Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Game and the Girl

I promised 'Il Maestro' this post a few days ago.
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.
Truth! ;-)

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...

This Danny was chosen long before this scene, LOL!!


Bob Wallace said...

"Game" is not new, and those who think it is do not know their history. You can see it in the Bible, which is very good practical wisdom. You can see it in the Four Cardinal Virtues, one of which bravery. Most of the old wisdom is about bravery, confidence, competence, discipline. It's not about lying and cowardice, which are the hallmarks of these PUA types. It's the difference between a cad and a chivalrous man, based on the real definition of chivalry, not the Manosphere misunderstanding/perversion of it/

Spacetraveller said...


I suspect you think that all of Game is about PUA-ing. Which is simply not true.

This is why I make a distinction between 'Inner' and 'Outer' Game.

Some Game is about getting a woman into bed (within hours if not minutes). I don't particularly concern myself with this type of Game but I accept that it IS part of Game.

If we concentrate on 'relationship' or 'marriage Game' (as subscribed by Athol for instance), we seee that many of those principles (to keep two people who are already attracted to each other together for life or for a long period of time) is indeed full of 'old' principles of human psychology and male-female interaction and thus if followed, actually works in keeping couples together.
For instance, Game does away with the feminist ideology that men and women are so-called 'equal' and concentrâtes instead on the stark differences between the sexes. This already makes Game a much better ideology than feminism, and therefore is much better for the health of the relationship.

However, the point of this post is that Game is often not successful in the long run if the intended 'other party' i.e. the woman is not in agreement with its principles.
If a woman is aware she is being Relationship 'Gamed' but is in disagreement with this 'Game', she will simply walk away from the man who practises it, or at least resist him hard. Or even worse, put up with it only while his practice of it makes him attractive to her. The minute he relents, i.e. 'goes beta on her', she is out the door.
For a man to successfully Game a woman, she must be sufficiently 'Red Pill' (i.e. as much as he is) which in my opinion is synonymous with her being quite 'old school'.
PUA Game requires a woman to be 'modern-minded' and 'sexually liberated' and so on...a different set of requirements...but requirements nonetheless.
Both types of Game require the cooperation of the woman in some form or other.
Nothing in this realm can be achieved in total isolation, I think.
In my opinion, the mindset of the target woman is crucial in determining which kind of 'Game' is going to 'work' on her.
Not to say a woman cannot be influenced, but there should be evidence of this influence by the man, otherwise 'proceed with caution, lol).
Perhaps much of the 'rejection' in today's SMP is simply because there is a mismatch between ideologies of the two parties and the wrong 'Game' is being used on the wrong woman?

I do wonder...

See, in the recent past, most men and most women were on the same page romantically, so to speak, so their mindsets were in fact similar (i.e. the 80% of men, the betas could get the 80% of regular women because they were all on the same page).
Now, many women are NOT on the same page with most men, so there is a greater mismatch in mentality than ever before...
This is reflected in the diversity of 'Game' required in order to avoid a 'fail' of attraction and compatibilty.

Any thoughts on this, Bob?

metak said...

LoL ST, my hamster just fell of the wheel after reading this post... ;) he was hit by a huge 'red pill'

Here's another example of how 'we' create paradoxes, or better confusion, by using terms like 'inner' and 'outer' 'Game' and the only difference between them is purely subjective. If a woman likes it or not, and what kind of 'man' is engaging in 'Game' (what Bob is probably talking about).
'Inner' Game = 'Outer' Game, same basic principles (what you mentioned about psychology etc..) with different players... so it boils down to one 'Game' being 'played' in different 'styles' for different objectives.

What about H. Hefner? He's always surrounded with young women and what a shocker, he's 'filthy' rich and Casanova was 'filthy' rich too. ;) D. Juan falls into 'Tooth Fairy and unicorns' category.
It seems to me that hypergamy is pretty high on the list of 'unwritten' rules of the 'Game'. ;)

I guess it's easier to just accept that the certain stimulus from the outside 'works or not' on you, than to ask yourself why is there such a 'need' and reaction to it in the first place? And if the woman has to 'let' herself to be 'gamed', then what's the F-point with all this charade? We all know what's going on, butttt let's pretend that we don't... and who told you to stop dancing monkey? Are you kidding me 'Beta'??? For one moment, you showed your 'Beta' side (translation: caring human side ;) and I'm not attracted to you any more... blahblah... lol

dannyfrom504 said...

maestro? ???????

nice to see you back Angel.

