Thursday, November 27, 2014

Game and the Girl: Mystery

A series of events have got me thinking a lot about Game lately.
I mean, more than usual.

I have never made a secret of liking the concept of Game. Rightly or wrongly, I instinctively understand that there needs to be a redress of the imbalance between the sexes.

What exactly do I mean?

You can be sure that even the stupidest female is well-educated about how to 'get' a man. It is not hard, as biology dictates :-).
At the most basic level, a woman is more equipped than a man, to 'get what she wants'.
But here lies the first problem: 'getting what she wants' may not be in her best interests, but let's stick with this argument for now, because it is an important part of the point I am trying to make.

That many women in this day and age severely lack a certain wisdom that came easily to our grandmothers is self-evident, yes. But there is still a general (in my opinion) level of 'education' that ensures that men are forever at the mercy of women.
This current era is showing the degree to which this can be achieved, without a doubt.
And sadly, men in general are really none the wiser, (except for those who have 'taken the Red Pill' as it were), until it is way too late.

This thought reminds me of a medical analogy. There are some unfortunate individuals whose underlying medical problem (usually heart disease) is only diagnosed at their death. These people, carriers of genes that cause sudden death have no idea what lies ahead. They literally present to their doctor (in this case, a pathologist, of course), with sudden death. This is exactly what should not happen: that one's first symptom of a disease is death.

But (and sorry to be so morbid), this is exactly what is happening to many men who get the shock of their lives when they are hit with an (unexpected) divorce, complete with loss of their children, loss of their earnings, and a rapid decline from the lifestyle to which they were accustomed, to a life they would hardly recognise as theirs in years to come.

This is why I like the concept of Game. Not particularly the ugly 'revenge' type of PUA activity that sees an otherwise good girl get into the kind of trouble that ensures her life is ruined forever, but the type of Inner Game that an older, wiser man can pass on to a younger man (whether it is his son or not, no matter) to ensure that his life is not only more enjoyable, but is congruent with masculine principles that he needs for a more satisfactory life, with or without women in it.

I really respect the latter, and hope more young men get this type of education.

And I daresay, St. Jerome is right with his 'don't marry, until you are ready!' message.

The difference between growing girls and growing boys is that whilst both get educated in the ways of the world equally well, girls get an education about the nature of boys much more than boys get an education about the nature of girls (other than boys finding out that 'they are hot!' lol), the education of boys being more focussed on getting them safely into manhood - and responsibility and the burden of keeping civilisation running smoothly.  Girls are not burdened with this type of responsibility, so have all the time to study men in a way that men simply cannot compete with.

So the education is skewed somewhat.

There are several reasons for this, I think:

1) It is cultural - girls really need the education on boys because this is vital to prevent her making a horrible mistake at the every beginning of her life (and these 'mistakes' are usually irreversible and permanent, if you see what I mean).

(This of course does not eliminate the problem because we hear everyday (nowadays) of horrible life choices by young women. However, the principle remains that vital information for a girl is crucial to her life). This equivalent need in boys is only now becoming apparent. But it has taken a generation or two of misery at the hands of divorcing women for this to become evident.

2) Again - cultural - femininity is shrouded in a certain 'protective veil of mystery' which is present in almost all cultures. This 'privilege' is steadily being worn away by feminism.
One of the (many) reasons feminism has not done women any favours is that this shroud of the perceived 'inherent goodness' of women has been pulled away, for the naked truth to be exposed (warts and all) to men.
This is a real shame, because although this 'inherent goodness' is not strictly speaking accurate, it was necessary for it to be in place as an 'aesthetic' quality (highlighting femininity in even the least feminine of women) and also as a protection for men who are the 'buyers' of femininity and some of them just don't do well when confronted with shocks :-)

3) Nature: in the absence of corrupting influences, girls do have certain inherent self-preservation traits that biology endows them with. I have noticed this in young girls pre-puberty. They really are more modest (i.e. shy/coy about their bodies, for example), than boys of the same age. They are risk averse (a good thing in a woman, can be unfortunate in a man - within reason).

If a girl is lacking in information, Nature itself will push her to get this information. Exceptions exist, of course, but there are usually grave reasons for these exceptions.

