-one really knows if they are coming or going.
It is confusing to say the least.
Whilst 'Game' of old' was the preserve of only a select few, (because most men who wanted and who took the conventional route (i.e. job, marriage, kids) did not really need much 'strategy' to attract and keep a wife beyond 'be a good provider' and a few tricks to make himself stand out from the crowd), 'Game of new' is now essential for men to know much more about women than their fathers did, because of the 'flipping of the script'.
I think this has immense benefits for men. Knowledge about anything is never wasted.
This has benefits for women too (indirectly). Men who are knowledgeable about women are always more attractive to women than men who are not. Which is precisely why the Game practitioners of old (the Don Juans and the Casanovas) were never short of female company.
(Now, whether the female company or the Don Juan were of suitable quality is a topic for another day...)
Howevere, the point here is that these men were attractive to all or most women, even to the 'taken' women.
Now I think my next point is the crux of this post:
The only thing preventing the Don Juans from capturing all or most of the women of their social circle...was the restraint of the uncaptured women themselves.
These Don Juans were indeed capable of taking the woman of every single man in their social circles. But the social constraints of the day kept the women in check.
What I refer to as 'Game' so far, is outer Game. The peacocking, the escalation, kino-ing, etc.
We have discussed here before the difference between Inner and Outer Game. Bellita's comment of 'sizzle without the steak' still takes the biscuit when this ditinction needs to be made :-)
As it does now.
If a man needs to Game a woman for a relationship, then I assume he has to have some inner Game in addition to the outer stuff.
In addition, he also needs a woman who will respond to his Game, ie. a woman with Girl Game of her own.
This is one reason I like Danny's blog, because it is inclusive of women. As are many (and perhaps increasingly so?) Manosphere blogs.
One sex cannot win in isolation.
One reason feminism is a failing movement is that it isolates women from men ideologically, in their heads. We can all see the conséquences of that....
For 'Game' to work, women really need to be on board.
It would seem so pointless to Game a woman to within inches of her life everyday for a few years, and the minute you stop, she is no longer yours. Because she was never on board in the first place.
No, it would be better to have a woman who in many ways is in agreement with the principles of Game, such that her own 'Girl Game' is aligned with male Game and thus complements him perfectly, achieving compatibility for both of them.
It therefore helps if women are on board with what men are doing (Game) and understand what it is for, and why men need it.
The best reaction I have ever come across by a woman to Game is that of a Bulgarian woman on Stingray's blog who said (I believe fondly) of the rise of PUA culture in her city that it was amusing to her.
I really believe that the best reaction a woman has, to anything a man does, is amusement.
Even if it is just PUA culture.
I am of course not advocating that a women respond to PUA Game. Not at all!
Humour is an important way of avoiding resentment or contempt.
Note feminists have zero humour. Note the permanent snark on the face on the woman on Danny's video. This woman is amused by nothng and no-one.
Notice how a woman's amusement of men's antics (yep, we love 'em) is on a parallel with 'bemused mastery' so beloved of the so-called 'alpha male'.
On that same post by Stingray, a male commenter also stated how women's antics amused him.
Game is great. It is fun (when used in the right way for the right means - and that is of course defined by personal boundaries) and it provides an opportunity for the lines of attraction and compatibility to be drawn and negotiated. It makes the 'mating dance' entertaining for all (again I stress if both sexes do it right and no-one gets hurt by the other's 'Game').
Men have always been easily susceptible to female 'Game' because most women were born with innate Girl Game and retained it till death and some even refined it to stratospheric levels (we have all seen the pros 'work' a room full of men - honestly, it is mesmerising to see these women at work - they can literally have men of all ages eating from their hand - amazing to watch them).
Sadly, just when masses of men are practising Game (which was previously the preserve of a select few), a switch has been flipped in the target audience that makes them largely unresponsive to it.
So women need to be responsive to Game for men to succeed.
It therefore follows that some of the seedier aspects of Game may need to be 'tempered' or adjusted to the woman in question, in order not to turn her off. She must be responsive to game - the object is not to run her off...but I am sure most men know how to do this 'tempering'...
Or do they? (Rhetorical question!) :-)
And waddayaknow - a woman who is responsive to Game...is inadvertently practising Girl Game of her own!
Funny how simple that is...