Spacetraveller said...


Thanks, but I never really left. I just post more sparsely than before.

Re 'Maestro', I have called you that before...

Hey, are you 'reverse-Game'-ing me by acting coy?


I shall think carefully about your comment and get back to you shortly.

Indeed, my thoughts on this might be confused, but I think your comment might help me 'unmuddle' or 'unravel' my rationale...

Bob Wallace said...

I have met several guys who were the PUA types, in the mold of Roissy/Roosh (I truly believe those guys are cads, cowards and liars). They have without exception ruined their lives,

All these things, good and bad, have been covered in the past. That's why I have pointed out just about all a man needs to have a good life is the original code of chivalry and the Four Cardinal Virtues.

Spacetraveller said...


Yes of course PUAs exist, but they are not the only ones who use Game.
There are many men who use Game as a way of interacting with women (in a friendly, social manner, and not necessarily as a means to do any more than that).

To equate Game to PUA-ing is to tarnish these guys as well :-)

Your Four Cardinal Virtues are perhaps what I am calling 'Inner Game'.

But maybe for you, I am tarnishing the Great Virtues by calling them part of something as sinister (to you) as Game? Perhaps I am offending your sensibilities on this?
I don't mean to 'soil' the name of the Great manly Virtues... I promise you...


Are you saying that 'Game is Game' and that 'bad Game' is practised by bad men and 'good Game' is practised by good men?
If so, then I am in kind of agreement, sort of...except for an important distinction.

I don't see the division as merely 'bad' or 'good', but 'superficial' or 'deep'.

I know it's only a small distinction between the two, but even that subtle difference is important, I think.
Insofaras whatever type of Game is being 'played', it has to be tailored to the woman of 'best fit', otherwise it will backfire. Beacuse most women can 'smell' superficial Game (and run away from it) and can make the distinction between superfcial and deep Game, like I can.
So one woman's 'superficial Game' could be another's 'Deep Game'. One needs to know the psychology of the woman beforehand, and this can be achieved by fairly easy visual cues.

"And if the woman has to 'let' herself to be 'gamed', then what's the F-point with all this charade?"

But Metak, is it not more fun to take the scenic route in life sometimes?
Which scenario has more 'finesse' and which is more 'crude' (Um, I got my female hat on at this minute, lol)?

Scenario A: Boy likes girl. Boy walks up to girl and says, "I like you. Let's have babies". Girl complies. The end. (You may substitute 'boy' for 'girl' in the above scenario).

Scenario B: Boy likes girl. Boy tries to Game girl. Girl likes boy (secretly) but wants to know if boy likes girl before girl admits to liking boy. Boy games girl, girl counter-games boy. Years of angst follow before one day, boy and girl simultaneously decide to stop the Games and bite the bullet :-)

You got a song for Eurovision on this theme?
Can your injured hamster sing?

metak said...

I see 'Game' as 'romantic' interaction between men and women. No need for 'good' or 'bad'... for now it just is. This 'Game' has some universal 'rules' (what men like, what women like...) etc. Enter the different players defined by two 'extremes' and all kinds of mixtures. On one side we have men that play the 'Game' by focusing on themselves. This means moral courage, chivalry - protecting the weaker and standing up for what is right, moral values, virtues, etc... On the opposite side we have PUA. Their actions are mostly selfish, lack or no moral restrains, they study human behavior for exploitation, etc... So, if I'm right you're defining good game as something in the middle. Kinda like 'OK.. I'll take some chivalry, some moral values with it... AND, I'll take a little bit of cocky playful bad boy, some sense of humor...' etc. They're both playing the Game. How they decide to play it, is up to them, their own 'style'.
'Superficial' or 'deep'? Well, yes. That's why you have some of the PUAs investing a lot of time and energy into studying psychology, hypnosis (Hypnotica?), NLP, magic (Ross Jeffries?),.. anything that will give them a better understanding and make their Game 'deep'. I guess I somehow forgot that Game is like 'pr0n' for women. lol ;)

After my hamster's 'rap', I think I'll have to put him to sleep...