4) Boys are just too busy figuring out the burdens of how to be a man, and are also (unfortunately in this case) too misled by testosterone to fully understand women when young. This is why many advise young men to wait until older before making a commitment to a woman.

Some say it is not wise for a man to be married before the age of 30-35.

I see the sense in this.

But, if he burns with passion as St. Paul says, what to do? (Assuming he is a principled, moral, religious - eg. Christian - person).

Anyway, I digress.

In this and the next few posts about Game, I explore the origins of some Game principles.

One of the stalwarts of Game is the notion of 'mystery'.
Where does it come from?

In fact, where does ALL of Game come from?

Historically, of course, no amount of 'Game' would have worked on the majority of young women pre-marriage. Save for a few who 'fell prey' to 'Don Juans', every woman was 'off limits' to all but one man, who would marry her, if not presently, then eventually.

So any 'Game' a man needed was ensure he was 'marriage material'.
Which in simple terms meant having a sustainable source of income, and a roughly masculine appearance. That's it.
For it was women who were the buyers in the marriage market. It was up to women to attract men for marriage. And they generally did, with great success. Until now.

So to recap, there was no 'action' in the SMP :-)
And in the MMP, only women needed to 'woman up'.
So no need for the type of 'Game' we have today in times past, for most men.

So, it makes sense that the principles of 'Game' as we know it, necessarily had to come from 'Girl Game', because the girls had perfected this skill for decades and centuries...because they needed to!


Let's take a look at 'mystery'.

In number 2) of my list above, it is clear that 'mystery' was not really something that women 'claimed' for themselves. This was a feature that was accorded women by society at large.
It came with the territory (of being a woman).

This is not to say that it was a right.
Not really.
It came with a great deal of responsibility.
Afterall, it was up to individual women to keep it going, to work hard to maintain this illusion.
Like I allude to above, feminism has caused this illusion to come crashing down - hard.
What a shame. It was good for women, this illusion. But like all good things, we only miss it once it is gone forever.

'Mystery' allowed women to become 'interesting' in the eyes of men. A good thing, if he was to sign his life away for her :-)
'Mystery' allowed women to become alluring to men. A good thing if he was to venture forth to 'get to know her better'.

'Mystery' is something that all old-fashioned dating books speak highly of. From experience (of the authors).

From Helen Andelin's 'The Fascinating Girl' to 'The Rules' - they all mention 'mystery' in one form or another. This is no accident.

So now that the tables have been turned, it is not surprising that men have 'borrowed' this concept.
Even in the 'olden' days, the Casanovas and the Don Juans used this to good effect :-)

Now, paradoxically, whilst women needed to be taught to become 'mysterious' in the dating dance, this trait is actually not a feature of womanhood. I think women, by their feminine, inclusive, bonding, nurturing natures, are prone to 'share' of themselves sooner than men would. Just look at today's 'selfie' culture dominated by women!

Interestingly, 'mystery' is actually a more common feature of masculinity, for men are the ones who by dint of their masculinity 'make themselves scarce' and 'disappear for long periods' whilst they (quite legitimately) get on with the business of being men. And it is we women who lament this feature in men (whilst strangely enough also cannot help but be attracted by it!
(Oh the cruelty of life, lol).

So whilst 'mystery' is a priciple of Game, it strikes me as a little odd that men need to be taught it, my logic being that it should already be an inherent feature of manhood anyway (which takes me right back to the argument that Game is nothing but a tool for men to be!).

Which circular thinking brings me right back to another recent thought of mine.

Which is....even when men and women appear to be diametrically opposite to each other, we are in many ways very similar, which is why 'Boy Game' and 'Girl Game' can so easily 'borrow' principles from each other.

This is the biggest paradox of all - the paradox that refutes the existence of a paradox!

I need to go to sleep.


Andrew said...

Interesting post. I'd never really thought before about the fact that men in the past never had to do anything other than select... It's a good point. Of course, women still had the veto.

But now the male and female roles are more similar. The man needs to "perform" just as much as the woman. Hence, "game."

Regarding men having to learn to be mysterious, I think it's more accurate to say that they are having to re-learn it, after a few generations of being brought up under the notion of sexual similarly with women.

Anyway, nice post.

Spacetraveller said...

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for your comment.

"Of course, women still had the veto."
Yes, most women still had the 'upper hand' as it were, over men. Only the most privileged of men also had this kind of power.
And only a few women (the 'plainest') were bereft of this 'upper hand' because they could not afford to be choosy.

