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 ....to 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 ....men!).


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.
:-)

The Rationalisation Hamster: Crazy little sister of 'Frame'?

Any gentlemen here have a little sister? What's the verdict?
Best present Mum and Dad could give me?
Or...
Why couldn't the stork keep her?

:-)


It was only a matter of time before I was going to write about the 'rat ham'.

It is surely the most overused term in the Manosphere. There are so many references to the rat ham that it is quite the skill to navigate your way through The Manosphere minefield without accidentally stepping on one.



It does exist in a big way in most if not all women, I can vouch for this :-)
But is the 'rat ham' all that bad?
Can I even be objective about this beast being a woman myself?

Can I convince anyone that the rat ham can be a good thing?
At the risk of failing miserably, I shall try.

In the post about The lovable rogue I mentioned that some women have this knack of liking men in abundance. It seems to be a natural thing with them.
Yes I am sure it could indeed be 'natural', as can be all aspects of femininity.
And it sure helps to be around good men.
But in the absence of innate 'femininity', an entourage of good men and everything else which would enable a woman to 'see the good in men', a woman has one last piece of artillery in her armoury.
Her own imagination.

Otherwise known as her friendly Rationalisation Hamster.

Yes, it is this same animal that will enable her to believe that the heavily tattooed unemployed beach bum with the drug and alcohol problem really is husband material.
Totally self-delusional and therefore self-destructive.

As the owner of a rat ham, I can categorically state that sometimes it is a real hindrance, yes. Especially when it is fed by the wrong herd or society in general, if society is 'wrong' about a particular issue.
So sometimes it is a good thing for a woman to kill her own hamster or at least stop feeding it gourmet food. I get that.
I also understand that the Manosphere in talking about the rat ham so much is actually in the business of helping women get a very ugly monkey off their collective backs.
So in recognition of this, I do say 'Thank you'. It's nice to know the 'intent' behind every (even seemingly vicious) action.

But...and there is always a but!

If the hamster is dead, how can she rationalise that you are a lovable rogue?
There is a good and bad side to everything, no?

The question is, are men prepared to take the good with the bad, or are they wishing for the 'selective rat ham'?
Is this feasible?
Is this not 'pie in the sky'?
Does this woman with the selective hamster exist?
Can I meet her?
And if I do, I would like to know what colour Pill she is on...I don't think it would be red - it certainly won't be blue :-)

Leaving aside the 'rat ham' for now, I was thinking about a comment Bellita made under the post about Seal.
In response to my comment that Seal had felt 'privileged' that a beautiful woman like Heidi Klum wanted to be with him (nevermind that she was pregnant with another man's child at the time), Bellita made the point that the rationalisation hamster is indeed alive and well in men too.

I concluded to myself that yes, this could be so...at least in (all-)beta, supplicating type men that Seal was proving himself to be.

But somehow, I felt odd harbouring this belief.
This is where it gets all fuzzy for me.

Any help in decluttering my thoughts would be welcome.

From this point onwards, perhaps my own rat ham will be doing fancy somersaults on the ferris wheel, so bear with me :-)

Is the 'rationalisation hamster' not just a woman's (perhaps desperate) attempt to create a 'frame'?
With one important caveat perhaps.
That she is working rather 'hard' to create this 'frame'.

In other words, is a man's 'frame' something he perceives quite effortlessly, and is in many ways 'outcome independent' (he doesn't need to work so hard to maintain this frame - he either believes it or not) whereas a woman has to work hard to keep the 'frame' going and as such, her 'behaviour' regarding this 'frame' belies said effort?

In the post 'And I am not ashamed to say it', I make mention of the 'Single and happy' (mostly) female crowd and how their repeated and often loud assertions to this 'fact' make it quite suspicious that some serious work is being done to keep up the 'pretty lie'.
At some point, one really has to stop and check to see how much effort it is taking to say something.
Because too much effort implies that what is being stated may be unture, even to the speaker.

Another feminine example I have come across is in the realm of the 'reluctant bride'.
If a woman is having to convince herself/rationalise away that a particular man is the right choice, then perhaps he really is not?
And then it all comes out in the wash a few years later...
Buyer and seller beware...


Do men ever really convince themselves of something? Do they have to?
Did Seal really believe that a pregnant woman, no matter how beautiful, was the absolute best he could have?
Or did he rationalise away that despite the possible 'negative' (sure, a pregnant woman is not every man's 'negative' in the dating world, but I imagine there would not be too many takers for a currently-pregnant woman in the SMP/MMP), this woman was worth sacrificing his freedom for?

If 'frame' and the 'rat ham' are simply the different ways men and women 'perceive' and 'process' their thoughts then surely 'frame' and the rat ham share the same parentage, no?
They are brother and sister.
Except that in the male mind, 'frame' is the gold standard, and 'rat ham' to quote many a Manosphere citizen, is 'b*t sh*t crazy'.

:-)

Is this a fair assessment of an important feature of the female psyche?
Or is this the proverbial stick men are using to bash women everywhere simply because they do not like this aspect of their psychological make-up - at least when it is not working for men?

Can I even use the word 'fair' here?
Will a man respond 'deal with it' in the same way he is asked to 'deal with' a woman's hypergamy?

I have another question on this topic:
If the rat ham is sans logic, as is often the accusation lobbed at it, is 'frame' the epitome of logic?

Actually, another huge question:
If 'frame' can be taught, as in PUA technique, then does it not turn into just another form of the 'rat ham'? In which case, it doesn't deserve to be called 'frame' anymore? Because 'frame' should be something that is intrinsic to a man's thinking, and should not come from outside of him, no?
I am going here by the following definiton of 'frame':

A steadfast belief that is unshakeably entrenched in the sensory apparatus of a man. Something he perceives and both his conscious and subconscious minds are in agreement that it is indeed as is.

Is this an accurate definition?


If there were to be a debate on this issue, any suggestions as to the perspectives of the respective genders?

Would this be a good example?

Male perspective: This house believes that the rationalisation hamster is a seriously deranged evil little monster that does not deserve oxygen let alone food and water.
For: Manosphere authority on all things female.
Against: Unsurprisingly, rationalisation hamsters and their flighty owners.

Female perspective: This house believes that the rationalisation hamster is a healthy part of being a normal, well adjusted and feminine woman.
For: Planet Woman Snowflakes.
Against: All you who just don't understand...

:-)