Girl girl why do you make it so tough
I told you I like you isn't that enough?

What can I say what can I do
I can't just say 'I like you too..'?!
He'll think it's too good to be true
I like him and he's 'interested' in me
But how do I know he's not 'gaming' me ST?

C'mon baby don't play games with me
My intentions are clear can't you see?
Girl I wanna make you mine
-- the rest is censored... ;-)
btw: bullet in Bosnian means metak... so, yes she could 'bite the bullet'. ;-)

Bob Wallace said...

Many people cannot even define Game or what an Alpha is. That's why I point out these things were covered in the past.

I read an article (which had a lot of comments) about how the Boston bomber who got killed as an "Alpha." This was a guy who murdered innocent people, who was unemployed and lived off of welfare and his wife while he stayed home and took care of the kid, who quit everything he tried.

Yet supposedly he was an "Alpha" because he conned some ditzy insecure American woman into converting to Islam.

I see things like this all the time in the Manosphere. That's why I call them the Lost Boys. Lost, looking for guidance, and very few having a clue the answers have been around for a few thousand years, if not longer.

Ceer said...

Bob, Alpha/Beta has been defined for you plenty of times. Allow me to make an argument by analogy.

If you talk to 15 different mathematicians, you will likely get 15 different definitions of the "linear independence" concept. From what I understand, because of this, you would dispute L.I.'s existence because the mathematicians didn't all articulate it in the same way, or agree how it is best taught.

In any decent linear algebra book, you will find that many different definitions of linear independence all come out to the same thing, even if stated differently. A main idea of the line of study is to brow beat this in.

Bob Wallace said...

"Bob, Alpha/Beta has been defined for you plenty of times"

One guy told me a few days ago it means "gets laid a lot."

Bomber, murderer, mooch on his wife and the government, a loser....but as long as he's good-looking and popular, then he's an Alpha.

For that matter, every wuss out there is going to claim he's Alpha/Sigma.

Spacetraveller said...


Yes, Game is a term used to describe man-woman interactions, agreed. Nothing more than that.

Hahahaha, I am glad your rapping hamster censored itself, lol.

Ceer and Bob,

I think the term 'alpha' (as The Manosphere describes it) simply denotes a man who gets what he wants out of the SMP. If a man wants a girl for a night, he is 'alpha' if he achieves it. If a man wants a woman for marriage (infinitely harder than getting a girl for a night), he is also 'alpha' if he finds a woman worthy of marriage and she agrees to be his wife.
A single guy who 'wants to get laid' is 'beta' if he can't get a woman to comply, and a married man whose wife is sub-par in the wifehood depertment (fat, not submissive and denies him sex on a regular basis) is also 'beta' as far as I understand it.

In the case of the latter two men, 'Game' is a way to help them achieve their goals in the SMP, but naturally, their 'strategies' will be different given that the goals are different. But both strategic mechanisms are termed 'Game'.

In Tsarnaev's case, Bob, I do agree that he was not a paragon of virtue by society's rules, yes.
But in terms of the SMP, he does qualify as a 'alpha' simply because he managed to get a girl to agree to be his wife, have his babies, etc. AND she thought well enough of him to want to convert to his religion. Quite a feat, wouldn't you agree?
The term 'alpha' makes no moral judgment on him, and neither does it take into account what his personality or behaviour is like. It is just a cold, hard assessment of whether he has had success with women or not, and to all intents and purposes, he did. In fact he did superlatively well, so he could even qualify for 'super-alpha' status. He got what every man dreams about - a woman who loved him so much she was ready to do whatever it took to be with him. And she was attractive, submissive and feminine. I think he won the lottery.