"Regarding men having to learn to be mysterious, I think it's more accurate to say that they are having to re-learn it, after a few generations of being brought up under the notion of sexual similarly with women."
Thank you for the correction. Indeed this is right. The legacy that modern men have 'inherited' is deleterious because it is partly driven by feminist mothers and fathers inadvertently (or deliberately as the case may be) teaching them the very antithesis of Game: 'be nice, be yourself!', etc. which is not helpful to a man in the dating game, but is perhaps more appropriate outside of the dating game.

The other point you make about 'sexual similarity' also makes sense to me. 'Be nice, be yourself!' is much better advice for a woman because a huge part of femininity is simply being pleasant to be around. But as I have noted before, too nice is also a problem for the unmarried woman, for reasons I have elucidated before in previous posts.

But this kind of advice is just too much of a fatal strike to young men. As we see around us. And then when they realise what has happened, these young men go to the opposite extreme and hello 'dark triad'.

'Game' in its wholesome entirety, as taught by fathers or father-figures, from the earliest onset of puberty or before, is the best way to bring up a boy, I now conclude.
With this in mind, Mother needs to step away as soon as he is off the breast, lol.

Thank you for your thoughts, Andrew.

Anonymous said...

'Game' in its wholesome entirety, as taught by fathers or father-figures, from the earliest onset of puberty or before, is the best way to bring up a boy...

Bingo. Women teach girls the value of feminine virtue–self control, loyalty, dignity. Men teach boys the proper exercise of masculine aggression—mastery of self, home and work. Without the benefit of wise counsell, we all fumble in the dark for years, making terrible mistakes along the way that cannot be fully erased.

-Alan K

Spacetraveller said...

Alan K,

Welcome to The Sanctuary!

Your comment takes me back to my medical analogies...

With the rise of the 'single mother' epidemic, we the observers of the SMP are being forced into the role of pathologist...

We are diagnosing cases 'post-mortem' as it were. As more fatherless children reach adulthood with the various failures that come with being unfathered, we nod silently and whisper to each other, 'Yep, another John Doe - cause of death...single mother upbringing.'

It needen't be so.

To correct this problem, families really need to stay together. We all need to go back to basic principles of living. A single mother is ill-equipped to raise a son by herself, and even for daughters, it is hard, because a huge part of the equation is simply missing in this type of home (a stable and singular father - as opposed to multiple, temporary 'replacements'). Yes, many children of single mothers do well, either all along, or after many mistakes, but this is a long, tough road, and it is needlessly painful and hard, and history tends to repeat itself unless the chain is broken early.

Not to place the blame entirely on single mothers...but the problem is, even when a child of a single mother strives to fill in the 'gaps', there are often irreversible issues that as you say, cannot be erased.

We have enough data now. Time to buck the trend starting with THIS generation, no?

And yes, it starts with women, but men can help a great deal of civilising women.

metak said...

ST, don't scare me like that! ;-)
As soon as I saw 'Mystery' in the title I thought it was about that PUA Mystery. LoL My poor fragile black heart demands an apology! ;-)

You really have this thing for the 'Game' ST, don't ya?

No need for the Game, just GYOW. Such a waste of energy...

Me thinks its time for women to upgrade their firmware version? ;-)

Spacetraveller said...

And first prize is hereby presented to Brother Metak for spotting the 'double entendre' in the title of this post!!!


You know, Metak, it was actually an 'acidental' pun - I didn't make the connection myself until a day or so after I wrote the post!

And then I thought I'd better leave it as is, purely for entertainment value.

So well done for spotting it!
And yes, I do apologise. :-)

You know me, I like Game for honourable reasons. ;-)

Too many men without Game are being left behind. I find it such a shame, Metak, because it needn't be like this.

Also, as you may remember me saying to Danny a while back - women really enjoy Game because it is a fun interaction between men and women, when done playfully. It is also a way to maintain boundaries where needed, eg. where a man uses 'Dread Game' to keep his errant wife in line. It is a good principle in general, so I fully support it.

Of course, like everything, it can be used for bad purposes. But that does not mean that it is inherently bad. If a gang of pimps are using 'Dark Game' to lure virginal 13 year old girls into prostitution, then of course this is gravely wrong.
If a man is using Game to get himself a girlfriend and possibly a wife, then I am all for Game.

