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!!

Thursday, April 18, 2013

On doing the right thing...and making friends

Someone over at Dalrock's made the important point that doing the right thing is never going to win you friends or make you attractive to the opposite sex (read: 'get you laid').

This is largely true. But I think hidden in here lies another ...gasp....paradox!

I shall explore this paradox later.

The reason I added 'get you laid' in the first sentence is that pure attraction (which is largely um...physical) doesn't really care whether the object of the attraction is 'good' or 'nice'.
This is a cruel twist of Nature.

If mating is all about passing on great qualities to the next generation, then it is a shame that the instinct to mate is clouded by only what is physically appealing and nothing else.

Does Nature not care about values?

Apparently not.

It seems like we have to 'fill in the gap' left by Nature ourselves.

Thank you Nature... not. :-)

Metak brought up an uncomfortable paradox in the last post.

'The first shall be the last' -> Nice guys finish last.

I thought about this one for a while.

It seems to me that a lot of MGTOW are Nice Guys (TM) who got burned. I have a lot of sympathy for them, as I do for the Nice Girls who are chronically 'left on the shelf' because they won't 'put out'.

But these Nice guys and girls... they have the assurance that they have done the right thing.
They know that they are 'cool with God' or 'cool with the Universe' or what have you.

They are at peace with themselves, no?

In the MGTOW post, I got this sense of 'I have made my peace with myself and I am happy with that' from a lot of men who were 'left on the shelf' because they were 'Nice Guys' and now are being ardently chased by those same women who rejected them and who are now being rejected for the first time in their lives.

I wish I had heard from women who are also GTOW (although perhaps this is not the way  a Nice Girl who is just not having any luck in tody's SMP will label herself - hmm, need a better title for her. Can anyone help on this score?).
I am certain they too will say something similar to what the men are saying, albeit using slightly different language - as men and women see things slightly differently from each other, even if they are both on the same page.

These people may not have friends (of the opposite sex) but who needs friends who will only distract you from your path of peace?
Really, who needs that? (Genuine question!)

Anyhow, there is one way to make friends...

Let this British chef show you how (at the 3:55 mark).

Cheeky question:
If you found yourself drooling watching this video, ask yourself:

Was the source of my salivary gland stimulation the....

1. Chef (hint: former model, lol).
2. The British accent (she is from Oxford, so she has as near to the perfect English 'Queen's English' as possible :-)
3. The millefeuille (ahuh, I believe you :-)

Answers on a postcard please!


Be good, and make millefeuilles to your heart's content.
You will make good friends :-)

Joking aside, there are people who will make good decisions no matter what the consequences of those decisions will be.
This is 'Outcome Independence' at its finest...

I admire this trait because this kind of attitude can indeed do more damage than lose you friends or simply not help you make friends: it can even get you killed.

But as someone I know keeps saying ad nauseum...
An honourable death is better than a dishonourable life.

I think he has a point, no? Nowhere is this more important than in the SMP, for both men and women.

It takes a brave soul to live like this.
It takes a crazy kind of 'fearless' to live one's life this way.

But I think people who do are more at peace with themselves than those who circumvent the hardships of life in exchange for an easy ride.

Life always comes back at one with 'payback' in mind.

So the questions is: would you rather pay now or payback later?
This should be a rhetorical question, but feel free to answer it if you want.

Friends are wonderful to have, but only if they are the right ones...no?

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Give her a positive...

Give her a positive what?


What on Earth am I on about?

Before I explain, I would like to say that I really like Stingray's blog (in addition to other ladies' blogs that I frequently read).

What I particularly like about Stingray' blog is that a practical, idiot-proof guide to how a woman should be, is effortlessly presented. This is great. I like that.

More of Stingray's blog later.

But first, I get back to the title of this post.

It is incredibly difficult to win Wimbledon without first imagining yourself to be holding the Wimbledon trophy on a Sunday or Saturday afternoon in July, on Centre Court in SW19, London...

The one thing that all super-athletes have in common is that they all imagined themselves capable of winning the big prize of their sport at some point in their lives, usually in childhood.

Often, in their winner's speech they would say something like 'When I was a little boy/girl I dreamed of winning X...'.

All of them have a positive image in their minds. And then they strive to get closer and closer to that image until one day, they wake up, and boom! they are there.

I remember that at last year's Wimbledon, poor old Andy Murray was defeated in yet another Grand Slam final. In tears, almost unable to speak, the British public empathising with their yet-again -defeated-hero, the first words he was able to muster were, "Getting closer..."!

A few short months later he won the US Open, his first Gland Slam win ever. :-)

How does all this relate to the SMP?

It used to be the case that most women (the few that don't are irrelevant to this discussion) had an image of marriage in their heads from toddlerhood.

This was by a process of osmosis...most little girls were surrounded by Mother, Aunts, Grandmother, maybe Big Sister, all of whom were married. So it was not hard for her to imagine herself married at some point too.