But, Mrs. Tsarnaev in my opinion is not the kind of woman to have been attracted to 'bad boys'. I don't think she was aware of his terrorist tendencies before they married. So he was a 'bad boy' in the end, but I don't think that is what she signed up for.
Moreover, I don't agree that she was a 'ditzy' insecure woman. Women convert from one religion to another just before marriage all the time, as a way to unify the family. It is a feminine thing to do (and a loving gesture when it is done with good intentions, eg. if your husband-to-be is of another religion and you want to show that you are part of his 'camp'). Some women (like me) would not consider marrying a man of another religion (because I think too highly of my own religion, lol), but if I did, I would want to be of his religion in order to unify the household. It is not a bad thing for a woman to do, in of itself. It is akin to taking a man's surname on marriage. This is something you, as a man, may not 'get', not that I blame you for it. :-)

Another thing: the association between 'bad boys' and 'getting all the women' may be a false one perhaps. The good guys who have equally good and submissive wives are way too boring for their stories to receive widespread coverage, so they go unnoticed. All we hear of are the prisoners and murderers getting laid left right and centre.
Selective reporting at its best :-)

metak said...

ST, this is why I said that my hamster was hit by a 'red pill'.
Did I said confusion? I meant confusion^2. ;-)

If we accept that if a man gets a girl he's an alpha and if he doesn't he's beta, we open another can of worms. ;) Does it matter how he did it? Who is going to set the standards? Did he used his 'Game' to do it? Did he paid her? Was the woman already interested in him for whatever reason and would sleep with him anyway? If he fails few times, then gets 'lucky' few times and then again fails few times, then what? Is he 'jumping' from beta-to-alpha-to-beta? Is alpha or beta just a state of being? Does his 'success rate' have to be above 50% for being alpha? Why would any man become alpha for finding a woman to be his wife? It's something men always did. You have to have a pulse and you're already qualified. ;) Man whose wife denies him sex on regular basis is not beta. Throughout History there were fools and that's what he is. A fool, not a beta or anything 'fancy'. Silly me, I thought people used to get married precisely for that simple reason, not to play games, but now they get married because they think that's a new 'level' of game. ;-)

Noticed how misandric these Manosphere terms are? It's fine to apply Alpha and Beta from canines to men, but to be consistent (like I mentioned in joke) and apply bitch to women would make all hell break loose... ;-)

Spacetraveller said...


I am sorry it has taken me so long to reply to this comment of yours! As I told you, I really wanted to answer it but time eluded me.

I shall try to answer each of your questions to the best of my understanding of Game:

"If we accept that if a man gets a girl he's an alpha and if he doesn't he's beta
Does it matter how he did it?"

I don't think it matters how he does it. It's the result that counts :-)

"Who is going to set the standards?"

The man himself sets his own standards. Now given that women are also human beings, a woman decides for herself too whether he meets her criteria or not.
They both 'rate' each other and accept or decline each other. They can go up or down in each other's estimation depending on their attitudes and attributes, and this is a dynamic process.

"Did he used his 'Game' to do it?"

Any tool a man uses to get a woman is Game, no? The mating dance is a complicated process. Nothing is truly random. There is strategy involved on some level.

"Did he paid her?"

All men pay for their time with a woman,whether it is for a really short time eg. one hour, or a lifetime :-)
As a good friend of mine says, all women come at a price. For some women, it's a 2 dollar drink in a bar. For other women, it's your lifetime commitment along with everything you own (and she may or may not take it all away from you. So you must vet, vet, vet until you find one who does demand all you've got, but she won't take it away from you because she wants to share it with you in peaceful harmony until you die :-)

"Was the woman already interested in him for whatever reason and would sleep with him anyway?"

Metak, you KNOW the answer to this question.
I have said before that for most women, attraction (although 'slower-burning' than male attraction) HAS to be present before she will 'consent' to you (unless she is otherwise impaired - intoxicated, desperate, legally incapable). But she makes that decision before she gets close to you. Women don't make this sort of decision 'retrospectively'. Now she may regret the decision she made, but that's not to say that she made no decision at all before 'going in'. Almost never happens this way.
This is why a man must be ALPHA first, then beta, then alternate between alpha and beta throughout the encounter with a woman.
A woman who perceives a man as 'beta' going in will later be filled with contempt for him, I guarantee you (albeit she had decided to go for said 'beta' because he may have been her best offer at that point in her life). Don't take that risk. You must be Number 1 to her or nothing at all.