It is all in the intention, no?

I am not sure I understand your last sentence - do you mean that 'Girl Game' needs improvement? For sure, I would agree with you there! More like 'return to the basics of Girl Game as practised by our grandmothers' though.

Honestly, I really think Girl Game can compensate for a lot, even youth.
I am so grateful I didn't have to be in the same SMP as my own grandmother, for example. She would have beaten me hands down even at her age. My poor grandfather stood no chance! LOL.

The skills the women of my grandmother's era possessed have definitely been lost. And what a crying shame that is. I wish she had lived longer for me to observe...

But no worries, the little I saw of her 'in action' as it were, is enough to have educated me on the subject of Girl Game. And to be fair, I still see some of what she had even today. Like I always say, there are pockets of brilliance around. It always bemuses and inspires me when I see it. And sometimes, I observe these episodes of pure excellence in surprising quarters...

Anonymous said...

Interesting post. The part about mystery as a feature made me pause though.

While I agree completely that there is value in mystery, in people inspiring curiosity in other people, there is something that irks me about treating mystery as a goal to pursue in and of itself. I much prefer the idea of thinking of it as a 'desirable consequence' of living an interesting life, where that veil of mystery you mentioned emerges on it own as a natural and justified barrier of protection for the self; a shield that is no more or less than is called for, and is always real rather than phony.

Perhaps it could be said that my mystery should exist in your mind, not in mine? Or something like that. Anyway, as I said, interesting post!

Spacetraveller said...

Anonymous @ Dec 4, 2:11 PM,

Just picked up your comment from the spam filter. I don't understand why your comment got caught up in the spam filter in the first place! Sorry for late response.

Anyway, thanks for your comment. Yes - mystery...

In an ideal world, we would all get with our intended, no 'Games' required. That would be great, wouldn't it? LOL.

I know people who refuse to 'play games' as they call it. And surprisingly, not all of them are unintentionally single, admittedly. But MOST of us need to 'play the game' if we want to attract a member of the opposite sex. And yes, somehow 'the game' also educates one as to one's own Nature. So you are absolutely right when you say that being 'mysterious' is a desirable consequence to living an interesting life. In fact, it is actually a *natural* consequence, if you ask me :-). Afterall, some men find that they can 'open' a woman simply by having something interesting to say. This sparks the mystery, and the woman wants to know more :-) Old habits die hard, which is why phony people who are only in it for the results, not the process often get caught out. As Bellita said, 'sizzle without the steak' which applies to both men and women.
Argh, it's a crual world, but in trying to circumnavigate the cruelty, we get to learn something, which may have been the point all along...
Gosh, this stuff really is addictive, isn't it?

Ceer said...

"Game" in its historical context is a system of behavior, natural or practiced that is presented in order to win a member of the opposite sex.

With the recent invention of the internet, we have had an explosion of new ideas and new systems. Some based on practice, others quackery. However, the history of what we now call game goes back farther, way farther.

Several instances of it cropping up come to mind. The writings of one Giacomo Casanova come to mind. He envisioned game as leading a woman through a play. Then there's the idea of courtly chivalry. It's my own idea that this is a type of game invented to help knights and other rough types how to lock down a wife (as opposed to a p&d) for the long term.

What IS different than before is the relative importance of a man's attributes other than game: looks, financial status, and family.

Lack of female training and thick family based social support wreaks havoc on a primary constraint on hypergamy, mainly, the need to maintain social ties through propriety. Female financial independence does more than guarantee financial "self sufficiency", it also allows a woman to isolate herself from social consequences of breaking social norms.

All this has the effect of minimizing social influence, making physical attractiveness and game more important by comparison...since more beta elements of financial provisioning, family approval, and adherence to rules no longer confer advantages they once did.

As far as ST's comments on game...

IMO, some techniques ARE immoral, but the vast majority are moral neutral in themselves, and therefore fair game for even the most devout Christians.

I have a comment about girl game on another blog...would you like me to dig it up?

Spacetraveller said...

Happy New Year, Ceer!

Please DO send us your comment on Girl Game!

You know I love all things Game!

And besides, anything to convince the Game sceptics here would be ultra cool.