What has happened since sometime in the 60's is that the image that a girl has in her mind has been reduced to a wedding (if that). That's it.
Nothing beyond the fog post-wedding. I think we covered that in this post.
Often, the only picture available to her is a fractured family. Fractured families beget fractured families - unless someone makes a concerted effort to break the vicious cycle.

But can young women be blamed for this lack of marital ambition?

I believe not.

If you are not given a picture of what to expect by someone who is older than you, then you stumble through life until you find that picture accidentally/deliberately with great effort/not at all.

If you are never given a glimpse of something, how could you possibly live it?

In this regard, I feel incredibly sorry for the 'Millennials' an alarmingly large proportion of whom (if the statistics are to be believed) do not have a positive perception of what is meant by 'family life'.
If you have never lived it, you simply don't know it. It is a true 'unknown' à la Donald Rumsfeld*.

This is where Stingray's blog comes in.

She gives flashes of good family life, she regularly recommends films that depict family life, or show what men are supposed to be (masculine) and what women are supposed to be (feminine), good examples being films by John Wayne.

A positive picture to which one is exposed (the younger the better) goes a much longer way than a thousand words, as the saying goes.

A child from a broken home need not be a slave to his marital destiny.
It may be too simple to suggest that watching reruns of 'The Waltons' or 'Little House on the Prairie' will solve this person's problems, but I believe that one mustn't be too fussy with where one gets one's 'positive picture' from.

A holiday spent in Uncle Freddie's house where Uncle Freddie is a good husband to Auntie Sarah and a good Daddy to your cousins...

A sleep-over at your friend Joyce's home where Joyce's parents are happily married so you don't hear furniture being thrown about or angry voices coming from downstairs, for a whole night...

The brain is a funny organ.
Stored images convert to memories.

We are a product of our collective memories.
So a good database of good memories is ideal.

It helps...

If this post appears to be female-biased, this is fully intended.

If the MGTOW movement is an unintended consequence of women turning their backs on marriage and the men are just reacting accordingly, then it is women who need to turn once more towards marriage (and I really do mean marriage here, not weddings).
Men may or may not follow suit, but it remains to be seen.

Given that men do not need marriage, and women generally do, it is indeed women who need to form a healthy and positive view of marriage in their minds.
And then it is up to us to persuade the men :-), or at least those men who do want marriage, but still need a little ...um...encouragement :-).

Well at least we can make a start.
And Stingray is certainly doing her part.

Brava, Stingray :-)

Ahhhh, them good ol' days!

*Known knowns
Known unknowns
Unknown knowns
Unknown unknowns


Saturday, April 6, 2013

The Paradox Pool

It is said that exceptions prove the rule.
So naturally, I am always in search of that elusive exception that makes the (opposite) point about the rule. :-)
Another guilty pleasure of mine.

A paradox, however is to a concept what an exception is to a rule.
Paradoxes fascinate me in a way that I doubt is normal, but my little deviance aside, I think the SMP is a haven for paradox-seekers like me.

In fact, on this very blog, I noticed a time when not a day went by without someone pulling a paradox out of the bag. It was astounding as to their frequency.

What I find particularly intriguing about a paradox is that it turns a complicated issue on its head and suddenly makes it extremely simple.

In the SMP, everything and nothing is complicated. Much like life itself, it has no meaning unless a meaning of it is sought.

In the post about 'masculine women', the oxymoron was not lost on me, but it was absolutely apt to describe certain very feminine women this way. Women thus described may not see this description of them as a compliment, but in fact, it is.

The paradox here is that optimal femininity requires some strongly masculine qualities. It is up to individual women to pick which masculine qualities suit their particular brand of femininity, of course. But the principle is a sound one, I think.

A familiar paradox to most of us would be, 'To be happy, one must be fully prepared to be...unhappy'.

This is definitely one paradox I have never really understood. But I am at least pondering it, which is arguably a step in the right direction.

If at least two-thirds of marriages collapse because one party is nothing more than unhappy, then we need to circumnavigate the goal-posts of 'happy' somehow, no?

How do we define 'happy'?
I refuse to look in the dictionary for this one. :-)
Part of the reason for this is...I wonder if the right word is being used in this context?

Would 'content' be a better word?
Would 'satisfied' do?

Some (wise) people define 'love' as a verb and not a noun.
Perhaps 'happy' should also be a verb and not an adjective?
As in, on waking up we make a concerted effort to 'happify' ourselves whatever the subsequent outcome of the day?

I wonder if this is feasible on a consistent basis...

Another important paradox I have come across is this one:

'In order to win, one must lose.'

Similar in principle to the biblical, 'The first shall be the last', this one is directly applicable to all aspects of life.

In order to enjoy harmonious relationships with others, one must be selfless.
In order to achieve the fulfilment of goals and dreams, one must demonstrate and exert self-control.
In order to gain it all, one must be prepared to lose it all.

These last two are especially important for women, I think.

The interpretation of a paradox is very much open. So, in this sense, it can get very simple.
Because it is essentially a case of 'one can make it whatever one wants it to be'.

Which is a great way to simplify life. :-)

There must be SMP-specific paradoxes out there. Anyone care to remind me?