"If he fails few times, then gets 'lucky' few times and then again fails few times, then what?"

This doesn't change anything. This is life. Alphas also fail, but they always get up, dust themselves off and try again. They just don't give up and die.

"Is he 'jumping' from beta-to-alpha-to-beta?"

As explained above, he should. But he should show his alpha side FIRST to a woman he is interested in to stand a chance with her.

"Is alpha or beta just a state of being?"

Of course. No one is born alpha, although I daresay many men are raised alpha from watching their alpha fathers or older brothers or uncles.

"Does his 'success rate' have to be above 50% for being alpha?"

Naturally. His successes should exceed his failures, eventually. The time-scle is not that important, I imagine. It is not a race.

Spacetraveller said...

"Why would any man become alpha for finding a woman to be his wife? It's something men always did."

True. But clearly, 'what men always did' is not working anymore. The old rulebook got thrown out - didn't you get the memo?

So, new rules for a new game :-)

"You have to have a pulse and you're already qualified. ;)"

Ah, if only this were true, there would be no men complaining!

"Man whose wife denies him sex on regular basis is not beta. Throughout History there were fools and that's what he is."

Ouch, harsh, Metak!

What can a man do if his wife is not feeling it anymore?
Whilst I am not 100% certain that 'bringing on the alpha' will bring back her desire for him, it makes sense to suppose that it would help, no? Remember that it is the alpha part of the man's personality that a woman responds (sexually) to. The beta side is just to ensure someone will help her look after the conséquences of the alpha part :-)

How did I do?
Anyone care to give me a score on how well I understand this whole Game thing?


Ceer said...


You're not 100% sure if bringing the alpha will bring back desire for him because no one can make that claim. Athol Kay's advise basically boils down to:

1) up your sex rank
2) increase your alpha slowly
3) set up the new frame
4) stick to your guns

A woman determined to leave her husband won't be swayed by any of this because she still has freedom of choice. A woman on the fence naturally WANTS her husband do display strength, even when she is pitching a fit.

Keep in mind that beta is downplayed by the current mannosphere in reaction to high alpha demand by today's western woman. The amount of beta needed to maintain an LTR is exhausting, not to mention children. An enlightened woman will seek out beta traits in men. Most derive comfort from them. However, when given an exclusive choice, most women will double down on the alpha.

Metak's harsh statement is correct in a sense. A woman's willful denial of sex CAN occur to anyone. It isn't a crime to withhold sex, even unreasonably. Whether a man is beta or not doesn't depend on his wife at all. It depends on the qualities he displays. What he's pointing out is simply that historically, the onus has been on the man to choose a good loyal woman, and to be man enough to keep some minimal attraction. Since rules like this were well known, if he didn't know how to do this, he was a fool.

@ Metak

Spacetraveller is correct in pointing out the game has changed, at least in the west. Women commonly raise their young men with emphasis on beta traits. Fine enough. But, they crucially ignore specific manly traits that women find attractive. This it's important to not JUST have men in the children's lives...but men with authority.

Spacetraveller said...


Thank you for your analysis of my understanding of Game!

If I were to simplify all this stuff, I would say this: men should do their bit from their masculine side of the fence, and women should do their bit from the feminine side of the fence.
Never the twain shall meet, but this doesn't matter, because God designed things such that masculinity is attracted to femininity and femininity is attracted to masculinity, so if each does their bit, there is bound to be a good result :-)

Now femininity in particular has taken a meandering route of late, and masculinity has not changed too much in comaprison.

But, it is still possible for the above model to work, albeit with a slightly more creative 'twist'.

But that can only be a positive thing. We can proudly claim (as all generations like to do, lol) that we are 'different' from our elders and we would be right.

But being 'different' does not and should not equate to being failures at harmonious relationships between men and women because if that were to happen, the genetic line ends with us.

And um, that wouldn't be a good thing :-(

Quite aside from the fact that we would have miserable lives as we wouldn't get on with half the population :-(

metak said...

@ Spacetraveller

ST, you always look at things from your optimistic pov. :)
I had so many "worse case scenarios" in my mind when I wrote that comment.
Won't write them all, it would take too long... :)

"Any tool a man uses to get a woman is Game, no?"

Okay..?? What about money? Paying or doing as Tom Leykis says, let them 'smell' the money but don't spend it on them and lie through your teeth about everything. :) This is just good old lying.

"Metak, you KNOW the answer to this question."

I know it too well, I'm afraid... :) I was thinking more along the lines of woman using sex to get something, not because she was so 'attracted' to him. You're forgetting hypergamy. 'Slower-burning' attraction = 'higher burning' hypergamy? Me, taking a stupid risk? :) Nooooo... surely not me. :)

"True. But clearly, 'what men always did' is not working anymore. The old rulebook got thrown out - didn't you get the memo?"

This is one game where rules are constantly changing. That's life. It would be boring if nothing changed. :) Observe, process and adapt/respond accordingly. Sure some men are complaining and some men find another solution. Swedish men are marrying Thai women, many men from Anglo-sphere are marrying foreign women and some of them are moving out of west to that country, etc... F*ck the rulebook. :) Rulebooks are so 'beta'.

"What can a man do if his wife is not feeling it anymore?"

You could do what Ceer said about Athol's advice... not sure how effective it's going to be.
I think I'll keep my mouth shut on this one. :)

@ Ceer

I was saying that a man should never let himself end up in that position. That is so wrong on so many levels... To me he's a fool. Don't know why that's 'harsh'...

I was mostly just goofing-off with that comment. You're absolutely right about the situation in the west, you live there. :) What you said is also what I see.

About that Athol's advice... I see a beta coming home from work and he's staring at the house door and he says to himself "Time to put my Game face on! :)".

I'm very curious as to how would this advice look like in RL.

Ceer said...

@ Metak

I did not call your statement harsh. Spacetraveller did. I used her adjective when speaking to her so I didn't have to quote your entire statement in order to be clear to her.

In my opinion, alpha (ability to produce gina tingles in women) and beta (ability to make women comfortable) are both beneficial to a properly functioning long term male/female relationship (including but not limited to marriage). Simply put, men in our society are required to consciously up the alpha because they are typically raised to not be very manly AND women absolutely demand they experience enough manliness to enter a relationship. If one of those two reasons wasn't present, pressure on men wouldn't be so bad. This is a specific instance of the game changing, as you suggested.

Women have every right to put whatever requirements they want on men; however, they should consider men have the reciprocal right to make requirements of them in return for their attention.

Success rate has little to do with alpha/beta. Even big pickup artists will tell you, most women will reject them at some time in some fashion.

I agree with Spacetraveller that game as a term is properly used for any technique you would use to interact with the opposite sex. One could reasonably suggest that it could be applied to the same sex as well. Roosh gave an excellent example. An old man walked into a coffee shop. His wife had apparently passed away, so he learned a form of conversation technique to talk to random strangers.
1) pick an object that the person has on them.
2) discuss the object, then segue to another innocuous topic.
3) after the other person is emotionally comfortable with the interaction, introduce some minor personal information.

Since the old man apparently learned to do this, the pua thought of this as a type of game. He actually managed to apply it as a standard daygame technique that works for him. I'd make the argument that this sort of thing isn't just game when picking up women. A tool is still the same tool even if it has multiple uses. Does this make sense?

metak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
metak said...

@ Ceer

"I'd make the argument that this sort of thing isn't just game when picking up women. A tool is still the same tool even if it has multiple uses. Does this make sense?"

You're absolutely right on this one Ceer. Of course it makes sense. I don't know particularly about Roosh, but I've listened, read and watched a lot of material on this subject from other PUAs. Like I said: "Observe, process and adapt/respond accordingly."

You mentioned an example where he picks an object the person has on them as a line opener. You could use anything, ask a question or an opinion... (observe) That removes the need for memorizing cheesy pick-up lines, etc. After short discussion on it, you move to another topic, etc. ..you can also pay attention to what she says and use that to move to another topic while also showing interest and what a great listener you are... blah blah... :-) (process and respond).

I think that this is a part of natural human behavior and it works no matter who's using it to interact with who. To me, a man that can use these tools, is what some like to call "natural alpha"?

P.S. Don't take my comments too seriously, I don't. :-)